Gays, Putin, and Skiing! Olympics Megathread: THE POLITICS

[Shofercia]

I want to note that Gravlen doesn't consider Social Rights as Human Rights.

Wrong. I noted that you decided to start talking about standard of living, the economy and birthrates. That was moving away from human rights as a topic.

If you cannot comprehend that Social Rights assisted massively in the increase in standard of living in Russia, you shouldn't be debating about Russia, or wasting anyone's time for that matter.

Then again, he has proven to be quite flexible when it comes to Human Rights.

Source?

You talking about the rights of Latvia and Estonia to create an entire category of stateless people based on their ethnicity. The ethnicity discriminated against just happened to be Russian, Hippo, erm, I mean Gravlen.

Before responding, I want to clarify that I said that Putin's Russia is better than:

Gorbachev-Yeltsin's USSR-Russia
Khrushchev's-Brezhnev's USSR
Lenin's-Stalin's USSR
Csar Alexander III-Nicolas II's Russian Empire

for most Russians. I am NOT arguing that Russia > Canada. Unless we're talking about hockey, which, we're not. With that said:

First source - Freedom House:



Freedom House had rabidly anti-Russian leaders, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski. The organization states that it: has vigorously opposed dictatorships in Central America and Chile, apartheid in South Africa, the suppression of the Prague Spring, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, and the brutal violation of human rights in Cuba, Burma, the People's Republic of China, and Iraq. It has championed the rights of democratic activists, religious believers, trade unionists, journalists, and proponents of free markets.

Note how Pinochet's Chile is carefully omitted, as opposed to Cuba.

Yeah...

Try reading it again.

Oh right, I misread something about an organization that equated Cuba with Prague Spring, and Soviet War in Afghanistan with Genocide, while conveniently forgetting to mention the Vietnam War. It's still a Cold War holdover. Not to mention that an organization ranking a country where almost half of the population, (probably more by now,) has Internet, where "a small number of specific sites are blocked or filtering targets a small number of categories or issues", next to a country like Zimbabwe, it's a bit hard for someone with a sane mentality to take them seriously.

On top of that, I really have no problem with legislation adopted last year permitting the extrajudicial blacklisting of websites deemed to contain child pornography or advocate drug use or suicide.

I kinda do. I think it should be subject to judicial review, and I find that blocking the Wikipedia page on Cannabis and the sites featuring the cartoon “Dumb Ways to Die” (including YouTube) is problematic.

That's nice dear, but your opinion doesn't really matter

Second Source: Centre for Law and Democracy, and here's the only quote:



Didn't I just say that I thought that Putin was wrong about that?

I don't know why you felt the need to trim the quote before reproducing it. Here's the full quote:

In recent years, freedom of expression in Russia has come under severe attack. A number of pieces of legislation have been adopted limiting the ability of opposition voices to make themselves heard. An Analysis released today by CLD demonstrates that, even against this troubling backdrop, the recent decision by Russia’s government to create an Internet blacklist is a particularly ominous development.

“Although the Internet is famously resistant to censorship or control, Russia’s content regulation framework has tremendous potential to clamp down on online speech” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “We are particularly concerned about moves to ban speech that ‘propagandises non-traditional sexual relations’ which is clearly targeting the LGBT community.”

Key problems with Russia’s blacklist are that it imposes overly broad and illegitimate bans on content and that it lacks appropriate safeguards against political abuse. This problem is exacerbated by a lack of transparency in the way the system operates and insufficient procedural protections for those whose material is targeted for takedown.

In the period since the law has come into force, there is already ample evidence of its overbreadth, with several innocuous websites having been put on the blacklist. CLD calls upon the Russian government to review its whole approach to controlling Internet content, with a view to bringing the system into line with international standards regarding the right to freedom of expression.

I was talking about a direct quote from CLD. Hint: it was the one in quotes. You know, these things: "" You failed to grasp that.

As you see, the quote highlights several issues beyond the crackdown on homosexual rights. In fact, you can remove the part about 'gay propaganda' and what it says is still alarming. It's probably convenient to overlook that, but...

Also, I note that you don't disagree with anything in this quote, yet still seem to maintain that this has no effect on freedom of expression in Russia.

