Connect with us

homepage news

D.C. competing against two cities to host Gay Games

A look at LGBT rights in two cities competing with Washington to host Gay Games

Published

on

GG9, International Gay Games, Cleveland, Ohio, Gay Games 9, cheer, gay news, Washington Blade
Team DC, Cleveland Gay Games, gay news, Washington Blade, 2022 Gay Games

The Gay Games attract thousands of athletes and spectators; D.C. faces competition from two cities in its bid to host the 2022 event. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Advocates in Hong Kong and Guadalajara, Mexico say LGBT rights and the quality of life for LGBT people have advanced significantly over the past decade in their respective cities as they compete against D.C. to host the 2022 Gay Games.

With the assistance of LGBT sports groups, both cities have submitted a bid to the Federation of Gay Games highlighting their city’s reputation for hosting large international events and its ability to accommodate tourists and visitors, especially LGBT visitors.

The FGG announced in February that Washington, D.C., Hong Kong and Guadalajara had been selected as the three finalists in the process of selecting the host city for the 2022 Gay Games. The FGG said it would select the winning city at its annual meeting in October following visits by its site selection committee to each of the three cities in June.

As many as 15,000 mostly LGBT athletes and as many as 10,000 spectators are expected to attend the Gay Games in 2018 in Paris, and it’s possible that a similar number could turn out for the 2022 Gay Games, observers have said.

Mayor Bowser and the City Council have expressed strong support for D.C.’s bid and the region’s existing sporting venues, infrastructure, and its long record of inclusive pro-LGBT laws make the city a strong contender for the Gay Games, observers have said.

A 300-plus page bid document submitted by Gay Games Hong Kong 2022 and an LGBT sports group called Out in Hong Kong says efforts to bring the Gay Games to Hong Kong have received “active support” from the Hong Kong government, the city’s Equal Opportunities Commission, the Hong Kong Tourism Board, and the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, which oversees relations between Hong Kong and China.

Gay Games, gay news, Washington Blade

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has said the city government is working diligently to support the city’s bid for the 2022 Gay Games. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

LGBT sports leaders in Guadalajara have joined with the Guadalajara Convention and Visitors Bureau to submit that city’s bid for the 2022 Gay Games, according to FGG official David Killian. Similar to Hong Kong, Guadalajara’s bid document says the city government and a large number of mainline sports organizations as well as LGBT sports groups in Guadalajara and other cities in Mexico, including Mexico City, have expressed strong support for holding the Gay Games in Guadalajara and have pledged to assist in hosting the Games.

Both Hong Kong and Guadalajara state in their bid documents that holding the Gay Games in their respective cities would mark the first time the Games have been held in either Asia or Latin America. The two documents also point out that while LGBT rights have advanced significantly in both cities discrimination and bias still exists and holding the Gay Games in their respective cities could play a role in strengthening support for LGBT equality.

Recent reports published by Out Right Action International, an LGBT advocacy organization that monitors LGBT-related developments in countries throughout the world, confirm that LGBT equality has advanced significantly in Hong Kong and Mexico. The reports also point out that similar to other countries, including the United States, LGBT people are not fully protected under the law in some areas and anti-LGBT bias and discrimination remain a problem.

Status of LGBT rights in Hong Kong

Hong Kong, China, gay news, Washington Blade

Hong Kong (Photo by Diliff; courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

As a British colony, Hong Kong had long criminalized homosexual acts under British law and did not repeal its anti-sodomy law until 1991, long after it had been repealed in Great Britain. However, under the decriminalization in Hong Kong the age of consent for gay men was set at 21 while it remained at age 16 for heterosexuals. The law was silent about lesbians. It was not until 2006 that a court ruled the higher age of consent for gay men violated Hong Kong’s Bill of Rights Ordinance, resulting in an age of consent at 16 for gays and straights.

In a separate court ruling in 2005 it was declared that the Bill of Rights Ordinance could be interpreted to cover sexual orientation in its non-discrimination protections. But the ordinance only applies to government agencies and not to private sector institutions.

Despite a growing LGBT rights movement with numerous LGBT advocacy groups and annual LGBT Pride celebrations, advocates have yet to persuade the Hong Kong government to legally ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the private sector. Hong Kong law also does not recognize same-sex relationships.

Although tolerance and acceptance of the LGBT community has grown significantly in Hong Kong since the 2000s, according to activists there, a setback surfaced in 2011 when Hong Kong’s Social Welfare Department retained a controversial psychiatrist to train social workers on how to use conversion therapy to change people from gay to straight.

