Lithuania is among the most pro-European international locations within the European Union and positions itself as strongly against its largest existential menace – Russia. Nevertheless, in relation to civil rights, the ethical compass of the political elite typically factors extra in the direction of the East than the West. That is significantly the case with LGBTQ individuals’s rights. An excellent instance of how political homophobia works in Lithuania is the controversy across the ebook Amber Coronary heart (Gintarinė širdis), created by the youngsters’s creator Neringa Macatė (pen title Dangvydė) and revealed in 2013.
The ebook featured six fairy tales with unconventional characters from numerous stigmatized social teams. Two of the fairy tales included tales of same-sex love. Citing the part 4 § 2 (16) of the Minors Safety Act – the Lithuanian equal of the notorious Russian ‘gay propaganda’ regulation – sure organizations and politicians managed to get the ebook recalled from bookshops and finally marked with warning indicators about their content material allegedly being unsuitable to kids. The fairy tales had been deemed to be an try at spreading ‘gender ideology’ and inspiring younger kids to enter gay relations.
The censorship passed off again in 2014 and was closely criticized regionally and by worldwide establishments all through the years, together with the January 2023 choice by the European Court docket of Human Rights within the case Macatė vs Lithuania. The Court docket said that the restriction of the data on similar intercourse relationships is ‘incompatible with the notions of equality, pluralism and tolerance inherent in a democratic society’.
Regardless of this choice, the Lithuanian Parliament voted in November 2023 to maintain the Minors Safety Act as it’s, together with the part limiting details about same-sex relations.
Baltic Satisfaction 2019. Picture: Pavasario Aitvaras / Supply: Wikimedia Commons
So why does Lithuania, which traditionally opposes Russia so strongly on the political degree, typically proceed to mimic Russian-style social insurance policies and discourses such the notorious ‘gay propaganda’ regulation?
Censorship and ethical panic
Initially revealed in December 2013 by the Lithuanian College of Instructional Sciences with the monetary help of the Ministry of Tradition, Amber Coronary heart rapidly turned the centre of an issue. Sure non-governmental organizations and politicians had expressed their concern over the allegedly damaging content material of the ebook. What appeared to fret them most had been the tales about love between a prince and a male tailor who ‘held hands and exchanged loving glances while they walked in the royal garden’, and a couple of princess who ‘fell asleep with the shoemaker’s daughter in her arms’. The depiction of a dedicated relationship and marriage between individuals of the identical intercourse was deemed to be doubtlessly dangerous to younger kids, distorting their sexual orientation.
The controversy started in March 2014 with an article in one of many largest Lithuanian dailies Lietuvos rytas, which included responses from the creator in addition to opinions concerning the ebook expressed by the members of the non-governmental group Lithuanian Dad and mom Discussion board (LPF). Within the article, Macatė was open about her homosexuality and her intention to advertise tolerance in the direction of LGBTQ individuals. The subject of same-sex relationships was not the one one addressed within the ebook – race, class and incapacity had been additionally included within the didactic tales, meant for youngsters aged between 9 to 10 years-old. Macatė had hoped that the ebook might cut back bullying at faculties and foster acceptance of distinction. These had been additionally the explanations for the scientific reviewers of Macatė’s ebook to really helpful that the College publish it within the first place.
The LPF, nevertheless, noticed the ebook as manipulative and harmful. ‘Various uncles and aunties who write those kind of fairy tales want to instil the image in the child’s thoughts that very same intercourse marriages are potential. They wish to normalize homosexuality,’ one LPF member informed journalists. Such books may trigger psychological issues for youngsters, he mentioned, including that he didn’t imagine that homosexuality might be inborn. ‘All this talk about homosexual children is made up,’ he argued. ‘I have never seen any research showing that homosexuality can be congenital.’ One other member expressed the idea that the ebook was part of the marketing campaign to ‘reprogram’ and ‘desensitize’ Lithuanian society and instil overseas, western values. A number of days after the article appeared, the Ministry of Tradition obtained a letter from a involved particular person, who claimed that the ebook ‘encouraged perversions’. Following this criticism, the Ministry ordered the Inspectorate of Journalist Ethics to guage the fairy tales.
Occasions then snowballed. Two weeks later, a gaggle of Lithuanian MPs despatched a letter to the College questioning the choice to publish the ebook. Inside every week the rector recalled the unsold books from retailers. Within the meantime, the Inspectorate of Journalist Ethics concluded that two of the fairy tales included within the ebook might certainly have a destructive impact on minors.
