Weaponizing prejudice

Dr Ben Noble

Okay, welcome, everybody, to this evening’s event, Weaponizing Prejudice: Russia’s Anti-LGBTQI+ Foreign Policy. My name’s Ben Noble. I’m Associate Professor of Russian Politics at University College London. I’m also an Associate Fellow here at Chatham House, and I’m going to be chairing the event this evening.

As if Russia’s continued war against Ukraine weren’t enough, Vladimir Putin’s also waging what we might call a war on queerness, which has both domestic and international dimensions. Members of the Russian LGBTQI+ community face extraordinary repression within the country and Russia’s political leadership is attempting to use its broader ‘traditional values project’ to build support, to try and build support around the world.

The aim of this evening’s event is to bring more attention to the Kremlin’s intensified assault on LGBTQI+ rights, exploring how this aligns with Moscow’s ideological competition with the West and the Russian State’s influence tactics worldwide. I’m delighted to introduce three speakers who will help shed light on these important issues.

Lord Herbert of South Downs is the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on LGBT+ rights. Dr Galina Miazhevich is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University. And Vlad Strukov is an Associate Professor in the School of Languages, Cultures and Societies at the University of Leeds. Galina and Vlad are the authors of a forthcoming Chatham House report on this evening’s topic, so we can expect some fascinating, albeit deeply, deeply depressing, insights.

Before we hear from our speakers, let me cover a few housekeeping points. This discussion is on the record. It’s also being recorded and livestreamed. We encourage you to engage with the event on social media using the #CHEvents and the handle @ChathamHouse. After initial comments by our three speakers and follow-up questions from me, which will take around 30 minutes, we’ll move to audience questions, with the event wrapping up at 7 o’clock. Attendees online must use the Q&A box at the bottom of their Zoom screen to submit a question. Attendees in the room, thank you for coming in this hot weather, I should start by saying. Please raise your hand and if selected, please wait for the microphone to get to you, before identifying yourself and your organisation and then asking your question. I’ll repeat these instructions before the Q&A, so don’t worry if you forget the details.

So, with the housekeeping done and without further ado, let me hand over, first, to Galina for opening remarks.

Dr Galina Miazhevich

Thank you so much, Ben, and thank you, Chatham House and everybody. It’s a pleasure and a privilege to be here, and I will try, within five minutes, succinctly outline the key points of what we are doing with Vlad, and I will expand on issues later on in Q&A, hopefully. So, I’m going to look at my computer, which I don’t normally do. I tend to speak freely, but because it’s on the record, I need to be very careful in what I’m saying.

So, the key points which I would like to start with is that the last 15 or so years of Russia’s adoption of increasingly harsh anti-LGBT+ domestic measures or official homophobia needs to be taken seriously and seen as a strategic ideological line, and I will explain why. The second point that the official homophobia has a clear geopolitical and international relations dimension. This is not merely a domestic policy, and Kremlin using it proactively is unlike other countries and deliberately weaponizing traditional values on – is a new front in the conflict with the West.

However, the other dimension of this strategy is to reshuffle existing geopolitical dimensions and create new geopolitical alliances, which shouldn’t be overlooked. And the final point which I would like to make is how this policy impacts not only LGBTI+ community, but other minority groups and other aspects of life, not only in Russia, but elsewhere. And here, I would like to raise the case of women’s rights, right for abortion, legislation against domestic violence and feminist agenda, which I’m currently also looking at.

So, just to briefly explain my interest in the LGBTQI+ community. Hmmm, kind of, emerged a long time ago, long before that 2013 legislation in Russia. I led an HRC grant on the media representation of sexual minority in Russia and right now, I’m looking into the feminist groups, and one of them is the Anti-War Feminist Resistance in Russia. So, if there will be any questions related to that, I’m more than happy to answer them.

So, to start with the first point. I said the last 15 years of Russia’s very deliberate strategic line and you might ask, “Why 15 years, when the key legislation, which we all know was 2013?” However, we know that there were a number of federal regional laws which started to emerge from 2006, which, kind of, pass and pave the way to the 2013 law, which became quite notoriously known as “anti-gay propaganda law.” So, we, kind of, remember this milestone. However, now, when we look back, we can see that the whole set of various other legislations, kind of, fitted within this narrative.

Partially, the Foreign Agents Law, which was promoted and revised starting from 2012 onwards, was used in conjunction with the 2013 legislation to put further pressure on various groups in Russia. And what we know now that since 2021, we have an increasingly heavy revision of the bills regarding LGBTQI+ groups and the legislation regarding traditional values and norms. Just to mention a few, we know that in 2021, constitution was amended and the definition of marriage as “a union between a man and a woman” was added.

Then, the next legislation was concerning transgender transition, which was banned, including the rights of transgender individuals. And the recent law proclaims LGBTQI Network as a foreign agent and the international LGBT movement is labelled as an ‘extremist organisation’ in 2013. It’s an interesting development, because we can see that there is not such an institutional structure as an international organisation of LGBT. There is no headquarters, so they’re banning something which doesn’t really exist, thus extending extremist legislation even further, kind of, pushing the boundaries and definitions of what constitute extremism.