Gay Games Hong Kong 2022 nevertheless says in its bid document that the fight for LGBT equality in Hong Kong has been gathering momentum in recent years, “fueled by renowned local figures proudly proclaiming their homosexuality and encouraged by progressive legislation in other countries.”

Meanwhile, the arrest this week by Hong Kong police of nine leaders of a 2014 pro-democracy campaign one day after a committee considered supportive of China chose Hong Kong’s next chief executive officer is not expected to adversely impact Hong Kong’s bid to host the 2022 Gay Games, according to activists familiar with Hong Kong politics.

Some observers said the arrests of the protest leaders immediately after the selection of a new Hong Kong government leader, Carrie Lam, who was favored by Beijing, is a sign that China’s influence over Hong Kong is on the rise and the longstanding tension between Hong Kong and China was expected to increase.

“Lam’s victory, despite her lack of representation and popular support, reflects the Chinese Communist Party’s complete control over Hong Kong’s electoral process and its serious intrusion of Hong Kong’s autonomy,” Joshua Wong, leader of a dissident political party in Hong Kong, told the New York Times.

With China’s policies on LGBT issues considered significantly less supportive than Hong Kong’s policies, some observers say it’s hard to predict where Hong Kong’s LGBT community will stand five years from now when the Gay Games would be held.

But in response to an inquiry from the Washington Blade, Gay Games Hong Kong 2022 officials Dennis Philipse and Benital Chick sent the Blade an email statement saying the association with China by Hong Kong’s newly selected government leader, Carrie Lam, could be a benefit to the LGBT community.

“We know from our constant contact with those close to Ms. Lam that she appears to be supportive and we have no reason to believe otherwise,” the statement says. “Ms. Lam is both aligned with Beijing and strongly vested in maintaining Hong Kong as the open Western gateway to Asia as it has for hundreds of years,” the statement says.

“While tensions between China and Hong Kong exist on many levels in terms of economic and political issues, China has been tolerant toward apolitical gay issues as seen in the many gay events now held in China such as the Shanghai Pride and homosexual movies/TV series in China,” the two activists said in their statement.

“There have been LGBT+ sports leagues in China and gay issues have never been a source of tension between Hong Kong and China. As such, we don’t see any potential problems that will arise in holding the Gay Games,” the statement concludes.

Under an agreement with Great Britain in 1997, the British returned Hong Kong to China with the understanding that for the next 50 years Hong Kong would retain an autonomous system of government and its relationship with China would consist of “one country, two systems.”

Experts familiar with China note that since that time China has pushed hard to increase its influence over Hong Kong, leading to growing tension between Beijing and Hong Kong’s leaders and its diverse population. Observers say that so far China has not sought to curtail LGBT rights advances in Hong Kong.

According to Out Right Action International, since China decriminalized homosexuality in 1997 and removed it from its official list of mental disorders in 2001, the Chinese government “has remained largely silent on the issue of homosexuality.”

However, the policy of silence has left in place widespread discrimination against LGBT people throughout Chinese society that is not covered under China’s non-discrimination laws covering employment and other areas, Out Right Action says in a 2014 report on China. LGBT couples are not recognized as families under China’s laws, the report says.

As of early this week the Chinese Embassy in Washington didn’t respond to a question from the Washington Blade asking if China has a position on whether the Gay Games should be held in Hong Kong.

LGBT rights in Guadalajara

Guadalajara, Mexico. (Photo by Allenpivot; courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

Although LGBT rights in Mexico have advanced significantly in recent years, LGBT Mexicans can boast that same-sex sexual acts were decriminalized in Mexico 1871 – far ahead of the United States. The decriminalization came shortly after France’s brief occupation of Mexico ended and the Napoleonic Code was adopted, which, among other things, did not define consensual sodomy as a crime.

Activists familiar with Mexico note, however, that separate laws prohibiting “public immorality” or “indecency” have long been used to prosecute gays under certain circumstances.

LGBT organizations began to form in some regions of Mexico in the 1970s, with LGBT parades taking place in Mexico City since 1979 and in Guadalajara since the 1990s.

Out Right Action International reports that although Mexico’s constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, a clause in the constitution banning discrimination based on “preferences of any kind” and for “any other reason which degrades human dignity” have been interpreted by some legal experts means LGBT people should be covered under the document.

In a separate development, Mexico’s national legislature in 2003 passed a law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in employment, but the law doesn’t cover gender identity or expression.

