APRIL THESISES

It cannot be said that yesterday it was early and tomorrow it will be late. Our country has been at the cross-roads for about ten years, and no one knows for how long it will stay in this indefinite state. But sooner or later Ukraine has to get its own organization advocating the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and as a whole the right to be the person you feel yourself to be. For this is already in the air. For, probably, the only freedom that we have gotten so far is the freedom to say what you think. To act according to your consciousness. This will not substitute for cheap sausage, but this is vitally important. It is important to have free choice. Currently it is not difficult to see gays on TV screen or in a paper - it is difficult to see them in the street. For they, naturally, do not differ from ordinary people. And they are ordinary people.

And our land is quite ordinary too. Neither too big, nor small. Far from wealthy, but not beggarly either. Not developed, but having been developing for quite a while. It is not to say that our society is particularly tolerant. But is not homogeneous. We have no common belief or ideology. We have no dominant church. There are a lot of things that are not prohibited, even if not permitted. That is why we have possibilities. And we have to avail ourselves of them.

If viewed from the formal standpoint, the legislation of, say, the Great Britain is a whole lot more homophobic than that of Ukraine. But one thing is a written law and quite another - an unwritten one, a tradition, which usually determines our everyday life. Can you imagine now a deputy of the Supreme Soviet who is an open gay or lesbian? I cannot! And as to our laws - they just keep silent. They do not condemn, but they do not protect either. It seems that whatever is not prohibited, is permitted, but all is not this simple. In practice everything that is not regulated by the law gets regulated by decisions based on voluntarism. In reality our society is thoroughly idealistic. We have a certain image, an ideal to which the state, or the society, tries to tailor its citizens. Thank God this ideal varies. Our laws are not written for people, but people have to "click" with the laws. And the law does not envisages that people can live together on the basis other than consanguinity or an ordinary marriage - so partnership of any kind does not seem to exist. When someone shows that the legislation of the Western countries contains a ramified system of regulating different issues connected with cohabitation that differs from traditional patterns, the answer follows that we have no partnership other than marriage. We have! It is not present in the law, but it is present in the life. Hence it would be logic to legalize it? No, they answer that logically it should not exist. "I see this is Margaret Thatcher, but the inscription reads Indira Gandi". So any slip of paper that mentions gays even in a neutral context means a lot to any official.

Certainly you should not drive anyone to paradise forcefully. For everyone has his own idea of paradise, and such ideas can often be contrary to each other. If a person feels comfortable in his "closet", or if he even likes to sit there or is afraid of getting out of it - he should not be dragged out. There must not be any exposures of covert gays - this is the business of the yellow press. The only exclusion is when a covert gay is also an overt proponent of homophobia. And this situation is far from rare. Then his exposure is just a means of self-defense. But we should seek to avoid making the fear a determining factor of our life. Lest it infect our own life and spoil the life of others. Many gays do not desire some changes for greater openness. Even for others. They are afraid of the society's reaction. In the same way the society has agreed to put up with homosexuality provided it does not stand out to a greater extent than needed for tickling nerves a little bit. Choosing between freedom and calm is up to everyone. And any group interests have no bearing on this. But one should understand that it is in principle not possible to advocate one's own, personal interests ignoring the personal interests of others. Hence some kinds of conflicts are absolutely inevitable. It is essential to seek peaceful resolution of those, a path of compromise - but of a real compromise allowing mutual concessions. The current state of affairs can hardly be called a compromise. Let us take as an example the position of any other minority, say, Catholics. The only infringement of their interests, resulting from their small number is dissociation and lack of infrastructure. Everything is in their hands here. In all other aspects they are hundred percent citizens of our country (let us not take into consideration the orthodox domination which is not all too powerful). With all this, their right to protection from discrimination according to the feature that unites them, is guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws. It is not until sexual orientation is of the same status that we well be able to speak of equality.