And the final point in this legal revision is the 2022 amendment of 2013 law, which brought all types of public information about LGBTQI+ under the umbrella of propaganda. And it’s not only propaganda to, kind of, involving children. It’s all information which you can see, is a film, radio broadcast and whatnot. So, it’s not banning sexual acts per se, but banning all public expression of any non-traditional sexual relations in media.

And the final bit, which clearly states and indicate that it’s part of their deliberate strategy is their decree which occurred after the start of the war, in November 2022, the presidential decree on the confirmation of “fundamental principles of state policy to preserve and strengthen traditional Russian spiritual/moral values.” Where it’s clearly stated that traditional values become a security objective of Russian Government and the strategic objective to protect them, both domestically and internationally, and whatever is perceived as a threat to sovereignty of the country, which impacts this traditionalism, should be deemed a security threat. So, any non-traditional sexual relations now becoming as part of this security agenda.

Why it’s important and why we’re looking at that, because we are not looking at the particular terrorist or extremist organisations. We’re looking at the securitising of communication process. So, anything related to mass media right now which promotes this type of non-traditional sexual relations becomes part of the security discourse and security narrative. So, we can expand on that in the Q&A. So, as you can see, it’s not a one bill of 2013. It’s a whole set of escalating and a very specific strategy, which right now, becomes very obvious when we look back and see this in a long-term perspective.

The second point, how this official homophobia can become or acquire clear geopolitical and international relations narrative. So, first of all, this decree which I mentioned, which clearly states that its security, “a priority to keep and protect traditional values,” and by using this, Russia goes on the international agenda. We know there are various countries, for example in Africa, Uganda, which has similar legislation, but they keep it within their domestic policy. What Russia is doing, it’s proactively using this rhetoric at the international arena. Even the Putin’s speech in June, on the day preceding the invasion, involved traditional values and protection of the traditionalism of Russian State, which we clearly see being weaponised and utilised as part of the international relations rhetoric.

And in this case, it’s a – it is appealing to various groups. It obviously appeals to conservative groups within the developed democracies, far-right groups or heavily, kind of, indoctrinated religious groups, groups linked to the anti-abortion legislation. So, it undermines the whole fabric of society within mature democracies. At the same time, it is allowing Russia to seek and secure new alliances elsewhere, thus undermining the established geopolitical order. So, obviously, the countries within the Global South, the countries within the near abroad, Central Asian countries with a significant Muslim community, and other countries where – which have a strong conservative inclination and agenda, can see Russia as this, kind of, bearer of traditional values and follow suit.

And we can see, for example, in Georgia, recent revision of the legislation which follows Russian paths, kind of, makes us think that there is this mimicking of legislation in Kazakhstan, Kurdistan and Georgia, which are deliberating or going through similar legislation, parts the wave – parts, kind of, a way to a new geopolitical order where we have restructuring of existing alliances and Russia, kind of, successfully claiming stake within the more conservative – and nations and states within the Global South and near abroad, where it is actually – seems to be quite successful. So, this is, kind of, the second point which I would like to make.

Obviously, Russia is not as conservative as some of the states with the significant Muslim minority. So, we cannot really compare the legislation in Morocco to Russian or in – around legislation in Morocco, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia. However, we can see that there are different countries, such as Hungary, Poland and Turkey, which becoming quite comparable in terms of their approach to the sexuality and non-traditional sexuality, which brings more and more states within this realm of a discussion where the LGBTQI+ agenda or anti-LGBTQI feeling is becoming weaponised.

And the last point which I would like to make is just to draw attention that this policy or anti-LGBTQ+ narratives are used towards various groups, not necessarily sexual minorities. Obviously, in Russia, we can see an increased persecution of these minorities and they’re fleeing to neighbouring countries, creating further issues, because let’s say, if they’re fleeing to Georgia or Armenia, these countries are also quite conservative. So, it creates further tensions within these receiving states.

But then, what we see, this agenda is actually used to deflect the attention from the war and to intimidate non – kind of, other, kind of, groups, which might be heterosexual, heteronormative, but they know that this legislation can be used at whim. And because it’s so generic, it’s so broad, there are some instances, which we can talk about, where under the pretext of moral indecency, anybody can be actually persecuted within this non-traditional sexual orientation legislation.

And final point. Apart from deflecting attention from the war, this, kind of, narrative is used to tighten legislation on other issues, let’s say the anti-abortion legislation, domestic violence legislation, which set a very dangerous precedent. Because we can see that these groups are quite active in other countries, not necessarily in Russia, and once we see this, kind of, precedent set, other similar countries with a similar outlook might follow suit, which will encourage groups within similar interests elsewhere. And, kind of, related to that, issue of feminist groups in Russia, which I’m not sure how many of you heard the legislation. The extremist legislation now is proposed to be extended to include the child-free groups and radical feminist groups, which, kind of, falls within a broader framework of which you, kind of, started with this anti-LGBTQI+ legislation, which I think sets quite a dangerous precedent expanding to various groups.

Dr Ben Noble

Thank you for that, Galina. Vlad, over to you.