In 2015, Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for states and regions to ban same-sex marriage. However, the ruling did not make the action immediately and fully binding on states, where, like in the U.S., marriage laws are written. Unless approved by newly adopted state laws, same-sex couples must file a legal petition and incur legal costs of $1,000 or more in order to obtain a marriage license.

In a separate ruling, the Mexican Supreme Court in January 2016 effectively legalized same-sex marriage in the state of Jalisco, which includes Guadalajara and the popular gay resort city of Puerto Vallarta.

Several other Mexican cities, meanwhile, including Mexico City, had legalized same-sex marriage, resulting in a patchwork of places where same-sex couples could marry in a way similar to heterosexual couples.

Last year, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto attempted to resolve that problem by introducing legislation to amend the constitution to fully legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. The legislation died in committee last November following a groundswell of opposition from the Catholic Church and conservative factions in the country.

The vote to kill the legislation followed numerous protest rallies both for and against the measure, prompting LGBT people to become active in many parts of the country where LGBT activism had not been visible.

Guadalajara’s bid document for the 2022 Gay Games expresses optimism that the overall LGBT rights advances in Mexico will make Guadalajara an excellent setting for the Games.

“Since 1982, at the start of the Gay Games, the people of Mexico have pushed our legislative system into the modern era and there is no going back,” the document says. “With progress year by year, Mexico has seen at first hand change in its citizens and in its political system.”

The document praises President Pena Nieto for his support for LGBT equality and notes that, among other things, he has taken steps to make sure transgender people can enter Mexico to participate in or watch the Gay Games even if their passports or birth certificates don’t reflect the gender to which they currently present.

“It is our intension to increase the participation of members of the LGBT community in Latin America for the first time in the history of the Gay Games,” the bid document says.

The bid document notes that Guadalajara has hosted large international events, including the Pan American Games in 2011, and its infrastructure for hosting the Gay Games is already in place.

“As a community, not only Guadalajara but Mexico, we have moved forward with the inclusion and integration of the LGBT community,” the bid document says. “Growing year by year, Mexico is hungry and anxious for an opportunity to demonstrate our potential,” it says.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has said the city government and several of its key agencies are working diligently to support the city’s bid for the 2022 Gay Games.

Brent Minor, president of Team D.C., which is coordinating the city’s bid for the Games, said he prefers not to comment on whether political issues in Hong Kong might impact that city’s bid for the Games.

“I don’t know enough about the geopolitics of Hong Kong,” he said, adding that he hasn’t closely followed Hong Kong’s or Guadalajara’s bids for the Games.

“We are focused on the D.C. bid and we really want the Games to come here because we think we can offer a quality experience that’s accessible to a lot of people,” said Minor. “And so we’re very focused on that.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

homepage news

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign

Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Published

on

Kelley Robinson (Screen capture via HRC YouTube)

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman and veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is to become the next president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group announced on Tuesday.

Robinson is set to become the ninth president of the Human Rights Campaign after having served as executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and more than 12 years of experience as a leader in the progressive movement. She’ll be the first Black, queer woman to serve in that role.

“I’m honored and ready to lead HRC — and our more than three million member-advocates — as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,” Robinson said. “This is a pivotal moment in our movement for equality for LGBTQ+ people. We, particularly our trans and BIPOC communities, are quite literally in the fight for our lives and facing unprecedented threats that seek to destroy us.”

Kelley Robinson IS NAMED as The next human rights Campaign president

The next Human Rights Campaign president is named as Democrats are performing well in polls in the mid-term elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving an opening for the LGBTQ group to play a key role amid fears LGBTQ rights are next on the chopping block.

“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reminds us we are just one Supreme Court decision away from losing fundamental freedoms including the freedom to marry, voting rights, and privacy,” Robinson said. “We are facing a generational opportunity to rise to these challenges and create real, sustainable change. I believe that working together this change is possible right now. This next chapter of the Human Rights Campaign is about getting to freedom and liberation without any exceptions — and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.”

The Human Rights Campaign announces its next president after a nearly year-long search process after the board of directors terminated its former president Alphonso David when he was ensnared in the sexual misconduct scandal that led former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. David has denied wrongdoing and filed a lawsuit against the LGBTQ group alleging racial discrimination.

