Russian security forces raided gay clubs and bars across Moscow Friday night, less than 48 hours after the country’s top court banned what it called the “global LGBTQ+ movement” as an extremist organization.

Police searched venues across the Russian capital, including a nightclub, a male sauna, and a bar that hosted LGBTQ+ parties, under the pretext of a drug raid, local media reported.

Eyewitnesses told journalists that clubgoers’ documents were checked and photographed by the security services. They also said that managers had been able to warn patrons before police arrived.

  • rbhfd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is essentially a pro freedom of speech legislation.

    It’s not though. It doesn’t just protect employers to call anyone whatever pronoun they want, it mandates that the preferred pronoun for trans people (and others) are not used.

    It doesn’t just protect bigotry, it requires it.

    • fosforus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My reading of the bill is that it specifically forbids any mandates towards pronoun use. This may enable bigotry, but does not require it.

      But perhaps you can point to the sentence that requires bigotry since I missed it.

      • Holomew@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        “An employee or a contractor may not provide to an employer his or her preferred personal title or pronouns if such preferred personal title or pronouns do not correspond to his or her sex.”

        You’re right that it doesn’t require bigotry, but this section says that if a transgender person is misgendered, they cannot even request to be referred to by their preferred pronouns. I understand not being forced to refer to any person by any specific name or pronoun, but not being able to share your preferences is the opposite of freedom of speech.

        • fosforus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, seems like you were right and I was wrong. Thank you for correcting me.

          That’s indeed a rather shitty clause which goes beyond protecting free speech.