It is also important to understand that we are united not so much by the specific sexual orientation as by the principal desire to have a freedom of choice. It follows from here that the issue is the protection of the most common provisions - common for all. Equality acts both ways - hence the attempts to stand out, as well as contraposition and (self)isolation are inadmissible. Hysteric cries - that are heard quite often - like "You consider us to be inferior, but it is only we who are capable of genuine love (poetry writing, sewing underwear) are absolutely unconvincing and testify exclusively to the inferiority complex. Certainly if people are willing to live in a ghetto, it is their right and their choice should be respected. But it should not be popularized as a standard.

Why "possible"? Because there is practically no one who is concerned with gays' problems as much as themselves. One might think: if gays are everywhere - and they are everywhere - why should not they solve their problems each on his own place? They are afraid. And at once cries are heard: "What minorities, if radiation is so awful!". As if when one problem is neglected, it helps solve others. But let's regard this issue in principle - who is potentially friendly and who is disposed to homophobia? On the basis of the Western experience it can be said that traditionally the greatest support gays get from the left and centrist parties and movements. I must make a reservation here: our parties having the same names as the Western ones, very often share nothing more than just the name with those - as is the case with the Russian liberal democrats headed by Zhyrinovsky, for example. Yet potentially friendly toward gays are liberals, liberal democrats, "green" parties, social democrats, socialists and even communists. However this hardly applies to our socialists and more so - to communists. Traditional opponents of all kinds of leniency in regard to sexual minorities are conservative, traditionalist, nationalist and extreme right movements. Undoubtedly, our parties are not going to deal with such issues of their own will. But since they maintain active contacts with their Western counterparts, there is a chance they can pay attention to gay problems as well - just to be like everybody else. It is far from being incredible - in Lugansk you can meet representatives of a certain youth ecological organization who are concerned with the problem of utilization of the spent cartridges for jet printers.

We can hardly wait blessings from the Ukrainian churches. Luckily they are dissociated and mutually hostile. Besides, though (according to polls) the church has the greatest authority, in practice its voice in not heeded much. Theoretically, the attitude of the orthodox and catholic churches (which are traditional for Ukraine) to gays is strongly negative; but in reality everything depends on personal characteristics of a clergymen and parishioners. Most friendly toward gays are some protestant denominations; but they are either absent in Ukraine, or very few in number, or stick to more conservative views compared to their Western counterparts. So, it is hardly worthwhile to seek a dialogue with the people of church - one should rather pay attention to the personal free choice of one's beliefs. To belong to this or that church (as well as to any social organization) does not mean to implicitly subscribe to an official doctrine.

The Western gay movement often uses the idea of "gay pride", which has become an accepted term to determine all kinds of parades and processions. Actually, I guess one concept is substituted by another here. One can pride just in one's own achievements. To take pride in being a gay is senseless, but this becomes understandable as a reaction to a homophobic society. When you see that people around, who consider you - openly or otherwise - to be dirty, lowly, sick, miserable… (you can come across a lot of terms here) - are not in the least any better than you, the reaction is an exaggerated feeling of pride. In fact we should speak of dignity, which every person possesses. It is it that is the root of the problems: we are denied the right to ordinary human dignity. This is felt at once, even if outwardly it is not very clear what its essence is. It is clearly noticed in the way the press and TV present the information. Any procommunist paper in principle will never let itself publish a kind word about its opponents. Any nationalist-patriotic paper, running a material on the problems of Moscow's municipal economy, will recollect how Catherine II destroyed Zaporozhskaya Sech. But a rare paper of any trend will hold itself within the framework of respect in an article "on the topic". Anyway - any kind of information is better than its absence.

We do not need the propaganda of sexual revolution. It will take place without our sponsorship, it is already in its full swing now. Certainly, we will not be able to change the country and the society by our hands in accord with our desire. But since we live in the epoch of changes, we can have an impact on active points: the press, legislative and executive power. And here even the slightest impact can bring tangible results. It is hard to foretell whether all our changes will come to a standstill in our eternal mire or things will get moving. Everything depends here on the direction our country will take. But it hardly has a wide range of choice - we will surely not follow the way of North Korea, so we shall have to go West. The question is just in the speed of movement. Let's hope for the better. Portugal, the poorest country in Western Europe, over the past ten years have covered the path which took some Western counties almost ages. Let's catch up with Turkey - and overcome it!