Kelley Robinson, Planned Parenthood, Cathy Chu, SMYAL, Supporting and Mentoring Youth Advocates and Leaders, Amy Nelson, Whitman-Walker Health, Sheroes of the Movement, Mayor's office of GLBT Affairs, gay news, Washington Blade
Kelley Robinson, seen here with Cathy Chu of SMYAL and Amy Nelson of Whitman-Walker Health, is the next Human Rights Campaign president. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

Former Ambassador Daniel Baer explains it all on Ukraine crisis

Expert downplays strategic thinking behind Putin’s move

Published

on

Daniel Baer, United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, gay news, Washington Blade
Daniel Baer served as U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Daniel Baer, who worked on LGBTQ human rights and transatlantic issues as one of several openly gay U.S. ambassadors during the Obama administration, answered questions from the Washington Blade on Ukraine as the international crisis continues to unfold.

Topics during the interview, which took place weeks ago on Jan. 27, included Putin’s motivation for Russian incursions, the risk of outright war, predictions for Russia after Putin and how the crisis would affect LGBTQ people in Ukraine.

Baer was deputy assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and U.S. ambassador to the Organization of Security & Cooperation in Europe.

The full interview follows:

Washington Blade: What’s your level of engagement with this affair? Are you doing any consulting work? Is the administration reaching out to you at all?

Daniel Baer: I actually think the White House is doing a pretty good job of recognizing that they need to not only have press conferences, but also talk to other people who are trying to figure out how to be constructive critics, idea generators from the outside.

Blade: OK, so you’re being solicited and engaging on this issue. My next question for you is why do you think Putin is doing this at this time?

Baer: So, I guess taking a step back from the whole thing, one of the things about a problem like this is that everybody is searching for the right answer assuming that there is a like comfortable or compelling or intellectually accurate answer, and I actually think we’re just in a really hard moment.

I don’t know why he’s doing it now. And in fact, I think that one of the puzzles that we haven’t solved yet is that all the things that he says are the reasons that he’s doing it — that he feels encirclement by NATO, … or that the situation in Ukraine is untenable — none of those things have changed. Setting aside the fact that they’re spurious, it’s not like there’s been some new move in the last 12 months that has precipitated [a reaction] on any of those fronts that you can say, “Oh, well, he’s responding to the recent meeting where Ukraine was offered membership in NATO, or he’s responding to a change in government in Ukraine that it’s clearly anti-Russia, or any other move that we’ve done.” The explanation just doesn’t hold water, and so I think we need to look for alternative ones.

The best I can come up with is actually just a broad — it doesn’t actually explain this particular moment, but I think you could look at the timing of his life. He has, I don’t know, 10 years left. And during those 10 years, it’s unlikely that Russia is going to grow more powerful; it’s much more likely that it’s going to become at least relatively and probably nominally less powerful. And so, if you’re unhappy with the status quo, and you feel like you’re a declining power, and you don’t have endless time, there’s no time like the present. And you’ll make up whatever reasons you need to in order to justify it.

I also think there’s a tendency on our part to attribute far more “strategery” to Putin than there necessarily is. I mean, he’s a bully and a thug. I think the whole Putin’s playing chess and we’re playing checkers is actually completely inverted. We’re in our own heads that there’s some kind of nuanced position that would mollify him. He’s just a gangster and he’s taking a punch because he has one. And I don’t think it gets much more complicated than that. And so, I guess the answer to why he’s doing this now, because the international conditions are such that he feels like the United States is focused domestically, the Ukrainians are not moving forward with succeeding to build — they’re kind of in stasis on building a European state— and he has, you know, he has the space to take a punch, so he’s contemplating doing it, or he’s already decided to do it. And he’s just extracting as much as possible before he takes it.

Blade: That leads me to my next question: What is your judgement of the risk of out and out war?

Baer: I don’t know because I have two hypotheses that cut both ways. One is that I think Putin is vastly underestimating the degree of resistance. On the other hand, I think that nothing short of domination is satisfactory. And so, I don’t know. I guess I think there’s a 90 percent chance that he does something, and I think there’s a 75 percent chance that what he does is not an all out invasion or ground invasion, at least not at first, but rather something that is aimed at confusing us. So some sort of hybrid or staged or false flag kind of attack in tandem with a political coup in Kiev, where he works to install a more Russia-loyal leader.

The thing with the ground invasion is that Russian soldiers’ moms are one of the only, like, powerful political forces in civil society in Russia. I just don’t see any way that a ground invasion doesn’t involve massive Russian casualties, even if they will be dominant. The people who are going to impose the consequences on him will be the Ukrainians, not the rest of us, and he should not invade, and if he does, we should, frankly, work hard to make it as painful and difficult for him as possible.