It based mostly its choice on the part 4 § 2 (16) of the Act on the Safety of Minors from Damaging Results of Public Data, which states that data ‘which expresses contempt for family values, encourages the concept of entry into a marriage and creation of a family other than stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania’ is dangerous to kids. In line with the Inspectorate, the ‘fairy tales that portray the relationship between same-sex couples as normal and self-evident are harmful to a child’s fragile, nascent worldview and are overly invasive, directive and manipulative’ It ordered the distribution of the ebook to be restricted and that copies be marked with a sticker stating that data contained within the ebook ‘may have a negative impact on persons under the age of 14’, or just ‘N-14’.
Following the analysis and the overall strain by sure politicians and organizations, the Ministry of Tradition reprimanded the College and inspired it to adjust to the Inspectorate’s directions. The College in flip handed a disciplinary penalty to the pinnacle of the publishing home and publicly expressed its remorse at publishing the ebook.
Speaking to journalists, the consultant of the college claimed that Amber Coronary heart was ‘a primitive and biased propaganda of homosexuality’ that ought to have by no means seen the sunshine of day. ‘According to scientists, teachers and educators, children who are too young to have an interest in certain social issues, such as narcotic drugs or different sexual orientations, should not be forcibly exposed to information about them’, said the college in its official response. Public libraries, which had obtained the copies of the ebook earlier than the controversy began, had been contacted by the college and requested to place the label ‘N-14’ on them. The remainder of the copies had been distributed to bookshops, which had been additionally obliged to mark them with the labels. Refusal to take action might have resulted in a high-quality.
Opposition to the hate marketing campaign
Shocked by the developments again in 2014, Macatė lodged civil proceedings in Lithuania, complaining concerning the suspension of the distribution of her ebook by the college and arguing that it was motivated by prejudice towards same-sex {couples}. Her claims and appeals had been dismissed. Quoting passages from Amber Coronary heart, the Vilnius District courtroom said that the fairy tales might certainly have been seen as manipulating kids: ‘As the child learns that people of the same sex can love each other, that “the heart wants what it wants and loves whom it loves” … it can be argued that this influences the formation of [the child’s] persona (together with sexuality).’
The Lithuanian courts determined that the College had merely complied with the orders of public authorities, which had been in flip empowered by the Minors Safety Act. So long as Lithuania didn’t acknowledge same-sex partnership in any kind, any optimistic depiction of same-sex relationships or marriage might subsequently be interpreted as constituting ‘contempt for family values’ and inspiring ‘the concept … of a family other than that stipulated in the Constitution and the Civil Code’, and thus be sanctioned.
After exhausting all authorized means in Lithuania, Macatė took her case to the European Court docket of Human Rights, claiming that her rights had been violated in line with the Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR. In January 2023, nearly a decade after the unique occasions, the Court docket discovered that the embargo and subsequent labelling of Amber Coronary heart with ‘N-14’ stickers had certainly interfered with Macatė’s freedom of expression. The restrictions imposed by Lithuanian state establishments and substantiated by homophobic rhetoric had broken Macatė’s popularity as a kids’s creator and doubtlessly discouraged different individuals from writing on comparable matters.
The Court docket didn’t discover the contents of the ebook sexually specific or doubtlessly dangerous to kids, however that they promoted tolerance in the direction of social variety, because the creator meant. Quoting numerous worldwide paperwork, the ECtHR emphasised that data on same-sex relationships is just not in itself damaging to minors however, quite the opposite, that ‘it is the lack of such information and the continuing stigmatisation of LGBTI persons in society which is harmful to children’.
Sadly, Neringa Macatė, was unable to have fun her authorized victory – she handed away in 2020 on the age of 45, along with her mom taking up the authorized proceedings. Well-known and beloved within the Lithuanian author’s group and LGBTQ group alike, Macatė didn’t lack help in her wrestle towards censorship. The yr after the controversy and restriction on distribution, a number of Lithuanian NGOs got here collectively to republish and redistribute the ebook. Amber Coronary heart was additionally translated to English and is freely out there on-line.
‘All these years Neringa defended not only her own dignity and freedom of speech, but that of the whole LGBT community,’ mentioned Jūratė Juškaitė of the NGO Lithuanian Human Rights centre, one of many strongest advocates of Macatė; ‘she did not agree that information about two people of the same sex who love each other can be harmful to children.’ A few of Macatė’s associates publicly questioned if the authorized battles over her ebook, and particularly the hate marketing campaign that ensued after publication, may need contributed to her sickness.