Dr Vlad Strukov

Thank you, Ben. Thank you, everyone, and thank you, Galina, for laying out the, kind of, main points of our collaborative research in the paper that is to be published. I’m going to reiterate a lot of the points that’s been made, but, sort of, perhaps look into the ways things work and perhaps suggest some, kind of, ideas that we can take in terms of recommendations or new ways of thinking about these transformations.

I’m going to start with a, kind of, UK context to remind ourselves through – that we lived through, kind of, a whole range of changes in the past two decades. You know, the Section 28 was repealed. Then we had Gender Equality Act introduced in the UK, same-sex partnerships and eventually, same-sex marriages, that were introduced by Conservative governments. And they’ve been really taken up by the British society and eventually, have become part of foreign policy of the UK, and not only on the UK, but also other alliances in the Western world.

Well, similarly, anti-LGBTQ agenda has become part of a foreign policy of other states, and this is, sort of, the, kind of argument that we are trying to make, looking at our research and the situation that is evolving. And so, I think we, kind of, really need to be serious about how that foreign policy objective has been conceived and is being implemented by states, such as the Russian Federation. Having, kind of, brought this back to our, kind of, mind, I want to, kind of, make sure, as well, that we are aware of that, yes, there’s been this tremendous, wonderful change, but it doesn’t mean that entire LGBTQI, kind of, phobia has been completely irradicated. And so, obviously, there are different sectors and factors of different societies where that sentiment is still very strong, and I suppose, as Galina suggested, this is that resource of international alliances that the Russian Government is trying to tap into.

And that takes me to a, kind of, a broader concern that we’ve been discussing for a number of years now, and that is the question of influence, right, on democratic processes. In other words, when there is propagation of certain extreme ideas and notions, how do we approach them, and do we take them, actually, as just a random fact or as part of consistent and very, very, kind of, thought through, coherent strategy? And so, what we argue in our report, that it’s the latter. That it is part of that longstanding, as Galina pointed out through a review of the pieces of legislation, objective – sorry, strategic objective of the Russian Government.

So, this is, kind of, one part of the discussion that I’m interested in. The other one is the, so-called, kind of, queer approach to international relations. In other words, when you start looking at international relations from the point of view of this, kind of, queer transgressive framework. And so, what happens, and this is, sort of, what – again, what occurred in our work, is that as you look back at the events, you start seeing a completely different pattern of events, a completely different set of ideas that were implemented by the Russian authorities.

Including, for example, even the way in which the War with the Ukraine has been framed and understood. The question that we get quite often in feedback to our work, is that, “What happens with – after full invasion of Ukraine?” And what I would say to this, that let’s look further back, you know. Let’s see that actually, from the very start, from the first protest that took place in Kyiv at the start of the century, they were already framed as part of this anti-LGBTQI ideology that we see evolving and, kind, happening.

And that takes us to, perhaps, a different view on the ways in which the attack on the Ukrainian State has been carried out and particularly in terms of sexual abuse and rape and other horrible acts. And as Galina mentioned, we see this happening not only in Ukraine, but also in relation to Georgia, where again, protests that took place in Georgia at the start of the century were framed as in relation to LGBTQI. So, it’s – it is really seen as a consistent, kind of, process of structuring discourse and political agenda, and especially international relations over time. And so, what started as just funny, strange way of talking about protests as, kind of, rainbow protests in Tbilisi, 20 years after, already resulted in the implementation of anti-LGBTQI legislation in that country.

So, again, to confirm. On one level, it seems like this bunch of different laws that came together is a domestic concern for the Russian Federation, but it has this very clear international relations agenda. But seemingly, again, if we take on this queer perspective, we can see how that also works within the Russian Federation itself. In other words, we are looking at a country that is polycultural and very diverse in terms of how it treats gender, sex and sexuality. And therefore, these anti-LGBTQI stunts works as a way to consolidate different, kind of, groups and societies within the Russian Federation itself, but then exploit them in the ways in which the Russian authorities talk to other states around the world.

So, it’s about this network building. It’s about using different social groups and different republics to build another network of alliances and connections out there. And then, if you, kind of, start looking at the map of Europe and Asia, taking all that, kind of, queer perspective, you already see new geopolitical alliances emerging, where these LGBTQI policies are, kind of, a way into reading those new connections.

All of this has a very direct impact on human’s rights agenda globally, not only within the Russian Federation, and more specifically, I think coming to, sort of, where we are in the UK now, is on the issues of migration. What we have seen in reports, and in media reports, is emphasis on war refugees, right, for example, Ukrainians, the Russians, coming to Europe, coming to the UK, as war refugees. But it, kind of, went off the radar that a lot of them, actually, are LGBTQI individuals and that they are finding their way out of the Russian Federation because of this newly introduced legislation. So, I think greater clarity in terms of who those people are, what they represent and how they will be, kind of, brought into the domain, how they’ll be integrated, is an important concern. And looking into, kind of, best practice, looking into communities who, kind of, work in the UK, into, kind of, integrating LGBTQI refugees and migrants, would be very important.

And the last thing that I want to talk about is, again, in relation to our report and its focus on media representations. So, what happens as a result of this legislation introduced in the Russian Federation is that all of the websites, all social media groups and all publications covering the issues of LGBTQI have, basically, been removed. So, if you were on the territory of the Russian Federation, trying to access those resources without using the VPN, you will find no information whatsoever.