Blade: What will that look like?

Baer: I think we should at that point continue — we shouldn’t pause, we should continue to send the defensive equipment and backfill as much as possible their ability from an equipment basis to resist.

Blade: So if we were to look at a model for past U.S. engagements. I’m thinking Greece under President Truman, which was so successful that nobody really knows about it, I don’t think. Is there any model we should be looking toward, or not looking toward?

Baer: No, I guess. I’m not sure there’s any good historical model because obviously, any of them you can pick apart. I do think that one thing that has gotten lost in a lot of the analysis — and this goes back to Putin being a gangster thug, and not being such a genius — is there’s a moral difference between us. The reason why Putin gets to control the dialogue is because he’s willing to do things that we aren’t willing to do — as gangsters are, as hostage-takers are — and so yes, they get to set the terms of what we discussed, because we’re not holding hostages. We’re trying to get hostages released. And the hostage-taker has an upper hand and asymmetry because they are willing to do something that is wrong.

We shouldn’t lose the kind of moral difference there. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that Ukraine is being menaced. And I’m not saying it’s our obligation [to intervene militarily], certainly not our obligation. They aren’t a treaty ally. We have neither a political obligation nor a moral one to necessarily risk our own lives, our own soldiers in defense of Ukraine. But if Ukraine wants to defend themselves, there’s a strong moral case to be made that anything, short of risking our own lives, is something that is morally good. We generally believe that self-defense from lethal threat is a reasonable moral cause and assisting others in defending themselves is too — I think there’s a lot of back and forth that get glossed over whether that’s a provocation or whatever, and I want to say to people stand back, look at this: we’ve got one party that is attacking another. And the question is, does the other have a right to defend itself? Yes. And if they have a right to defend themselves, and they also have a right to have whatever assistance people will offer them in defending themselves.

That doesn’t mean that they get to demand that we show up and fight in the trenches with them, of course, and I don’t think there’s any serious people who are recommending that but it’s a good thing to help them. It’s not like a technical thing. It’s a good thing to help

Blade: Getting into that moral background, one thing I want to ask you was about the significance of what would happen in this concept of democracy versus autocracy. First of all, how much is Ukraine a functional democracy, in the sense that if we’re defending Ukraine, we are defending a democracy, and what signal do you think it would send if that Ukrainian government fell to Russian autocracy?

Baer: I think the institutions of government that the Ukrainian people have are not worthy of the Ukrainian people’s own demonstrated commitment …

They are not worthy of the Ukrainian people’s own demonstrated commitment to the idea of democratic institutions. So the answer is today’s Ukrainian government is a mixed bag and it’s very hard to build, on the rot of a Russian fiefdom, a functioning democracy, so I think it’s a mixed bag. I don’t want to sound like I’m minimizing [the changes], or that they’ve completely bungled an easy project. It was always going to be a hard project, and it was never going to be linear.

But I think that what we’ve seen from the Ukrainian people — by which I mean not Ukrainian people, but people of Ukraine — is that there is a broad part of society that a) does not want to live under a Russian thumb and b) sees its future in kind of European style democracy. And so I think that if there was, there’s no question that the Russian attack would be in part about subjugating the people of Ukraine and forcing them to live under some sort of new Russian satellite. And I think that there’s little space for serious argument that that’s something that the people of the country wish to have.

Blade: But I’m just kind of getting at — you’re kind of minimizing that this is a strategic move by Putin, but if he were to successfully dominant Ukraine it becomes a Russian satellite isn’t that saying like, “Well, ha ha West, you thought the Cold War was over and there’s going to be just be a unipolar world in the future but no, we’re gonna we have this we’re back and we’re gonna create a multipolar world for the future.”

Baer: Yeah, I mean, my answer to the Russians who always raise the multipolar world to me is, “Fine, it’s going to be a multipolar world. What makes you think that Russia is one of the poles?” Poles by definition draw people to them, they are compelling and a pole attracts, magnetically or otherwise, and there is nothing attractive about the model that Russia is pursuing. And if the only way that you can be a pole is by subjugating, to force your neighbors, you are proving that you are not one.

I think the benefits for Russia are far smaller than Putin thinks and I think the consequences for the rest of the world of allowing a violation of international order to go forward are much larger than many people recognize.