Nice strawman there Gravlen. *throws yet another kibble treat* I didn't actually say that it has no effect on freedom of expression. I did say that it's potential negative effect, when compared to other positive developments, such as Internet users multiplying twenty fold, is small. Additionally, I was curious though, as to which websites were actually blocked. Unlike you, I tried doing actual research, not just taking what someone said for granted, and the number of blocked sites was rather small when compared to the overall numbers of websites. Less than one percent. The biggest scandal was blocking of Lurkmore, (which I didn't support, nor did quite a few Russians,) and after instructions on how to make drugs were removed, the website was unblocked.

Let me give you a numbers hypo that you can hopefully understand: if ten percent of society have access to 100 percent of the information, and 90 percent have access to 10 percent of the information, that society is less free than a society where 40 percent have access to 99 percent of the information and 60 percent have access to 10 percent of the information. That's my point. You will, of course, repeatedly fail to grasp it, much to my amusement. Do keep up. I can even use the source that you provided in the latter paragraph: 35,498 websites are blocked. The World has 634 million websites. So let's see here, that's what, 0.006 percent? I can source a basic math lesson if you'd like.

"But these websites aren't Russian!" you might say. Ok, well 5.9 percent of websites are in Russian: http://w3techs.com/blog/entry/russian_i ... on_the_web. So assuming that Russians only read Russian websites, which is idiotic, but even assuming that, the number of blocked websites is still less than one percent. It's 0.1 percent. Even if we were to focus solely on political websites, where, even though I don't have the numbers, it's highly unlikely that less than ten percent of Russian websites aren't political. So even there, it's still less then one percent.

At this point, I'd like to apologize to those in Russia if you read Gravlen's travesty. Oh yeah, this website isn't banned in Russia, because the mods crack down on racism, drug making and child pornography. I've deleted the crap that followed, since the numbers, which were central to my argument, were addressed. Once again Gravlen, I must remind you that my argument was about improvement in Human Rights under Putin, or improvement between 1999/2000 until today, as compared to what was going on between 1881 and 1998/1999. You are more than welcome to pretend that it's something else, and I'll throw you a kibble treat every time you do.

For the above stated reason, in Russia there is "Internet Under Surveillance". That's also the case in France, Australia and South Korea. I also fail to see why Gravlen mentions the "Enemies of the Internet" list, since Russia's not on that; maybe he's hoping that someone clueless might think that by association.

I'm not surprised that you fail to understand it. It's called "context", and it's all the rage these days.

Reporters sans frontières operates with two lists: "Enemies of the Internet" (which came first in 2006), and "Under Surveillance" (which was created a year later, in 2007). Russia was put on the latter list in 2010, and has stayed there ever since.

Judging by how you're doing your best to ignore the context of my argument, I don't think you understand what context is.

In terms of journalists: I was talking about journalist deaths, which declined.

It declined from 5 in 2009 (3 confirmed murders), to 0 in 2010, 1 murder in 2011, 1 murder in 2012, 2 murders in 2013.

If you look at murders, this is how it looks since 2000:

2000 - 2
2001 - 1
2002 - 2
2003 - 2
2004 - 1
2005 - 2
2006 - 3
2007 - 1
2008 - 2
2009 - 3
2010 - 0
2011 - 1
2012 - 1
2013 - 2

http://cpj.org/killed/europe/russia/murder.php

There's no real decline of journalists being murdered for doing their jobs during the reign of Putin. (Perhaps during Medevev, but he was mostly a puppet, so...) It's pretty even. And yes, I'm not including murders where the motive is unconfirmed.

2 and 5 are different numbers. If the rate of deaths drops from 5 to 2, that's a 60 percent drop! We're supposed to be comparing that to 1993-1999. Context, remember? Of course you don't, you're Gravlen, so you only go for context when it's convenient for you. Prior to Putin, between 1993 and 1999, the average was 5. During Putin, judging by the numbers you're using, the average is 2. You do comprehend that 2 is less than 5, right, Gravlen? Please tell me that you at least get that!

The second chart shows that Russian journalists are actually safer than Russian citizens.

Actually, it doesn't. It shows that the rate of journalists being murdered is lower than the rate of murders in the population as a whole. Which is an odd thing to look at, but be that as it may, it does not take into consideration the violence and threats the journalists have suffered, so you cannot conclude that journalists are safer than the average Russian going by these figures alone.