And in that regard, having resources in the languages spoken in the Russian Federation, outside of the country, would be absolutely important because they would be the lifeline for those people. In addition to that, we see how, for example, archives of LGBTQI activists, society, communities, cultures, have been removed, closed or just disappeared. So, there is a question, again, of preserving that legacy and ensuring that there is support, including funding, for organisations and individuals who carry out that work.

And the last thing, perhaps, that I want to, kind of, mention in relation to media coverage, is the narrative that is coming out of this. It’s amazing to see reports in different media outlets talking about the struggles of those individuals as they get on, but I think it would be also amazing to see narratives that celebrate their success and, kind of, perseverance and resilience, where LGBTQI has, kind of, emerged as a new form of solidarity for a lot of those people affected by recent events. Thank you.

Dr Ben Noble

Brilliant. Thank you, Vlad, and Lord Herbert, over to you.

The Rt Hon Lord Herbert of South Downs CBE PC

Thank you very much, indeed, for inviting me to join this panel and speak about an important issue. It was, I think, well over two decades ago when my husband and I visited St. Petersburgh at New Year, and one of the things I can recall us doing is walking at night along the streets of St. Petersburgh, really quite a long way, to go to a gay nightclub. And actually, the – three things would now be inconceivable. I mean, one is that we would now feel able to visit at all, the second is that we would walk down the streets in that way, and the third is that we would go to that nightclub, which probably no longer exists. And that, really, for me, was a, sort of, personal reflection of the extent to which there’s been change in Russia.

And that’s been set out very clearly, but what I think is of such concern about the situation in Russia is not just that you have a series of discriminatory laws being introduced, but that they have started to encroach upon the whole notion of free speech. And that is a much more insidious attack, it seems to me, on rights, that has a much more broad concern and should command a wider concern, I believe, in the international community. So, we’ve seen the anti-propaganda law introduced in Russia. We’ve seen the Supreme Court decision last year that designated the international LGBT movement as extremist and the very next day, the Police moved to raid nightclubs, saunas and so on in an immediate crackdown legitimised by that decision. So, we see these measures not just attacking the rights of LGBT+ people, but actually, being tools of authoritarian control, as well. And that’s why they are of double concern, I think, and merit a discussion like this.

So, is it the case that there is a, kind of, new Iron Curtain descending, not so much an Iron Curtain, but a pink pelmet? Well, no, of course not, because we know that there are around 20 countries in the world that are rolling back LGBT+ rights, and they are distributed across the world. And even this isn’t – although sometimes it’s characterised as a, sort of, a West and the rest issue, it’s not actually. The way in which the anti-rights movement has taken hold is uneven globally and more complicated. But I do think that LGBT+ rights can be the canary in the coalmine and an early attack on LGBT+ rights in a country can be a sign of a broader attack to come. And we know that the rollback that we’re seeing isn’t just affecting LGBT+ rights. It’s affecting women’s rights, children’s, girls’ rights, as well, and again, therefore, is of broader concern.

It’s always been the case that countries take steps forward and then, take steps backwards. Russia itself did. I mean, the Bolsheviks decriminalised homosexuality, didn’t they, before Stalin reversed it? Then there seemed to be, under the new regime in Russia, the signs of a liberalisation, again, now to be reversed. We’ve seen reverses in Western countries, as well, but they’ve tended to be temporary ones and I think we generally feel that in Western countries, that the arc of the moral universe really is bending towards justice. But it’s hard to see that it is in many of the countries where this regression is happening now.

Of course, Russia’s laws are having a big impact in the region and indeed, globally, as well as in the country itself. So, I visited Georgia last year. We now see the Georgian Dream party picking up proposals for constitutional change involving things like the prohibition on promoting non-traditional sexual relations. The same kind of language that we see in Russia and the very clear influence there of the tensions which Georgia is coming under between that of the EU and that Russia being manifest in that particular issue.

A few weeks ago I spoke to activists from Kurdistan, a – obviously, a remote meeting, when I talked to them about the impact of new laws there. We’ve seen the prohibition there on promoting non-traditional sexual relations, again exactly mirroring the kind of language in laws that we’ve seen in Russia. There’s a particular influence on Russian speaking, culturally Russian, countries. That has seen a repression of the space that those activists can operate in, but it’s also seen a direct impact on public health programmes, HIV programmes. The government has dissolved the Country Co-ordinating Mechanism for HIV strategy and Global Fund allocation, and that is going to have a very serious effect on the sexual health of men who have sex with men and transgender people. And that’s something, again, that we’ve seen replicated in other countries.

I think we need to do much more to look at what the drivers of this discriminatory policy and legislation are. If you overlay a map globally of where rights are rolling backwards for LGBT+ people, you – there is a very strong correlation with religious fundamentalism. It’s an almost exact correlation, actually, and whether that’s religious fundamentalism that we see from radical Islam or whether it’s from fundamentalists, Christianity in the Anglican Church or the Catholic Church in sub-Saharan African and Latin America, Asia. But we know that the Russian Orthodox Church has had a huge impact in influencing public opinion and political opinion there.

