Russia, the Olympics, and Boycotts

Yeah, huge topic, I know. Unless you've been vacationing on Mars, you know by now that the Russian Parliament passed a bill that essentially makes it illegal to say or do anything gay-related without spitting and making a sign to avert the evil eye, which His Majesty -- err, the president -- Vladimir Putin signed into law so fast that the ink on his signature was smoking.

Harvey Fierstein, whose piece in the New York Times started the ball rolling, has what I think is the most accurate take on the motivations:

Mr. Putin’s true motives lie elsewhere. Historically this kind of scapegoating is used by politicians to solidify their bases and draw attention away from their failing policies, and no doubt this is what’s happening in Russia. Counting on the natural backlash against the success of marriage equality around the world and recruiting support from conservative religious organizations, Mr. Putin has sallied forth into this battle, figuring that the only opposition he will face will come from the left, his favorite boogeyman.

Mr. Putin’s campaign against lesbian, gay and bisexual people is one of distraction, a strategy of demonizing a minority for political gain taken straight from the Nazi playbook.

I'm generally against falling back on the Nazis as a parallel, but in this case, it's probably pretty accurate. Sadly, this sort of tactic has become a staple of would-be dictators. (Robert Mugabe, president-for-life wannabe of Zimbabwe, is getting ready to steal another election, and has found the perfect distraction -- Teh Gheys. Strange how those who fancy themselves "African" through and through fall back so readily on the worst aspects of colonial rule. And we all know what's been going on in Uganda, which has one of the most corrupt governments on a continent noted for corruption.)

The reaction has been to boycott, with two prongs. The first has been Russian vodka, specifically Stolichnaya. John Aravosis has a fairly good post on the whys and wherefores:

It’s a multi-front psychological war, really. You’re trying to throw as much at the enemy as you can, from all directions (caveat: without watering down your assault by overextending yourself or your message), in order to make them finally admit, even if just to themselves, that it simply was not worth the price they are paying for having taken you on. And hopefully, once burned, twice shy.

It's about bad PR. Economic damage is helpful, but the main target is credibility.

Credibility also has a lot to do with the second prong: boycott the Winter Olympics in the Russian resort city of Sochi. (And why anyone thought it made sense to have winter games in a city with a semi-tropical climate is beyond me.) The IOC, of course, is all bland assurances that Olympic athletes and attendees will be exempt from the law:

As a sporting organization, what we can do is to continue to work to ensure that the Games can take place without discrimination against athletes, officials, spectators and the media,” the IOC said in an emailed statement.

To that end, the IOC has received assurances from the highest level of government in Russia that the legislation will not affect those attending or taking part in the Games.

Of course, the IOC has its own credibility problems, particularly as far as gay rights are concerned. And in this particular instance, Nancy Goldstein, writing in The Guardian, has pretty much reflected my attitude:

So who on earth does the IOC, or Putin for that matter, think they're kidding with their "assurances"? Can they really be so entirely naïve or so thoroughly cynical that they don't think non-Russian LGBT people or our allies care about what's been happening to our Russian counterparts in the wake of Putin's edicts so long as our own skins are safe? That we'll just happily ignore last week's news of skinheads luring gay teenagers with an online dating scam, then taping the sessions where they torture them so long as no one blocks our view of the figure skating events? That we can't recognize Third Reich-style politics or bureaucratic complacency? That, per the IOC, "it remains to be seen whether and how" the recently-passed legislation "will be implemented"?

NBC, which reportedly has paid a few billion dollars for the right to broadcast the games, is also playing "wait and see." They're dodging the issue, and probably hoping it blows over before February.

What I'm seeing on the part of the "official" participants in the games -- IOC and NBC, in particular -- is an effort to deflect criticism in the hope that everything will blow over and they can get back to business as usual.

I may have further thoughts on this, but that's it for right now.