Let me repeat the quote from Article 19:

Safer from being killed, yeah, I can. You can repeat the quote all you want, but I'm comparing Putin's Russia to Yeltsin's Russia, a contextual point that you're keen on omitting. So unless you actually present some numbers on Yeltsin's Russia, your sources are irrelevant to my argument, which was:

You do know that with the exception of Gay Rights and a couple of other stuff, Human Rights have been improving in Russia under Putin, right?

Since you're failing to grasp even this basic point, Gravlen, improved means are better under Putin, than they were under Yeltsin. For instance, if prior to Putin's coming to power, 5 journalists were killed a year, on average, and after, 2 were killed a year, on average, that, while tragic, is still an improvement.

Long story short: I pointed out that overall, under Putin, things improved for most Russians in terms of Civil and Social Rights. Gravlen proceeded to ignore the actual point that I was arguing against, and went an rage-ranting source spam about "hurr durr Russia sucks in terms of Civil Rights!" while imagining that I was somehow arguing the opposite. Note how the Yeltsin time period is carefully omitted from Gravlen's post.

So you're complaining that I don't focus on Yeltsin's rule when looking at whether it's accurate to say that Human Rights have been improving in Russia under Putin? Why would I want to do that?

For the very reason that I explained above.

The period of interest is the one under Putin's rule.

Which includes the period as Russia was, when Putin came to power. If prior to Putin coming to power, 5 journalists are killed on average, per year, and after Putin coming to power, 2 journalists are killed, on average, per year, that's an improvement to everyone except you.

Especially considering how the broader Kremlin crackdown on political activism happened as Putin returned for a third presidential term, and how, to quote Democracy Index 2011, "a long process of regression culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime in light of the cynical decision by Vladimir Putin to return to the presidency...

Leader who maintained an average of over 60% approval rating wants to lead. Oh my, how very cynical of him. Do you actually expect Russians to take you seriously, or are you just here for comedic relief? Speaking of certain Western Observers that are so well defended by people like Gravlen, let's see here. How about the OSCE? http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ART ... LOCK_ID=35

If that last sentence sounds like the paranoid rant of a Putin-era silovik revanchist, then think again. It's the view held by none other than the man who headed the OSCE's 1996 election mission in Russia, Michael Meadowcroft. "The West let Russia down, and it's a shame," said Meadowcroft, a former British MP and veteran of 48 election-monitoring missions to 35 countries. In a recent telephone interview with The eXile, Meadowcroft explained how he was pressured by OSCE and EU authorities to ignore serious irregularities in Boris Yeltsin's heavily manipulated 1996 election victory, and how EU officials suppressed a report about the Russian media's near-total subservience to pro-Yeltsin forces.

"Up to the last minute I was being pressured by [the OSCE higher-ups in] Warsaw to change what I wanted to say," said Meadowcroft. "In terms of what the OSCE was prepared to say publicly about the election, they were very opposed to any suggestion that the election had been manipulated." In fact, he says, the OSCE and the West had made its mind up about how wonderfully free and fair Boris Yeltsin's election was before voting even started...few in the West know about this, it's because the OSCE and the Western media only began to emphasize Russia's systemic electoral fraud and media manipulation in 2003.

"For all the mutual distrust and suspicion that preceded the election, there was consensus on the part of the Government, the Communist opposition and international observers that Sunday's election had been for the most part free and fair." New York Times, June 18, 1996...Meadowcroft is still shocked by the manipulation of his assessment of the election. "I never said 'free and fair.' The weasel words I used were something like 'a step forward for democracy,' but I certainly wouldn't say 'free and fair' as far as I was recording it," he said.

What was Yeltsin's approval rating at the time? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/j ... 3_7-4.html

Beginning with you, Condoleezza Rice, how do you explain this extraordinary comeback from an 8 percent low approval rating in January to this victory? You heard Strobe Talbott refer to Boris Yeltsin's physical and political resilience. How do you explain it?