And what happens then is that the secular Politicians rely on the cover that they are given by religious organisations to introduce populist politics, and by definition, populism works. You know, it appeals to certain groups, exactly, Vlad, as you were saying. You know, it – they – these Politicians do it because it works, because it has purchase, but it’s also very often, the sign of a failure of conventional politics, the failure of conventional delivery. The, sort of – a shameless and shameful resort by political leaders to stirring up hatred or focusing on an issue where they think they can command public support isn’t actually necessarily a central issue so that people’s day-to-day lives, but where they think that they’re going to be able to drive hatred and prejudice.

And the anti-rights movement that is operating globally and is certainly operating in Russia, is a very well-funded movement. We know that it’s funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Much of that money is flowing from the United States, from evangelical organisations, straight into the coffers of religious organisations, that are then using it to promote this hateful ideology.

One of the traps that I think we can fall into is the idea that this is, exactly as it is promoted in Russia and indeed, in other countries in sub-Saharan Africa and so on, as it’s an anti-Western agenda. It’s a pro – it’s a nationalist agenda, it’s a pro-Russian agenda or a pro-Ugandan, a pro-African agenda. And the thing that strikes me as being absurd about this is the idea that there aren’t any gay, lesbian, bi or transgender people in these countries. I suspect Anthropologists would agree that the proportion of people who are gay in any country is probably fairly constant. The question is whether they’re able to express themselves or not.

Of course, Vladimir Putin famously said, “There is no homosexuality in Russia and therefore, there is no homosexuality in Russian literature.” But I think that readers of Russian literature might choose to disagree with that, particularly of Gogol and so on, or indeed, Pushkin. I think one of Pushkin’s best friends was a gay, who he corresponded with in quite open terms. The idea that there aren’t people who have a different sexual orientation in these countries, is, to us, of course, absurd. Of course, they are there. It’s just that they are being repressed.

And finally, I think this is having, as again, has been said, big implications for the global and the multilateral system. We are seeing these issues now played out in a very stark division at the United Nations. And therefore, the global alliances that we can form on these issues are important, whether they are things like the Equal Rights Coalition that UK is a very strong member of, or the LGBTI Core Group at the United Nations. But I think we have to challenge the idea that equality, it should, in any sense, be a divisive issue. Equality should be a universal value and indeed, it’s expressed as such in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and that is what we should be holding every country to.

I do think there are implications for the way in which we, in the West, are promoting some of these issues, the issues that we are choosing to lead on and the way in which we are inviting countries to move forward, but that’s a topic for another day.

Dr Ben Noble

Brilliant. Thank you very much, Lord Herbert. I am going to ask two very, very short questions before I turn to the audience in person and online. The first is probably directed to Galina and Vlad, and that is that we know that the Putin regime is increasingly talking about this topic, increasingly pushing what they refer to as the ‘traditional values project’. What do Russian people think of it? Is it landing with them, or is this just propaganda and it’s not actually finding an audience? What does your research show?

Dr Galina Miazhevich

Maybe I can start by saying that what is understood on the traditional values is very vague.

Dr Ben Noble

Hmmm hmm.

Dr Galina Miazhevich

Even in documents, when they define ‘non-traditional’, it is defined via traditional, by reference to tradition. So, in reality, nobody knows what the tradition is. It just refers to some historical tradition of something. Whether it’s yeah, I don’t know, family life or cohabiting, it’s not clear. If people will start thinking and questioning that, you know, living together without having children or having sex without the procreation purpose, is already non-traditional, or, I don’t know, type of sexual – types of sex within the fami – within marriage might be considered to be non-traditional. So, obviously, you cannot go as far as to tell people you have to have sex within this position and only to have children.

So, in this case, this rhetoric, I think it’s – the discourse is there, but it’s more, kind of, to create some sort of narrative of cohesion and national identity. But it’s so generic and it’s so vague that nobody actually thinks what is behind that. It’s, kind of, more, kind of, alliance with the ideas of maybe the grandeur, the nationhood, rather than something really specific. That’s why, kind of, from my point of view, if you’re going to go and ask some – we’re going to ask ten people on the ground, they will not be able to tell you what traditional values are in Russia. And if traditional values is the marriage between man and a woman, if you look at the divorce rate in Russia, it’s exceptionally high. So, you know, then the whole narrative is undermined by pure facts, if you lay it out in front of the everyday, kind of, public.

Dr Ben Noble

The second question is very similar, but focused on the international level. You claim in the paper, you state, I think very convincingly, that this is being used by the Kremlin as part of its foreign policy toolkit. There are clearly some constituencies in the international community in different countries around the world that appear to be sympathetic to this viewpoint, but do you think it’s a really popular one? Do you think the Kremlin should be focusing on this? Is this a way in which they can actually broaden their coalition? This is a question to you, Lord Herbert, as well. In your conversations that you had, do you think that there are increasingly sympathetic voices to this? But Vlad, maybe what do you think, first?

