Перейти до основного вмісту
The State Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Turchinow against LGBT propaganda
Last week, Oleksandr Turchinov – a secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine – published an article against attempts to impose a “gender ideology” on Ukrainians by ultural Marxist pressure groups. In particular, in his statement Turchinov harshly criticized the so-called “Commissioner for Gender Policy” Katerina Levchenko, who called on the SBU to fight against those Ukrainians who uphold traditional values.
The very fact that such a controversial post as Commissioner for Gender Policy is paid by ordinary Ukrainian taxpayers is quite outrageous, taking into account the relationship of society with “gender policy” as such. Speaking of the “authorized commissioner” – Kateryna Levchenko – this person is an open homosexual and a longtime leader of the modern feminist movement, who has not passed an election procedure, has no support in society and whose “projects” are few participants.
It is extremely important to analyze the reaction that Turchinov’s statement has sparked among cultural Marxists and those who support them, i.e. the local liberal media. Indeed, in these reactions, we see an interesting and new statement for the Ukrainian media space: “the language of hostility” or “hate speech”. Previously, this term was rarely used.
The appearance of the phrase “hate speech” in the Ukrainian media space is a rather disturbing signal, considering the Western experience, where it has been used against any person, who opposes the extreme liberal status quo. Whether it is the termination of a TV presenter from a major Canadian broadcaster due to his own tweet against same-sex marriage; an Australian being fired just because of an avatar in support of traditional family values; or thousands of other similar cases (and this is no exaggeration: enter the Google query “LGBT hate speech” and you will see thousands of examples of censorship) – the pattern is always the same.
A relevant opinion has emerged and the mass media denounce its author as a supporter of the “language of hostility”. The author becomes an outcast. He is fired, censored, he disappears completely from the public sphere. There is no formal detention, but it is by no means necessary. After all, any punishment from a famous person scares millions of people from similar behavior. This is control through fear.
“Is there any hostile language in Turchinov’s words?” – ask the liberals, Soros grants consumers of Hromadske TV; “Of course, there is” – corresponds to the “Institute of Mass Information”, which wants to decide for / instead the Ukrainians, what kind of information can be considered “correct” and what not.
So Amnesty International follows this line and in fact determined Turchinov’s article as unconstitutional, that is illegal: “Turchinov’s words violate not only international conventions and international norms, but also violate the Constitution of Ukraine, which provides for the protection of citizens’ rights and the protection of equality “. Subsequently, the Hromadske suggests that criminal liability for the “language of hostility” has already been foreseen in Ukraine: a fine from 3400 to 8500 hryvnia or limitation of freedom up to 5 years.
Other media circulate an open letter to Poroshenko in which its authors urge the president to “react” to Turchinov’s article. Dozens of organizations have signed up for this letter, including: International Renaissance Foundation (Soros), Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union and a number of bizarre cultural-Marxist organizations such as Kyivpride.
Supporters of “free speech” have already reported on the first “triumph of democracy”: on the Internet edition lb.ua Turchinov was stripped of his posts and removed from the list of authors.
And now let’s think. All this hype grew around a simple text in the name of Turchinov himself on his personal blog. Not on a government site. Not on behalf of the National Security and Defense Council. Not on behalf of the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian Parliament). Due to Turchinov’s opinion, many of the country’s major media and international foundations threatened him with fines, imprisonment and a request for dismissal.
And if it happens now in Ukraine, where LGBT initiatives have almost no support in society, I’m afraid to imagine what we can expect in the next 10 years.
The synthesis of our reflections is disappointing: in our time, the media and “non-governmental organizations” (and those who support them) influence processes in society more than officials.
However, the situation around liberal totalitarian demonstrations is getting worse with each passing day, which offers us a new playing field and unexpected allies. Our job is to exploit the situation wisely and make every effort to ensure that the liberal obscurantists in our country have no ground under their feet.