Well, there's no doubt that Boris Yeltsin is a truly resilient political figure. I think he used the powers of the incumbency quite well. I think he was helped by the fact that the independent press had a kind of coincidence of interest with him. I don't believe he controlled the press as much as they understood that if the Communists won, there would be no independent press, so they had every reason to support him and to put the best face on Yeltsin's campaign.

So, in case you're paying attention in Russia:

leader with 8 percent approval rating wins election: Free and Fair!
leader with 60 percent approval rating wins election against the same guy: Rigged, electoral fraud, or, to quote the "great" Human Rights expert, Gravlen, "cynical decision to run!"

Did the OSCE stand up against their words allegedly being twisted? Not really. Maybe they gave lip service.

Why the discrepancy? Because under Yeltsin, Russia was weak. Putin was making Russia strong. So the West created this fiction that in the 1990s everything was amazing so that Yeltsin could stay in power, make Russia weak, and the West could superimpose Western Values on the Rest of the World, as China was still a sleeping giant. Actual Russians had to live through reality. Then, in 2003, when Russia was getting stronger, the West suddenly discovered reality. Human Rights in Russia in the 1990s sucked. Speaking of journalism: http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/a ... blish.aspx

Let me share a few examples of what I've experienced in my reporting:

May of 1997. I am the anchor and author of the TV magazine on press and politics produced by NTV (non-government television), Russia's best independent network owned by MOST-media. A person I interviewed spoke harshly of the chief lieutenant of one of Russia's most powerful media moguls, Boris Berezovsky, who was then an ally of the owner of NTV. Six days later my show was cancelled. I was out of a job.

September of 1997. I did an investigative series on the Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, who is currently a presidential candidate in the upcoming 2000 presidential election in Russia...The reaction of the editors at the four other publications was almost hysterical: "Are you crazy? The day after we publish some negative story exposing Moscow's mayor or his closest entourage, our bills on electricity, water, office rent will double or even triple. We are not suicidal by any means!" They were being brutally honest. Novaya Gazeta did get into trouble as a result of publishing my series: The renovation of its new office space was stopped, apparently under the order of the Moscow city government. I also received a letter in my mailbox"You deserve a bullet"along with some nasty phone calls.

September 1998. January 1999. April 1999. I produced stories about different investigations. I took them to the same publications. I had many of the same conversations, resulting in the same outcomes...

In 1996, the presidential campaign clearly showed that those who had dared to invest in media were gaining power and political influence. Thus, by late 1996 and into 1997, Russia's so-called "oligarchs"a half dozen or so super- wealthy tycoons who, before last year's financial collapse, dominated the country's economy went hunting for newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations to buy.

By late 1998, independent national media accounted for 1.42 percent out of all national print and electronic media. Now, one year later (and a year prior to the next presidential election and six months before the parliamentary elections), independent media (those media institutions owned by the public, predominantly journalists who work there) account for a very tiny 0.7 percent.

So 1999, free media is 0.7 percent. Today, roughly half of the population of Russia have access to 99 percent of the internet. Only in Gravlen's mind is this not an improvement.

[Shofercia]

I don't know what Shoefercia is talking about here. The freedom of speech hasn't been improving during Putin being president. How can it improve if there were less laws regarding internet cencorship back in 2000 than it is now.

And as a bonus. Now you can face 5 years of prison in Russia for criticizing Red Army actions. Freedom of speech...

When more people have better access to more diversified information, society is freer as a result. A society with internet access and 1,000 internet-regulation laws, which block less than one percent of the relevant internet content, is freer than a society with no internet, provided that other media is equally regulated in both societies. It's really not that complicated. Posters can try to spam sources and derail my point, or the thread, but facts are facts, no matter how good those arguing against the facts are; they'll just end up being comedic relief.

[Shofercia]

Also, unpaid interns of Government of Russia who might be reading this, and the Russian Online Community who is - take a good look at this thread. The Western Liberals aren't going to support you. The Western Conservatives, like the one who made this thread, aren't going to support you either. There's no need to pander to either one of their interests. Please, abolish the anti-LGBT Law. Take a look who supports you on NSG. All of us are either against the law, or won't give two shits if it was abolished. That's all of us. And don't bother pandering to the Pussy Riot types either. Obviously don't jail them, but if they want to mock you, feel free to mock them. And if they go for hooliganism on par with what they did, the equivalent of blasting loud music in a meditation garden, again, no jail, that's overkill, but make them street sweepers or something. Yeah, some Liberals will bitch, but the extreme majority of the people who matter to you, won't care, or will agree with you.