Dr Vlad Strukov

It’s a question of perspective. So, if you were to ask me this question a decade ago, I would probably say no, but having done my work, I realise that it’s, like we were saying, it’s a very, very clear strategic objective. I’m not exactly sure where the source of it is and I don’t think I’m happy to engage in this, kind of, chicken and egg conversation. But what we’ve seen, especially in the past decade and perhaps because of social media and these global connections, is that there is – there’s almost smooth allegiances that are being formed by various groups. And we have seen some, you know, amazing reports published, for example, by LGBTQI activist related to the Russian Federation. I – in particular, I mean, Masha Gessen, here, who actually travelled to those conventions and was part – and as an observer of these international conversations among people who share the anti-LGBTQI stance, but nothing else. And yet, they’re able to come together in various locations in the world.

And so, I think the, kind of, the underlying message is, sort of, where it’s all coming from and what can we do about it? And I don’t really know, because, you know, another argument would be that it all started in Turkey a while ago and then, was adopted by the Russian Federation and maybe somewhere else. But there seems to be a very clear international relations agenda for those conversations.

The Rt Hon Lord Herbert of South Downs CBE PC

I think in terms of public opinion, I mean – but Politicians resort to populist politics because they think it’s popular, and I think there is some evidence that there is hostility, in opinion surveys in Russia, to LGBT people. So, they have a well to draw upon. But that was the case in countries like the UK a very little time ago. All of the changes that we’ve made in the UK to advance LGBT+ rights have happened within my lifetime. We had some of the kinds of repressive laws that we are seeing introduced in countries like Russia now, and public opinion can change, but that requires leadership and activism. If activism is closed down and leadership is not there, it’s difficult to see how that change is going to be driven, at least in the short-term.

I think it’s certainly true that Russia is using this issues – this issue, as well as others, to build alliances in a multilateral system. We’ve seen, you know, repeated attempts to influence the language of otherwise completely benign declarations, policy documents and so on, at the UN level, where Russia and others, you know, exercise their influence to try and promote their particular anti-LGBT, pro-family ideology. And they join in with a number of other actors who should not be keeping their company, and it’s – these are issues on which they find that – you know, where oth – whereas in other areas, they would be very isolated, they can forge a broager – broader alliance. So, I think that’s a challenge, actually, for other countries, as to how they respond to it – to this, but it’s becoming increasingly disabling in the UN system.

Dr Ben Noble

Okay, so now to questions from the audience, both in person and online. A reminder, online, you will see a Q&A box at the bottom of the Zoom screen, so please use that if you’d like to ask a question. I see that some have already come in. People in the room, if you’d like to ask your question, please raise your hand and if I pick you, I’ll make it clear who I’m picking. The microphone will come to you. Please say who you are and the organisation you are representing, if, in fact, you’re representing an organisation. So, I see we have a first question in the room.

Gaveshna Sarswat

Hello, everyone. It’s – is this working?

Dr Ben Noble

Yeah.

Gaveshna Sarswat

Okay, thank you. Gavesh Sarswat from Global Weekly. My question is in two parts. What – in what ways can we actually do something to stop this, and do you think the rise of right-wing extremism throughout the world is also impacted by this? Thank you.

Dr Ben Noble

Panellists?

Dr Vlad Strukov

What can we do to stop it? I think we can learn from communities who know how to come together and how to show solidarity and help one another to get through difficult times, whether they are LGBTQI communities or other ones. We talked a lot about, sort of, repressions, but it’s important, again, to highlight that we have seen in our work extraordinary examples of solidarity and support and people working in spite of this very strategic legislation on, for example, helping LGBTQI people to leave Russian republics or the Russian Federation altogether. So, I think it’s important to celebrate their work and to pay respect. So, this is, I think, what we can do and to learn from that experience.

The Rt Hon Lord Herbert of South Downs CBE PC

Enough.

Dr Ben Noble

The rise in extremism?

The Rt Hon Lord Herbert of South Downs CBE PC

I didn’t pick up the second question. Sorry to…

Gaveshna Sarswat

So, it’s…

The Rt Hon Lord Herbert of South Downs CBE PC

Yeah.

Gaveshna Sarswat

The question was that Russia is being extremist for LGBTQ, but the – but not just Russia. There is a widespread rise of right-wing extremism throughout the world, that they’re curbing the rights for LGBTQ, as well. So, is there any correlation?

The Rt Hon Lord Herbert of South Downs CBE PC

Well, I agree with that and I don’t – you know, I think that’s what I was trying to cover in my remarks. In terms of what we can do to stop it, first of all, as I said before, I do think we have to do more work upstream to tackle the drivers of extremism. If we were thinking about a counterterrorism strategy, we would not just have a strategy that focuses on the threat once its emerge – emerges. We would think about what the drivers of extremism are and how to prevent those, how to prevent people moving in that direction in the first place. And we don’t do that enough in relation to these issues, in my view.

Secondly, I think we have to provide support for the NGOs who are operating in this space, particularly those where it is extremely difficult because of the kinds of laws we’ve seen in Russia. But there are global NGOs and there are NGOs which still manage to operate, even if not in the countries concerned. So, we have to provide support for them. The UK Government does. For instance, we have a very important LGBT+ rights programme providing support to NGOs.