The homophobic assaults may certainly have been extra damaging to her skilled popularity as a kids’s creator than the restriction on her ebook. On the outbreak of the controversy, quite a few commentators not solely reiterated that the fairy tales could possibly be seen as ‘propaganda of homosexuality’, but additionally implied that the creator aimed to ‘distort the image of family and thus slowly and purposefully destroy the state’. To be named an enemy of the state is actually not the sort of fame that each kids’s creator hopes for.
Minors safety or ‘gay propaganda’ regulation?
Regardless of being phrased non-specifically, part 4 § 2 (16) of Lithuania’s Minors Safety Act has till as we speak solely been utilized to limit the entry of minors to any illustration of LGBTQ individuals and same-sex relationships. Amber Coronary heart was not the one occasion of such censorship at the moment – in 2013 and 2014 movies created by the LGBTQ group Lithuanian Homosexual League (LGL) had additionally been censored. The primary featured individuals of assorted sexual orientations (which they proudly declared) inviting society to drop stereotypes and be a part of the upcoming Baltic Satisfaction 2013 – the second homosexual pleasure march ever to happen in Lithuania. The nationwide broadcaster knowledgeable LGL that they might solely present this video with an ‘S’ (suaugusiems – for adults solely) signal and broadcast it after 11 p.m. A yr later, one other publicity video by the LGL, that includes same-sex {couples} and folks in numerous social conditions and inspiring help for LGBTQ rights was censored by a business TV station.
The regulation additionally served as a pretext for the municipality of Vilnius to create obstacles for the organizers of the Satisfaction march in 2010 and 2013. The identical state of affairs repeated itself in Kaunas in 2021. After authorized battle, nevertheless, Satisfaction finally passed off in all instances. Vilnius has turn out to be welcoming to homosexual pleasure and different LGBTQ group occasions because the election of the brand new, extra liberal management in 2016 (though the identical can’t be mentioned about Kaunas). However so long as part 4 § 2 (16) of the Minors Safety Act continues to exist, it can’t be taken as a right {that a} extra right-wing authorities or municipality wouldn’t determine to implement it with full pressure and prohibit any public occasions which include a pro-LGBTQ message.
That is what occurred in Russia after the federal ‘gay propaganda’ regulation was handed in 2013. You will need to observe that the primary model of the regulation was proposed to the Duma again in in 2009, whereas some Russian provinces handed comparable ordinances even earlier. One ended up being mentioned within the European Court docket of Human Rights, after a homosexual activist was arrested within the metropolis of Ryazan for holding an indication saying ‘homosexuality is normal’.
But it surely took just a few years to ‘perfect’ the language of the regulation. The early model of the invoice, mentioned within the Duma, sought to criminalize ‘propaganda for homosexualism, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgender’. The ultimate model, signed by President Putin, prohibited propaganda about ‘non-traditional relations’ amongst minors. This summary formulation was crafted to doubtlessly embody something vaguely associated to LGBTQ activism and training, whereas additionally avoiding phrases similar to homosexuality and thus specific discrimination, to seem like according to human rights requirements. The passage of the invoice elevated each state persecution of LGBTQ activism and self-censorship of something seemingly too ‘gay’: from a memorial to Steve Jobs to the rainbow imagery within the flag of one in all Russia’s easternmost provinces. It led to an upsurge of hate speech, threats and violence motivated by homophobia.
The intensification of political homophobia was instrumental in bringing Putin again to energy after common help for him wavered throughout the 2008–2009 financial disaster. The crackdown on imaginary western enemies who allegedly intention to import to Russia ‘gender ideology’, ‘gay propaganda’ and feminism was supposed to revive masculinity and the ethical righteousness of the nation (the Pussy Riot case is simply one of many many examples). This technique, along with the growing prominence of the Orthodox Church in Russian politics, helped create the picture of Putin because the defender of ‘Christian civilization’ and simply achieve re-election in 2012.
Such processes passed off not solely in Russia. Within the 2010s, all international locations of the Eurasian Financial Union (EEU), a corporation that unites the 4 post-Soviet states of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia with Russia, launched legal guidelines modelled on the Russian ‘gay propaganda’ regulation. In 2017, Amnesty Worldwide reported that the political, financial and cultural affect of Russia by way of the Russian-language media had considerably contributed to the rise of hate crimes towards LGBTQ individuals and the overall silencing of sexual minority activism in these international locations.