The number one job of the Government is to take care of the people living under their rule. Blatant violations of innocent minorities shouldn't happen. Abolish the law. But you shouldn't pander to anyone either, unless they matter, and even then, pander in a manner that won't harm the majority of the population, or basic human rights. You guys are Centrists. Why you go all the way to the right on LGBT? Not cool. Not sure if anyone is reading this, but RuNet is ready to make Russia a better place, and we're ok with moving at your pace, as long as most of us, stay Centrist. Besides, with LGBT Crusade out of the way, they'll be forced to bash Russia over Navalny, and the retort to that is quite easy: "why you support racism in Russia, while not letting quite a few Russians vote in Estonia and Latvia. Is racism a part of Human Rights for you, a part of your so called values?"

Thank you,

Shofercia

[Gravlen]

Wrong. I noted that you decided to start talking about standard of living, the economy and birthrates. That was moving away from human rights as a topic.

If you cannot comprehend that Social Rights assisted massively in the increase in standard of living in Russia, you shouldn't be debating about Russia, or wasting anyone's time for that matter.

Wasting time would be the one who argues that a high birth rate is evidence that human righs and social rights are improving. And that one is you.

Source?

You talking about the rights of Latvia and Estonia to create an entire category of stateless people based on their ethnicity. The ethnicity discriminated against just happened to be Russian, Hippo, erm, I mean Gravlen.

Source?

Yeah...

Try reading it again.

Oh right, I misread something about an organization that equated Cuba with Prague Spring,

I know it's difficult to read, but: the suppression of the Prague Spring.

Not to mention that an organization ranking a country where almost half of the population, (probably more by now,) has Internet, where "a small number of specific sites are blocked or filtering targets a small number of categories or issues", next to a country like Zimbabwe, it's a bit hard for someone with a sane mentality to take them seriously.

Also using paid progovernment commentators to manipulate online discussions, using takedown requests and forced deletion of content to curb discussion (including being fired from their jobs, barred from universities, or detained if they did not comply), having dramatically expanded its surveillance apparatus (in Russia the hacking into the phone of an opposition activist was deemed to be legal) in addition to the blacklist law.

So the fact that many people are getting online doesn't negate the abuses by the Russian government.

I kinda do. I think it should be subject to judicial review, and I find that blocking the Wikipedia page on Cannabis and the sites featuring the cartoon “Dumb Ways to Die” (including YouTube) is problematic.

That's nice dear, but your opinion doesn't really matter

Of course it does.

Or are you saying that you're mostly spamming now?

I don't know why you felt the need to trim the quote before reproducing it. Here's the full quote:

In recent years, freedom of expression in Russia has come under severe attack. A number of pieces of legislation have been adopted limiting the ability of opposition voices to make themselves heard. An Analysis released today by CLD demonstrates that, even against this troubling backdrop, the recent decision by Russia’s government to create an Internet blacklist is a particularly ominous development.

“Although the Internet is famously resistant to censorship or control, Russia’s content regulation framework has tremendous potential to clamp down on online speech” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “We are particularly concerned about moves to ban speech that ‘propagandises non-traditional sexual relations’ which is clearly targeting the LGBT community.”

Key problems with Russia’s blacklist are that it imposes overly broad and illegitimate bans on content and that it lacks appropriate safeguards against political abuse. This problem is exacerbated by a lack of transparency in the way the system operates and insufficient procedural protections for those whose material is targeted for takedown.

In the period since the law has come into force, there is already ample evidence of its overbreadth, with several innocuous websites having been put on the blacklist. CLD calls upon the Russian government to review its whole approach to controlling Internet content, with a view to bringing the system into line with international standards regarding the right to freedom of expression.

I was talking about a direct quote from CLD. Hint: it was the one in quotes. You know, these things: "" You failed to grasp that.

So you have no objections to the points presented. Noted.

As you see, the quote highlights several issues beyond the crackdown on homosexual rights. In fact, you can remove the part about 'gay propaganda' and what it says is still alarming. It's probably convenient to overlook that, but...