And thirdly, we have to call out the – this extremism and we have to be unafraid to do so and we have to do so regularly, forcefully and in concert with our allies. We cannot let this go and obviously, there are always competing diplomatic pressures and priorities, but it is very important that political leaders take a stance on these issues, spell out what is happening, spell out the risks and talk to their allies about what can be done about it. That is a starting point for action.

Gaveshna Sarswat

Hmmm hmm.

Dr Ben Noble

Thank you. There are two very similar questions online. “What is being done to currently help LGBTQI+ activists in Russia?” And “What more can be done, including from those outside Russia, to help the cause?”

Dr Vlad Strukov

[Pause] That is the difficult moment of confidentiality. So, unfortunately, we cannot call out any concrete examples because we don’t want to put any people at risk. But we know individuals and organisations that continue to do this hard work of helping people who are in the Russian Federation and also, outside of the Russian Federation. They do so by using digital networks to connect to people in a safe and secure way and help them to, kind of, resolve the concerns that they may have, whether it is a question of domestic violence or whether it is a question of political persecution and need to leave the country.

Funding for this organisation is extremely important and support in terms of policies, in terms of visibility, in terms of recognition, I think would be incredibly important, because a lot of the work is being done by volunteers or people who actually contribute their time from time-to-time. And also, there needs to be, kind of, a recognition that those networks of support work beyond the nation states. So, again, we are familiar with the individual organisations coming from different countries in the region that we’re discussing today, who manage to come together in spite of ongoing interest in conflicts and wars and address those issues in a very cohesive and deliberate way.

Dr Galina Miazhevich

Yeah, so, just with the dross and diaspora groups abroad which have a little bit more funding and space for action and they’ve, kind of, tried to – and extend their support towards these Russian communities. Then there is an option with the, kind of, languages other than Russian, which, kind of, are used within Russian Federations, where the information can be spread to a certain extent, and using social media. So, in this respect, there are – I think we can achieve certain success in either helping people or trying to get them out. But in certain areas, like you mentioned the HIV protection or medical help, the help and support becomes more and more constrained, because in this case, people have to come and declare why they need help and in this case, it is becoming problematic. While some other issues of a social support and network are still there.

Dr Vlad Strukov

And may I just, again, recount the point that you made, which is seeing this in the broader, kind of, framework of attack on the civil rights and right to express one’s individuality and identity and freedom of speech, I think is very important.

Dr Ben Noble

Yeah. Lord Herbert, this might be a question directed at you, given your role as Special Envoy for the Prime Minister, and this is question from online. “Russian media portray LGBTQI+ rights as “European neocolonialism and a threat to sovereignty.” Is there a way for Europe,” and I imagine the world more broadly, and the West, “to continue to promote human rights without exacerbating these divisions and almost playing into the Kremlin trying to portray this as the West interfering?”

The Rt Hon Lord Herbert of South Downs CBE PC

I think this is a key question and it’s one that applies not just to Russia, as well, but other countries. And it’s a trap, of course, because it’s an invitation to stop taking a stance on these issues. And first of all, as I said, I think we have to reject it, because these values of equality, equal dignity, are fundamental universal values and we shouldn’t allow there to be any suggestion that somehow, this is a Western agenda.

Secondly, I think the more that we can ensure that the voices who are calling for change or who are speaking out are the local voices, that they are the most potent in terms of saying it is certainly not, you know, anti-Russian to be in favour of LGBT+ rights. It is possible to be a proud Russian and to say that these are rights that apply just as much to Russian people. It is much more potent if those – if that case is made by people from within the country. That’s obviously extremely difficult where there is repression, but we have to find way to – safe ways to give platforms to people to be able to do that if they’re outside the country.

And thirdly, as I intimated in the very last thing I said, I think we have to be smart in the way that we are advancing this agenda and remember that in countries like the UK, LGBT+ rights were promoted step-by-step. There was a challenge at every stage, and we did not start at the end. And sometimes, I think we advance now LGBT+ rights with some of the most difficult issues first and play straight into the hands of our opponents. It’s not to say that our opponents are right or legitimate in pushing back, but we frighten people too easily. And we should be focused on the core issues, core rights around freedom, safety, anti-violence, anti-discrimination, before we jump to more complex issues, issues that have proved very difficult in Western countries, as well, around things like transgender rights. And sometimes, our activism has jumped too quickly to issues that put – you know, are much more problematic in terms of public discourse and so on. So, I think we need to be fighting on the right fronts.

Dr Ben Noble

Thank you very much for that. I’ve been reminded that I should be naming the people who are asking questions online. So, a shoutout, if that’s the right phrase, to say that Maria Appud, John Kay and Victoria Jones and Ashley Schneider have contributed questions so far. Do we have any questions in the room? Yes, we do.

Yulia Mineeva

Hello, Yulia Mineeva, Chatham House. So, we’re talking about Russians, like LGBT+ Russians inside Russia, but I wanted to touch a little bit of – about those who already left the country. So, obviously, they’re leaving Russia to find a safe place to live, but we’ve seen a number of deaths among asylum seekers in detention centres, and I know you probably know the notorious example of that is in Netherlands. And these people are not only facing homophobia. They don’t have access to psychological help. They don’t have their prescriptions for their antidepressants. They are sometimes being unlawfully put with Ukrainians together and they get booed for their nationality. They also don’t have the hormonal therapy if they’re doing the transition.

