Quantcast

«

»

Sep 22 2013

Lively’s Role in Anti-Gay Hatred Overseas

NBC has a report about Scott Lively, the deranged anti-gay bigot who thinks gay people were responsible for Adolf Hitler, the Inquisition and even slavery. It has some details about his actions around the world and his role in pushing harsh anti-gay legislation in other countries.

On his blog this month, Lively praised Putin as “the defender of Christian civilization” for signing this summer a ban on information that treats being gay as valid or attractive — and traced the idea to his own tour of Russia in 2006-7. Last week, Lively suggested Russian officials foil gay activists planning to rainbow-bomb the Olympics by flying a rainbow banner over the games so “the global homosexual movement” would be reminded that “the rainbow belongs to God!”…

Lively has reason to be a bit cocky. America may have “fallen to the gays,” he says, but much of the world still fears them and Lively is working to keep it that way.

In Moldova in 2011, according to Human Rights Watch, he helped several cities declare themselves “gay-free zones” and organized an “emergency” campaign to block a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine and Belarus he met with politicians and pastors, fostering talk of new curbs on gay rights. Every place he goes, Lively says, his goal is to block the open expression of homosexuality, keep discrimination legal and make pro-gay advocacy a crime.

“Yes, I think I influenced the Russian law,” Lively said. While some gay rights activists still think he’s just a laughingstock, Boris Dittrich, the director of LGBT advocacy for Human Rights Watch, tends to confirm Lively’s claims. Russia was plenty homophobic before Lively’s arrival but the American pastor appears to have given shape to that free-floating hatred, Dittrich said. As he passed through Russia’s regions, Lively met with politicians and bans on homosexual propaganda followed, spreading to more than a half-dozen areas before Putin swept them into a national standard.

Lively — who calls himself the “father” of Uganda’s anti-gay movement — also shared the first sharp details of his work in Eastern Europe and responded to the rise in hate crimes that seems to follow him around the globe.

In 2006, Lively served as California state director of the American Family Association in Sacramento and fought the “homosexualization” of public schools. He befriended Alexey Ledyaev, charismatic pastor of New Generation, a Latvian megachurch with more than 200 branches worldwide. Together they founded Watchmen on the Walls, a network of activists who pledged to guard the Kingdom of Christ against the siege of homosexuality — and by fall of that year Lively was on a Watchmen trip to Russia.

He landed in Vladivostok, Russia’s largest port on the Pacific Ocean, boarding a train for a 22-hour journey north to Blagoveshchensk, a river city on the border of China. He recalled feeling “just like Dr. Zhivago! Red velvet curtains, a samovar at the end of each car, passing through endless birch forests.” For 10 days Lively used “Blago” as a hub, shuttling in and out of nearby communities, shouting Paul Revere-like warnings of a gay invasion.

By February 2007 he was back in the States in high spirits, bearing a 45-minute highlight reel that he screened at an OCA reunion in Portland. It repeatedly referred to gays as “terrorists,” showed members of the Watchmen interrupting a pride parade in Riga (with bags of feces, according media reports), and included a cross-national howl from a Latvian member of the Watchmen. “Your generation beat the Nazis, and our country beat the Communists,” the activist said. “Together we will defeat the homosexuals!”

A month or so later, Lively was back on the circuit, speaking at the World Congress of Families conference in Warsaw before hopping to Riga, his base for the next several months. He preached in churches, lectured in universities, took the podium at conferences. He sat down with pro-family leaders, pastors and a few members of parliament.

The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit against Lively, accusing him of “crimes against humanity” for his work overseas to pass anti-gay laws. A few weeks ago a federal judge refused to dismiss the suit. I’m not a fan of that suit, however. It’s clearly not illegal in this country, nor should it be, to advocate a policy, no matter how heinous that policy may be. It’s the mirror image of the Russian law that forbids advocacy of gay rights. Lively should be criticized, hounded, and exposed at every possible moment, but he should not be facing legal consequences.

15 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Ichthyic

    It’s clearly not illegal in this country, nor should it be, to advocate a policy, no matter how heinous that policy may be

    uh, the point is that Lively traveled to AFRICA and fubared things THERE.

  2. 2
    Ichthyic

    but he should not be facing legal consequences

    actions have consequences. He manipulated an entirely different legal and political system, and people are being murdered and their rights taken away as a direct result.

    sorry, but yeah, if all he did was mouth off HERE, you might have a point.

    but this ain’t there.

  3. 3
    Ichthyic

    my only complaint is that legal action against lively should have been sponsored by the UN legal commission on human rights, and filed in the International Court.

    Of course, it could be that the reason CCR filed instead is that… oh that’s right… the US did not support the International Court.

  4. 4
    Ichthyic

    again… the lawsuit is filed over actions he took in UGANDA.

    http://www.advocate.com/news/world-news/2013/08/15/scott-lively-will-be-tried-fueling-antigay-persecution-uganda

  5. 5
    iplon

    It actually can be illegal to say stuff that leads to or could, to the rational mind, be intended to incite violence against other people.

    This is how the SPLC operates. It doesn’t sue a KKK leader for saying, “Black people are a poison on society, and it would be better if they were all thrown in jail or killed.” However, it will sue that leader once, after a prolonged campaign of this stuff, several members of his congregation go out and actually start killing people.