Paradoxes of homophobia
The implementation of the adjustments to Lithuania’s Minors Safety Act in 2009–2010 might be seen as part of the wave of state-sanctioned homophobia within the post-Soviet area. This may appear paradoxical. In spite of everything, not like a lot of the members of the EEU, Lithuania is democratic and pluralistic, and places loads of effort into countering Russian affect and propaganda. Total, it has a transparent pro-western course, most clearly expressed in its membership of the European Union and NATO. Lithuania has been one of many staunchest supporters of the Ukrainian trigger and is a persistent advocate for stronger measures towards Russia and elevated navy help from the West.
All of that is very true for the conservative celebration Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats (Tėvynės sąjunga-Lietuvos krikščionys demokratai, TS-LKD), one of many main events in Lithuania. Born out of the anti-Soviet independence motion Sajudis, TS-LKD has at all times had a robust pro-European dedication and been clearly against Russian affect within the nation. However that is additionally the celebration that in 2009 launched the initiative to amend the prevailing Minors Safety Act to successfully prohibit the unfold of data on same-sex relations.
Like in Russia, the preliminary draft of the modification explicitly proposed limiting data that promoted ‘homosexual, bisexual and polygamous relations’. After public protests and criticism from the EU, the textual content was finally modified. Once more, like in Russia, specific point out of homosexuality was eliminated; the regulation now refers to ‘family values’ and the idea of the household as it’s enshrined within the Lithuanian structure. However there isn’t any doubt that the regulation was crafted to counter ‘gay propaganda’. Certain sufficient, the modification has solely been utilized to restrict data on same-sex relations.
The resemblances between part 4 § 2 (16) of Lithuania’s Minors Safety Act and Russia’s ‘gay propaganda’ regulation has confirmed uncomfortable for the TS-LKD, which has aimed to border the authorized provision as basically ‘pro-European’. Conservative politicians such because the MP Mantas Adomėnas have argued that the safety of household and youngsters is according to genuine European traditions, and that limiting the unfold of pro-LGBTQ data must be seen as defending ‘European Christian civilization’.
Russian discussions of the ‘gay propaganda’ regulation had been additionally embedded in discourse on ‘traditional values’ and civilizational-Christian narratives. It’s apparent, nevertheless, that the restriction of human rights of LGBTQ individuals and the liberty of expression normally is just not appropriate with the European values, which is why certainly the Lithuanian regulation (and the same regulation in Hungary handed in 2021) has been criticized quite a few instances by numerous EU establishments, most not too long ago by the European Court docket of Human Rights.
Though the Court docket’s choice is legally binding, the Lithuanian Parliament (the place TS-LKD holds the bulk) voted in November final yr towards the removing of the part of the Minors Safety Act that enabled the censorship of Macatė’s ebook. In line with the MP from the Labour Celebration, the regulation is critical to prevents kids from being uncovered to the ‘propaganda … about same sex partnerships and relationships’. On high of that, the president of Lithuania, Gitanas Nausėda, expressed his concern that altering the discriminatory regulation would ‘give a green light to degrade the family’.
The president’s rhetoric, like that of different populist politicians, clearly exhibits that the homophobic view of gay individuals as a menace to kids and ‘family values’ nonetheless has robust political forex in Lithuania. That is manifested in endless debates relating to the proposed gender-neutral Partnership Invoice, which might give same-sex {couples} a minimum of minimal authorized safety, however which by no means garners sufficient political help in parliament.
Not like in Russia, homophobia in Lithuania is just not straight fuelled and orchestrated by the state. As an alternative, it arises from a community of political, non-governmental and spiritual organizations and establishments (associated to the Catholic Church specifically), all of which intention to exert affect on parliamentary politics and society at massive. This may be seen most clearly within the case of Amber Coronary heart and the intricate system of public indignation inspired by NGOs and political strain teams, the impact of which was institutional (self-)censorship.
Such ethical panics usually are not distinctive to Lithuania, in fact, and may also be seen within the gentle of the latest surge of anti-gender actions in Europe (that are generously supported by Russian cash). And but, it’s not possible to disclaim that the censorship of pro-LGBT data in Lithuania lately has been made potential by a authorized provision copied from the Kremlin’s masterminds. This example appears unlikely to alter any time quickly.