Also, I note that you don't disagree with anything in this quote, yet still seem to maintain that this has no effect on freedom of expression in Russia.

Nice strawman there Gravlen.

You should stop using words you obviously don't understand.

I didn't actually say that it has no effect on freedom of expression. I did say that it's potential negative effect, when compared to other positive developments, such as Internet users multiplying twenty fold, is small.

Actually, you didn't say anything of the sort, being to busy to dismiss the quote out of hand.

Additionally, I was curious though, as to which websites were actually blocked. Unlike you, I tried doing actual research, not just taking what someone said for granted,

I forgot - you think that providing sources for an argument is the opposite of backing up your argument - hance your unwillingness to do so.

and the number of blocked sites was rather small when compared to the overall numbers of websites. Less than one percent. The biggest scandal was blocking of Lurkmore, (which I didn't support, nor did quite a few Russians,) and after instructions on how to make drugs were removed, the website was unblocked.

Doesn't change the fact that the system lacks transparency, proper judicial oversight, and already has a history of being abused.

Let me give you a numbers hypo that you can hopefully understand: if ten percent of society have access to 100 percent of the information, and 90 percent have access to 10 percent of the information, that society is less free than a society where 40 percent have access to 99 percent of the information and 60 percent have access to 10 percent of the information. That's my point.

That's nice dear, but your opinion doesn't really matter

You will, of course, repeatedly fail to grasp it, much to my amusement. Do keep up. I can even use the source that you provided in the latter paragraph: 35,498 websites are blocked. The World has 634 million websites. So let's see here, that's what, 0.006 percent? I can source a basic math lesson if you'd like.

And how many were blocked in 2008?

At this point, I'd like to apologize to those in Russia if you read Gravlen's travesty. Oh yeah, this website isn't banned in Russia, because the mods crack down on racism, drug making and child pornography.

And if I should suggest that someone take part in an unauthorized demonstration in Russia, this site would be in violation. Were I to suggest that homosexual relationships are normal, the site runs into trouble if a student accesses it from school.

I've deleted the crap that followed, since the numbers, which were central to my argument, were addressed.

So concerns about human rights abuses = "crap". Hmmm...

Once again Gravlen, I must remind you that my argument was about improvement in Human Rights under Putin, or improvement between 1999/2000 until today, as compared to what was going on between 1881 and 1998/1999. You are more than welcome to pretend that it's something else, and I'll throw you a kibble treat every time you do.

I was responding to the statement that "with the exception of Gay Rights and a couple of other stuff, Human Rights have been improving in Russia under Putin".

I'm not surprised that you fail to understand it. It's called "context", and it's all the rage these days.

Reporters sans frontières operates with two lists: "Enemies of the Internet" (which came first in 2006), and "Under Surveillance" (which was created a year later, in 2007). Russia was put on the latter list in 2010, and has stayed there ever since.

Judging by how you're doing your best to ignore the context of my argument, I don't think you understand what context is.

Please explain how I'm ignoring any context.

It declined from 5 in 2009 (3 confirmed murders), to 0 in 2010, 1 murder in 2011, 1 murder in 2012, 2 murders in 2013.

If you look at murders, this is how it looks since 2000:

2000 - 2
2001 - 1
2002 - 2
2003 - 2
2004 - 1
2005 - 2
2006 - 3
2007 - 1
2008 - 2
2009 - 3
2010 - 0
2011 - 1
2012 - 1
2013 - 2

http://cpj.org/killed/europe/russia/murder.php

There's no real decline of journalists being murdered for doing their jobs during the reign of Putin. (Perhaps during Medevev, but he was mostly a puppet, so...) It's pretty even. And yes, I'm not including murders where the motive is unconfirmed.

2 and 5 are different numbers. If the rate of deaths drops from 5 to 2, that's a 60 percent drop! We're supposed to be comparing that to 1993-1999. Context, remember? Of course you don't, you're Gravlen, so you only go for context when it's convenient for you. Prior to Putin, between 1993 and 1999, the average was 5. During Putin, judging by the numbers you're using, the average is 2. You do comprehend that 2 is less than 5, right, Gravlen? Please tell me that you at least get that!

So the average under Putin is 2, and last year 2 journalists were murdered. That's not a decline.