Blade: But that was their approach when they were the Soviet Union. They were subjugating the Eastern Bloc through Russian force. They did have, in theory, the concept of their worldview of you know, of socialism, or whatever you want to put it charitably, was going to be the right way to go. Is there really that much of a difference?

Baer: Yeah, however disingenuous it was, they did have an ideology . So you’re right, that was a key distinction. The other thing is that the Soviet Union in relative size — its economy and population etc. — was much larger than Russia is today. And Russia is shrinking, and its economy is less diverse than the Communist one was. I think it’s a delusion to think that they’re going to kind of rebuild an empire, even if yes, because of their willingness to do awful things, they could potentially for a time politically control through violence, their neighbors. I just don’t — in a multipolar world, I don’t see Russia being one of the poles, at least not on its current path.

Blade: How would you evaluate the U.S. diplomatic approach to this issue?

Baer: There’s been very clear over-the-top effort to include the Europeans at every step — meetings with them before each meeting and after each meeting, to force conversations into fora that are more inclusive and stuff like that. And I think that Secretary Blinken is rightly recognizing the need to kind of play a role of kind of keeping everybody on the side while we test whether diplomacy whether there’s anything to do, whether there’s any promise with diplomacy.

I think there’s kind of, sometimes kind of, two camps in U.S. foreign policy circles. One is like: We should give the Russians what they want because it just doesn’t matter that much. War is much worse than anything that we would give them. And another is that we can’t give them an inch and we have to punch them in the face whenever we can. And I think both of those are kind of knee-jerk positions that have become a bit religious for people and neither of them is paying attention to the practical challenge that’s in front of the administration, which is like this guy’s threatening to invade and we need to identify whether there’s any opportunity for a functional off ramp, and that doesn’t mean we do that in a vacuum and ignore the long-term consequences, but our problem is not a religious one, it’s a practical one. And I think they’re doing a pretty good job of threading the needle on that and being not too far forward and not too far back.

Blade: Do you see any significant daylight between the United States and Europe?

Baer: No, I mean, no more than the minimum that is possible. There’s a lot of talk about Germany these days. Look, I think some of the things they say are not particularly helpful, but I don’t actually think that in the long run, if Putin invaded, I don’t think that they would hold up sanctions or anything like that. So I think they’re on our side, even if they’re talking out of both sides, in some cases.

Blade: I am wise to the fact that this is a nuclear power. It might be a little old school, but could escalation get that far?

Baer: There can’t be war. There can’t be war between NATO and Russia. It should be avoided. Obviously, there can be, but it should be avoided.

Blade: How committed do you think President Biden is to protecting Ukraine?

Baer: Reasonably so. I think he’s enough of an old school trans-Atlantist that he understands that this isn’t just about Ukraine.

Blade: I was wondering because he had those comments from his press conference about “minor incursion” and I’m just wondering if you’re reading anything into that or not.

Baer: No, I think that was that was a — I think broadly speaking, everything he says is in line with the kind of view that you would expect. And of course, one sentence can catch [attention]. That wasn’t what he meant. What he meant was that he didn’t want to draw a “red line” that would prejudge policy in response to something short of the most extreme scenario.

I think it is a good caution to not obsess over a single sentence and to look at the broad considered policy statements.

Blade: What do you think if you were looking for developments, like what would you be looking out for is significant in terms of where we are going to be going in the near future? This is one thing to keep an eye out for but is there anything else that you are kind of looking out for in terms of the near future?

Baer: I guess I would look out for whether or not the United States joins meetings of the so-called Normandy Format, which is the France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia grouping, which has so far been unsuccessful, but I think can only be successful as the United States joins it, but the Russians, I think have misgivings with the idea of our joining it.

Blade: I’m not at all familiar with that. What makes this forum particularly so —

Baer: So it was started in the summer in like June of 2015, on the margins of some meeting between Merkel and Hollande. The French and the Germans are very committed to the idea that they might be able to mediate peace between Ukraine and Russia. It was supposed to implement the Minsk Agreement, and it just hasn’t been productive so far. I don’t think that the Russians will do anything — I don’t think the Ukrainians feel comfortable negotiating anything without the Americans at the table. And I don’t think the Russians feel like anything is guaranteed without the Americans at the table. So I just, I’m fine with France and Germany taking the lead, but I think the U.S. has to be there.

And there was a meeting of this group in Paris yesterday, and which the U.S. was supportive of, and so I’m watching to see whether or not the United States gets added in some ad hoc way, whether there are future meetings. I guess the reason I would watch it, if the U.S. were to join future meetings that would signal to me that it’s actually there’s some diplomacy happening there.