So, my question is, is there an advocation for these Russians at this front? And the other question is, there is a hope that Western community would take a tailored approach to this category of asylum seekers and not only talking about Russians. Thank you.

Dr Ben Noble

Anybody?

Dr Vlad Strukov

Thank you very much for your questions. The description that you provided is accurate and I’ve been aware of this for a number of years now. So, it’s not a recent phenomenon and it’s not actually related, either, to the War with the Ukraine or, in fact, the recent legislation that we discussed. So, it’s an ongoing problem and it’s not only specific to the Netherlands, but many, kind of, EU countries, as well.

And just to, again, to perhaps make the issue a bit more nuanced, I should say that it is a federation of nations, right? And therefore, attitudes to LGBTQI have traditionally varied, and that’s the – kind of, a phrase to use here, may be tongue in cheek, but still. And that irrespective of what the laws that have been introduced by the authorities, there have been very difficult places for people to be. We all familiar with the case of Chechnya, right? And what we, kind of, sort of, forget is that after those people move out of the Russian Federation, persecution doesn’t end. It goes on and it’s actually their own families who take part in that.

And you are absolutely right, there’s been very little support, there’s been very little understanding of the complexity of the issues, and everybody is, sort of, categorised as Russian just because they happen to be from the Russian Federation. But similarly, we have seen cases where refugees coming, let’s say, from Armenia, would also be categorised as Russian, etc. So, it’s a question of, kind of, lack of policy, lack of experience and perhaps a lack of sensitivity when it comes to that return. And I would support a more cohesive, kind of, worldwide approach to this, because of course, there are refugees coming from other parts of the world where the situation is equally complex. I mean, let’s look at India for that matter, or anywhere else, and – yeah, so definitely, more support, more information, more nuanced approach, is what we need.

Dr Ben Noble

Great. Another question in the room, at the back.

Masood

Hello, I’m Masood, a Journalist and Chatham House member. My question is this, just about the media. It’s not only Russia. Like, most Eastern countries, especially Muslim countries, they are not going to accept the LGBTQ. There is a lot of problems. It’s a truth we must say about it. Like in countries like Afghanistan, it’s still a shame. People with – belong to this group, they’re even not able to say we are – belong to these groups.

So, what I’m asking is about the media, how the media can promote this, at least about understanding and accepting this. Not even about the government level, just among the families, friends and small groups. I believe that international media can play a vital role in this if they wants, like BBC, CNN, they can make series, they can make campaigns, which is really helpful. And why they are not doing this? What do you think about the role of media, especially about this? This my question, thank you.

Dr Ben Noble

Thank you.

Dr Vlad Strukov

Do you want to start or do you want me…?

Dr Galina Miazhevich

Hmmm.

Dr Vlad Strukov

Yeah.

Dr Galina Miazhevich

I can start. Yes, it’s a very good question and also, very difficult one, because, you know, in light of what we talked, Western media influence might be considered as a, kind of, colonial indoctrination and promotion of the foreign values and not in line with the traditional values. So – and then, we have, in addition to the traditional media, like BBC and broadcast, we have social media where the control over what’s going on is completely, kind of, out of hand.

So, I think we need to, kind of, understand the very complex media environment, where we, kind of, all live and try to use certain – acknowledge these challenges and the potentialities and maybe stick for – in certain areas in social media and private groups, closed groups, because it starts at the level of community. You know, you cannot really impose a lot straightaway, in a short period of time, from the top. But let’s say even if the families are quite intolerant, but they happen to have a family member, then the whole community start developing with a more tolerance.

So, kind of, as one way is to use social media at the level of private groups, secure groups, as a way of developing certain kinds of horizontal networks within communities. Not sure if you would like to…

Dr Vlad Strukov

I think I’d like to make two points, if I may. The first is that I wouldn’t want to generalise all countries where Islam is one of dominant religions. Of course, we have cases of countries with secular Islam, Singapore, Azerbaijan, you name it. We have cases of countries where Islam is a traditional/indigenous religion that has been crucial to the, kind of, modernisation and promotion of freedoms.

But I think you have – that’s my second point, you have a very valid point about that we need to be more aware of other types of media that are out there and not just to, kind of, juxtapose coverage of these issues in the Russian language and English language, or by Western media. If you, for example, compare, and that’s the work we did, Galina and I, if you compare, for example, reports about the same legislation by the BBC World Service and Al Jazeera, you will see that there is different emphasis. And the emphasis is so different and significant, that, you know, from the, kind of, user perspective, you may read different things into it. So, for example, Al Jazeera would report, in a very detailed way, about the persecutions and exactly what the law says, and you start wondering about whether it’s actually to inform the reader about how it needs to be done or – you know.

Dr Ben Noble

Okay, we have run out of time, unfortunately. In place of closing remarks, I’m going to encourage everybody, in person and online, to read the report when – once it’s published. I’ve read a draft. Lord Herbert’s read a draft. It’s incredibly informative, really important work. So, thank you to the in person and online audiences for some great questions and most importantly, please join me in thanking three excellent speakers [applause].