Actually, it doesn't. It shows that the rate of journalists being murdered is lower than the rate of murders in the population as a whole. Which is an odd thing to look at, but be that as it may, it does not take into consideration the violence and threats the journalists have suffered, so you cannot conclude that journalists are safer than the average Russian going by these figures alone.

Let me repeat the quote from Article 19:

Safer from being killed, yeah, I can.

Sure, you can move the goalposts.

You can repeat the quote all you want, but I'm comparing Putin's Russia to Yeltsin's Russia, a contextual point that you're keen on omitting.

One that was not warranted by the original post by Oneracon.

So unless you actually present some numbers on Yeltsin's Russia, your sources are irrelevant to my argument, which was:

You do know that with the exception of Gay Rights and a couple of other stuff, Human Rights have been improving in Russia under Putin, right?

Since you're failing to grasp even this basic point, Gravlen, improved means are better under Putin, than they were under Yeltsin. For instance, if prior to Putin's coming to power, 5 journalists were killed a year, on average, and after, 2 were killed a year, on average, that, while tragic, is still an improvement.

Alright, so we're back to "Yay Putin is not as bad as Stalin".

So you're complaining that I don't focus on Yeltsin's rule when looking at whether it's accurate to say that Human Rights have been improving in Russia under Putin? Why would I want to do that?

For the very reason that I explained above.

Which is pretty much wortless since we should be examining the situation under Putin. I.e. the last 13 years.

Especially considering how the broader Kremlin crackdown on political activism happened as Putin returned for a third presidential term, and how, to quote Democracy Index 2011, "a long process of regression culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime in light of the cynical decision by Vladimir Putin to return to the presidency...

Leader who maintained an average of over 60% approval rating wants to lead. Oh my, how very cynical of him.

The cynical part is when he manipulates the elections.

So, in case you're paying attention in Russia:

leader with 8 percent approval rating wins election: Free and Fair!
leader with 60 percent approval rating wins election against the same guy: Rigged, electoral fraud, or, to quote the "great" Human Rights expert, Gravlen, "cynical decision to run!"

You are aware that both Yeltsin and Putin could manipulate the elections, right? The one doesn't rule out the other.

So 1999, free media is 0.7 percent. Today, roughly half of the population of Russia have access to 99 percent of the internet. Only in Gravlen's mind is this not an improvement.

The deterioration we've seen in recent years is not improvement. If you want to look back to the 90's, well, there's more internet cencorship and regulation in Russia today than in 1999. Much more.

[Gallup]

Oh, this is getting buttery! Keep going, I love this stuff.

[Shofercia]

Oh, this is getting buttery! Keep going, I love this stuff.

Sorry, but I only have X amount of time a day to waste on Gravlen, looks like you're going to wait till tomorrow.

BTW, can you quote his posts?

[Gravlen]

Oh, this is getting buttery! Keep going, I love this stuff.

I don't know where you see this going. We might go round after round but I don't think we'll make any progress - especially since any sources provided apparently will be ignored.

[Exi1and]

Unpaid interns of Government of Russia who might be reading this, I am sure that you do not need my encouragement, but please do not change the policy in homosexual propaganda. I'm sure you know you have the support of the Russian public in these areas, and it is their support that matters.

[Gravlen]

Unpaid interns of Government of Russia who might be reading this, what the Hell are you guys doing? Get paid, people! It's almost taco thursday, and you don't want to miss that!

Also, read what Amnesty International has to say:

Behind the Smokescreen of Olympic Celebrations: Key human rights concerns in the Russian Federation.

[Othelos]

Unpaid interns of Government of Russia who might be reading this, I am sure that you do not need my encouragement, but please do not change the policy in homosexual propaganda. I'm sure you know you have the support of the Russian public in these areas, and it is their support that matters.

Yeah, as long as other people support victimizing others for their humanity, it's okay.

[Gallup]

Oh, this is getting buttery! Keep going, I love this stuff.

I don't know where you see this going. We might go round after round but I don't think we'll make any progress - especially since any sources provided apparently will be ignored.

I like feisty debates with lots of sources.