That’s meant to be focusing mainly on the existing Russian invasion, the occupation of the Donbas, so that’s not about the threat of the new invasion, but it would be interesting to me if there was forward movement on other parts of Ukraine. The announcement of the American ambassador is one. I think that last week movement of troops into Belarus was a game changer for the U.S., because there are all kinds of new implications if you’re using a third country as your launchpad for war, and so it complicates things and it also looks more serious if you’re starting to deploy to third countries and stuff like that. So I think that was that last week, you noticed a difference in the U.S. tone and tenor in response to that.

So things like that. But in general, like what I would do and I don’t think people always catch this is because there’s a boiling frog aspect to it. There are statements coming out from the White House or State Department. Almost every day on stuff related to this and like last week, there was a noticeable change in the tenor as the U.S. became less, I think more pessimistic about the prospects of diplomacy and those I don’t have anything better to look for in those statements as tea leaves, in terms of what the U.S. assessment is of the prospects of the escalation are, so it’s bad.

Blade: Right. That’s very sobering.

There’s a lot of talk, and I’ve just been seeing some like about in terms of, there’s like comparisons to Afghanistan and making sure that all Americans are able to get out of Ukraine. Is that comparing apples to oranges?

Baer: Yes.

Blade: And could you unpack that a little bit? I mean, I can kind of guess the reasons why. How is that apples to oranges?

Blade: Well, the level of development in Ukraine in terms of infrastructure and transport and stuff like that is not comparable to Afghanistan. I think it would be– if there were a Russian invasion–you would definitely want to, obviously, for safety reasons, it’s not safe to be in a war zone, so you would want people to be able to evacuate and you’d have to plan for that.

A major concern [in Afghanistan] was also that there were tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of locals who had worked for the Americans. The Americans that are in Ukraine are not a departing occupying power. There’s just not the same footprint there — the Americans are in Ukraine or there as business people or young [people working on] democracy assistance or whatever. And it’s just it’s a different context.

Blade: Why do you think the Russians put up with Putin? I mean, this is a country that was a world power and I would think has some economic potential just given its sheer size, first of all, and they do have oil to offer people. So why aren’t the Russians like angry at him for obstructing their participation in the global order as opposed to just putting up with him for years and years and years.

Baer: Successful instrumentalisation of cynicism. The lack of a belief in an alternative will keep you from fighting for it.

Blade: That’s pretty succinct.

Baer: I mean, I don’t think there’s any question that the people of Russia could be better off or different in terms of kitchen table issues, and ease of navigating the world, prospects for their future for their children’s future. The amount of money that Putin has invested into military modernization that Russia can ill afford, while he’s cut pensions and social services and health care. It’s just it’s objectively true that the average Russian person would be better served by a different leader. But he’s done a very good job of effectively selling off the country for profit and persuading people through repression and propaganda that there is no alternative.

Blade: And Putin won’t be around forever. Once he finally goes, is an alternative going to emerge, or will it be the next guy in Putin’s mold?

Baer: I think it’s far from clear that what comes after Putin isn’t worse and bloody. Regimes like this don’t reliably have stable transitions.

Blade: Wow, okay.

Baer: Yeah, we shouldn’t… we should be careful about wishing… wishing for his demise.

Blade: That’s good to know. It’s kind of a frightful note for me to end my questions. But actually before I sign off, there’s one more thing too because I do kind of want to talk about the intersection about your old job in democracy and human rights and then a Venn diagram of that with your experience in Eastern Europe in particular. Do you have a sense of what’s at stake for LGBTQ people in Ukraine or if they’re in more danger right now than they would be otherwise?

Baer: That’s a good question. I mean, my knee jerk reaction is yes. That — as mixed of a picture as Ukraine has been in the last seven years, or eight years — there have been meaningful steps forward, and certainly, in terms of visibility.

I guess, in the sense that Ukraine is better than Russia today, if you’re gay, if Russia is going to occupy or control Ukraine we can expect that it will get worse because it will become more like Russia.