    So, Lively isn’t so much being sued for espousing policies that are harmful to human rights, he’s getting sued for succeeding and getting other people to put in place policies that are so clearly and openly in violation of human rights.

  6. 6
    mrlynne

    We in Massachusetts apologize for producing Lively and I know that not voting for Nixon doesn’t make up for it.

  7. 7
    Moggie

    Here’s what I don’t understand: why do these countries need Lively’s input? Are we supposed to believe that, in the various countries where he has dabbled, anti-gay politicians couldn’t figure out how to draft or pass legislation without advice from an American? That the government in Belarus just didn’t know how to oppress its citizens? That homophobic politicians in Uganda were too forgiving? That Latvians didn’t really know what homosexuality is, until he told them? It doesn’t ring true, for me. Is it possible that what’s going on here is simply good old fashioned corruption? Lively could be channelling bribes from the American right to politicians in the countries he visits. Greasing a few palms, in exchange for votes for anti-gay legislation.

  8. 8
    theguy

    “who calls himself the “father” of Uganda’s anti-gay movement”

    Ironically, Christians already have a title for this guy: Father of Lies

  9. 9
    RainbowSlushie^.^

    uh, the point is that Lively traveled to AFRICA and fubared things THERE.

    Very interesting.

    In 2006, Lively served as California state director of the American Family Association in Sacramento and fought the “homosexualization” of public schools. He befriended Alexey Ledyaev, charismatic pastor of New Generation, a Latvian megachurch with more than 200 branches worldwide. Together they founded Watchmen on the Walls, a network of activists who pledged to guard the Kingdom of Christ against the siege of homosexuality — and by fall of that year Lively was on a Watchmen trip to Russia.

    He landed in Vladivostok, Russia’s largest port on the Pacific Ocean, boarding a train for a 22-hour journey north to Blagoveshchensk, a river city on the border of China. He recalled feeling “just like Dr. Zhivago! Red velvet curtains, a samovar at the end of each car, passing through endless birch forests.” For 10 days Lively used “Blago” as a hub, shuttling in and out of nearby communities, shouting Paul Revere-like warnings of a gay invasion.

    This guy is the most virulent anti-QUILTBAG nutcase I’ve ever seen, by far even. This guy must be like the gayest gay guy ever in denial, or something, seriously, WOW. Of course he could just be a straight asshole but straight cisgender people tend to not get THIS worked up about things. Jesus this is just insanity =(

  10. 10
    lordshipmayhem

    If his advocacy results in the imprisonment or execution of anyone for either being gay or supportive of gay rights, then he deserves legal sanction. He would have then crossed the boundary between advocating a repulsive course of action, which is free speech, and “counselling to commit a crime”, which IS a crime.

  11. 11
    matty1

    Do US courts assert universal jurisdiction? That is could they punish someone for an action committed in another country that was legal in that country on the grounds that it would have been a crime in the US?

  12. 12
    Gregory in Seattle

    “It’s clearly not illegal in this country, nor should it be, to advocate a policy, no matter how heinous that policy may be.”

    By his own admission, Lively has gone far beyond mere advocacy and entered into the realm of material support of and co-conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity. Those things ARE illegal in this country, in addition to being criminal activities under international laws that the United States helped to put into place. That is why the federal judge allowed the case to proceed.

  13. 13
    Doug Little

    Wasn’t Manson convicted on his influence of his extended family. I see not much of a distinction between what happened in Uganda to the Manson case.

  14. 14
    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    @matty1

    Do US courts assert universal jurisdiction? That is could they punish someone for an action committed in another country that was legal in that country on the grounds that it would have been a crime in the US?

    Not precisely. The **US** can’t punish someone for an action committed in another country. However, an individual citizen can file a claim against someone for actions performed in another country. This does not apply to all/any torts, but rather claims arising out of torts that also violate treaty obligations and certain portions of international law.

    It’s called the Alien Tort Claims Act, and is quite controversial in international law circles. The provision reads


    “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

    It may seem like the US is punishing, but the US is merely allowing a suit to go forward. The individual wronged is seeking compensation, and even that is not legally considered “punishment”. You’re just being required to pay a person back costs incurred because of your wrongful acts. Theoretically it’s possible to get punitive damages, they may even be common when suing over war crimes. To that extent, you could perhaps say that the US is punishing someone, but the US can’t originate such a court action. It’s a legal person who is not a citizen of the US, and if a corporation or similar is not “domiciled” (based) in the US, which decidedly does not include the US government.

    Hope that helps

  15. 15
    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    If Lively lobbied congress to nuke San Francisco and Portland, and congress, in gross violation of its responsibilities and in contravention of constitution and statute then nuked San Francisco and Portland, you can bet that the nature of that lobbying would be questioned to see if it amounted to conspiracy.

    That’s what this trial is about: did Lively’s participation amount to conspiracy?

    It is not a suit that US law wouldn’t countenance. US law on conspiracy is decidedly broader than conspiracy law in a number of jurisdictions. It really isn’t a greater restriction on Ugandan speech (or speech in Uganda by a foreigner) than is allowed in the US. There are factual issues here that would be the same under US law:

    1) Did the actions of the legislature amount to a crime?
    and
    2) If yes, did Lively’s actions amount to conspiracy with the members of the legislature that committed that crime?

Comments have been disabled.

Switch to our mobile site