[Gallup]

Unpaid interns of Government of Russia who might be reading this, I am sure that you do not need my encouragement, but please do not change the policy in homosexual propaganda. I'm sure you know you have the support of the Russian public in these areas, and it is their support that matters.

Unpaid interns? I don't get that.

[Akallabab]

Personally, based on some of the things I have read about Putin I think he is generally a good guy, HOWEVER, I don't believe in the imprisonment of people for the simplicity of showing support of same sex marriage. And unfortunately I fear that there will be great tension during the games and this situation makes me feel that the gay athletes of America and all other countries competing will have a very hard time adjusting to the pressure that will undoubtedly be placed on them by participating in these games.

[Akallabab]

Unpaid interns of Government of Russia who might be reading this, I am sure that you do not need my encouragement, but please do not change the policy in homosexual propaganda. I'm sure you know you have the support of the Russian public in these areas, and it is their support that matters.

You have to understand that a country may not want their athletes getting jailed for things that aren't Russia's government's damn business.

[72o]

I'd like to see boycotts, the worst thing that could happen is that this turns into a russian propaganda event. It was a terrible decision to have the olympics in russia, they don't deserve it. I can understand if athletes don't want to boycott though, they've trained years for this. In that case I hope some of them have the balls to speak out against putin's russia.

[Sealand of America]

No because who cares how they want to structure their society. If another person thinks they are not treating a group well they should at their own expense move this group to their country and provide citizenship. It is a moral solution and works for everyone. As for the games why punish the athletes for the sake of politics.

[Sealand of America]

Unpaid interns of Government of Russia who might be reading this, I am sure that you do not need my encouragement, but please do not change the policy in homosexual propaganda. I'm sure you know you have the support of the Russian public in these areas, and it is their support that matters.

You have to understand that a country may not want their athletes getting jailed for things that aren't Russia's government's damn business.

Jailed do people plan to go there and cause a scene to become famous. If they keep it to themselves and go to compete no one will bother them.

[Oneracon]

No because who cares how they want to structure their society. If another person thinks they are not treating a group well they should at their own expense move this group to their country and provide citizenship.

Well unfortunately the UN and most of the civilized world don't have the coordination to organize a mass exodus of persecuted minorities from Putin's regime.

For those lucky enough to escape most developed countries (such as Canada) offer refugee status for those who face discrimination and oppression based on sexual orientation.

It is a moral solution and works for everyone.

Actually the moral solution would be for Russia to abide by international law (specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and stop its human rights violations.

[Sealand of America]

Why does the UN need to be involved are the people who want this incapable of forming a nonprofit to do this. If they can organize to oppose it with media attention they can use the same resources to relocate them. Action instead of complaining about something they can't change. It is more productive and accomplishes the goals of providing what they call rights. The government organizing such things would be impossible but the resources that private individuals have could accomplish this.

[Regnum Dominae]

Unpaid interns of Government of Russia who might be reading this, I am sure that you do not need my encouragement, but please do not change the policy in homosexual propaganda. I'm sure you know you have the support of the Russian public in these areas, and it is their support that matters.

Why should tyranny by majority be elevated over human rights?

[Imperialist Belgium]

So Russia had decided Sochi for the winter games, and such that like You probably know this because Putin announced this in 2009 (I think) and yeah... So, my question is...

WHY Would Russia out of all places choose Sochi for the Olympics?!

Is Putin TRYING To kill us all?! Do they know how DANGEROUS it is over there?! It's RIGHT NEAR Chechnya and the warzones! They KNOW THAT Chechen Militants can EASILY get to Sochi and kill everyone there! And there had been car bombings!

Seriously, why not host it in Far East Russia? Siberia? It's FAR MORE Safer there. China and Mongolia are friends with Russia... =_=

[Tovarish Stalin]

Most likely a resurgence in the ol' Soviet love of Sochi. Or perhaps due to it being the most decent (weather wise) place in Russia.

Of Course, Putin thinks he can destroy these terrorists, and if they attack Sochi... I kinda think Putin might just commit a genocide xD

[Aeken]

Biggest resort city in Russia. Why wouldn't you want to attract visitors?

I expect Circassian terrorists. If they even make it.

[Vitaphone Racing]

One does not simply walk into Sochi.

[Saludong]

Sochi is a good place, give Putin a chance.