Continue Reading

homepage news

Trump ribbed Pence for thinking ‘it’s a crime to be gay,’ new book says

Former president openly wanted gay Fox News analyst for Supreme Court

Published

on

Donald Trump (left) ribbed former Vice President Mike Pence (center) in a meeting with Andrew Napolitano for thinking "it's a crime to be gay." (Blade photos of Donald Trump and Mike Pence by Michael Key; screen capture of Andrew Napolitano via Fox News YouTube)

Donald Trump, in the days before he took office after the 2016 election, openly contemplated naming an openly gay Fox News contributor to the U.S. Supreme Court amid concerns from social conservatives about his potential choices and ribbed former Vice President Mike Pence for thinking “it’s a crime to be gay,” according to the new book “Insurgency” detailing the former president’s path to the White House.

The key moment between Trump, Judge Andrew Napolitano and Pence took place during the transition period after the 2016 election when Trump invited the other two for a meeting at Trump Tower.  That’s when Trump reportedly took the jab at Pence.

“During their meeting, for part of which Mike Pence was present, Trump ribbed Pence for his anti-gay rights views,” the book says. “Addressing Napolitano, Trump gestured toward the archconservative vice-president-elect and said, ‘You’d better be careful because this guy thinks it’s a crime to be gay. Right, Mike?’ When Pence didn’t answer, Trump repeated himself, ‘Right, Mike?’ Pence remained silent.”

The potential choice of Andrew Napolitano, who was fired last year from Fox News amid recently dropped allegations of sexual harassment from male co-workers, as well as other TV personalities Trump floated for the Supreme Court, as detailed in the book, were among the many reasons conservatives feared he wouldn’t be reliable upon taking the presidency. Ironically, Trump would have been responsible for making a historic choice for diversity if he chose a gay man like Napolitano for the Supreme Court, beating President Biden to the punch as the nation awaits his selection of the first-ever Black woman for the bench.

The new book — fully titled “Insurgency: How Republicans Lost Their Party and Got Everything They Ever Wanted” and written by New York Times political reporter Jeremy Peters, who is also gay — identifies Trump’s potential picks for the judiciary as a source of significant concern for conservatives as the “Never Trump” movement was beginning to form and expectations were the next president would be able to name as many as four choices for the Supreme Court. Among the wide ranges of possible choices he floated during the campaign were often “not lawyers or judges he admired for their legal philosophies or interpretations of the Constitution,” but personalities he saw on TV.

Among this group of TV personalities, the books says, were people like Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, whom Trump “regularly watched and occasionally planned his flight schedule around, directing his personal pilot to adjust the route accordingly so the satellite signal wouldn’t fade.” Trump told friends Pirro “would make a fine justice,” the books says.

Trump potentially making good of his talk about naming Napolitano as one of his choices for the Supreme Court “would have been doubly unacceptable to many on the religious right,” the book says. Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, was friendly with Maryanne Trump Barry, Trump’s sister and a federal judge with a reputation for liberal views, such as a ruling in favor of partial-birth abortion, and is also gay, both of which are identified in the book as potential concerns by the religious right.

Napolitano and Trump were close, the book claims. Napolitano, as the book describes, had a habit of telling a story to friends about Trump confiding to him the future president’s knowledge of the law was based on Napolitano’s TV appearances. Trump told Napolitano: “Everything I know about the Constitution I learned from you on Fox & Friends,” the book says.

The book says the meeting with Trump, Pence and Napolitano when the former president took a jab at Pence in and of itself suggested Trump “was indeed serious about giving the judge some kind of position in the government.” Napolitano, known for making outlandish claims as a Fox News contributor —such as the British government wiretapped Trump Tower — never took a post in the Trump administration.

The new book isn’t the only record of Trump ribbing Pence for his anti-LGBTQ reputation. A New Yorker profile in 2017 depicted a similar infamous meeting with Trump and Pence in which the former president joked about his No. 2’s conservative views. Per the New Yorker article: “When the conversation turned to gay rights, Trump motioned toward Pence and joked, ‘Don’t ask that guy— he wants to hang them all!'”The incident described in “Insurgency” was similar to the meeting detailed in the New Yorker profile.

Trump ended up making a list of names he pledged he’d limit himself to in the event he was in the position to make a selection to the Supreme Court and made good on that promise based on his selection. By the end of his presidency, Trump made three picks to the bench who were each confirmed by the U.S. Senate: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. 

But Trump limiting his options to the list of potential plans was not a fool proof plan for conservatives. To the surprise of many, Gorsuch ended up in 2020 writing the majority opinion in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, a major LGBTQ rights decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which determined anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination and illegal under federal civil rights law.

The Washington Blade has placed a request in with Trump’s office seeking comment on the meeting with Pence and Napolitano as described in “Insurgency.” Napolitano couldn’t be reached for comment.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular