Lithuania is without doubt one of the most pro-European nations within the European Union and positions itself as strongly against its greatest existential menace – Russia. Nevertheless, in relation to civil rights, the ethical compass of the political elite generally factors extra in the direction of the East than the West. That is notably the case with LGBTQ individuals’s rights. A very good instance of how political homophobia works in Lithuania is the controversy across the e book Amber Coronary heart (Gintarinė širdis), created by the youngsters’s creator Neringa Macaitė (pen identify Dangvydė) and revealed in 2013.
The e book featured six fairy tales with unconventional characters from varied 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 ‘homosexual propaganda’ regulation – sure organizations and politicians managed to get the e book recalled from bookshops and ultimately marked with warning indicators about their content material allegedly being unsuitable to kids. The fairy tales have been deemed to be an try at spreading ‘gender ideology’ and inspiring younger kids to enter gay relations.
The censorship came about again in 2014 and was closely criticized regionally and by worldwide establishments all through the years, together with the January 2023 determination by the European Courtroom of Human Rights within the case Macatė vs Lithuania. The Courtroom 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 determination, 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.
So why does Lithuania, which traditionally opposes Russia so strongly on the political degree, generally proceed to mimic Russian-style social insurance policies and discourses such the notorious ‘homosexual propaganda’ regulation?
Censorship and ethical panic
Initially revealed in December 2013 by the Lithuanian College of Academic Sciences with the monetary assist of the Ministry of Tradition, Amber Coronary heart shortly grew to become the centre of an argument. Sure non-governmental organizations and politicians had expressed their concern over the allegedly damaging content material of the e book. What appeared to fret them most have been the tales about love between a prince and a male tailor who ‘held arms and exchanged loving glances whereas they walked within the royal backyard’, and a few 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 probably dangerous to younger kids, distorting their sexual orientation.
The controversy started in March 2014 with an article in one of many greatest Lithuanian dailies Lietuvos rytas, which included responses from the creator in addition to opinions concerning the e book expressed by the members of the non-governmental group Lithuanian Mother and father 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 e book – race, class and incapacity have been additionally included within the didactic tales, supposed for kids aged between 9 to 10 years-old. Macatė had hoped that the e book might scale back bullying at colleges and foster acceptance of distinction. These have been additionally the explanations for the scientific reviewers of Macatė’s e book to beneficial that the College publish it within the first place.
The LPF, nonetheless, noticed the e book as manipulative and harmful. ‘Numerous uncles and aunties who write these type of fairy tales need to instil the picture within the baby’s thoughts that very same intercourse marriages are attainable. They need to normalize homosexuality,’ one LPF member advised journalists. Such books would possibly trigger psychological issues for kids, he mentioned, including that he didn’t consider that homosexuality could be inborn. ‘All this speak about gay kids is made up,’ he argued. ‘I’ve by no means seen any analysis displaying that homosexuality could be congenital.’ One other member expressed the idea that the e book was part of the marketing campaign to ‘reprogram’ and ‘desensitize’ Lithuanian society and instil international, western values. A couple of days after the article appeared, the Ministry of Tradition obtained a letter from a involved particular person, who claimed that the e book ‘inspired perversions’. Following this grievance, the Ministry ordered the Inspectorate of Journalist Ethics to judge the fairy tales.
Occasions then snowballed. Two weeks later, a bunch of Lithuanian MPs despatched a letter to the College questioning the choice to publish the e book. 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 e book might certainly have a unfavourable impact on minors.
It based mostly its determination on the part 4 § 2 (16) of the Act on the Protection of Minors from Negative Effects of Public Information, which states that info ‘which expresses contempt for household values, encourages the idea of entry into a wedding and creation of a household apart from stipulated within the Structure of the Republic of Lithuania and the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania’ is dangerous to kids. Based on the Inspectorate, the ‘fairy tales that painting the connection between same-sex {couples} as regular and self-evident are dangerous to a toddler’s fragile, nascent worldview and are overly invasive, directive and manipulative’ It ordered the distribution of the e book to be restricted and that copies be marked with a sticker stating that info contained within the e book ‘might have a unfavourable influence on individuals beneath 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 e book.
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. ‘Based on scientists, academics and educators, kids who’re too younger to have an curiosity in sure social points, equivalent to narcotic medicine or totally different sexual orientations, shouldn’t be forcibly uncovered to details about them’, said the college in its official response. Public libraries, which had obtained the copies of the e book earlier than the controversy began, have been contacted by the college and requested to place the label ‘N-14’ on them. The remainder of the copies have been distributed to bookshops, which have been additionally obliged to mark them with the labels. Refusal to take action might have resulted in a effective.
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 e book by the college and arguing that it was motivated by prejudice in opposition to same-sex {couples}. Her claims and appeals have 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: ‘Because the baby learns that individuals of the identical intercourse can love one another, that “the center desires what it desires and loves whom it loves” … it may 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 have 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 due to this fact be interpreted as constituting ‘contempt for household values’ and inspiring ‘the idea … of a household apart from that stipulated within the Structure and the Civil Code’, and thus be sanctioned.
After exhausting all authorized means in Lithuania, Macatė took her case to the European Courtroom of Human Rights, claiming that her rights had been violated in keeping 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 Courtroom found 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 fame as a kids’s creator and probably discouraged different individuals from writing on comparable subjects.
The Courtroom didn’t discover the contents of the e book sexually specific or probably dangerous to kids, however that they promoted tolerance in the direction of social variety, because the creator supposed. Quoting varied worldwide paperwork, the ECtHR emphasized that info on same-sex relationships shouldn’t be in itself damaging to minors however, quite the opposite, that ‘it’s the lack of such info and the persevering with stigmatisation of LGBTI individuals in society which is dangerous to kids’.
Sadly, Neringa Macatė, was unable to have fun her authorized victory – she handed away in 2020 on the age of 45, together with her mom taking up the authorized proceedings. Well-known and beloved within the Lithuanian author’s neighborhood and LGBTQ neighborhood alike, Macaitė didn’t lack assist in her battle in opposition to censorship. The yr after the controversy and restriction on distribution, a number of Lithuanian NGOs got here collectively to republish and redistribute the e book. Amber Coronary heart was additionally translated to English and is freely available online.
‘All these years Neringa defended not solely her personal dignity and freedom of speech, however that of the entire LGBT neighborhood,’ said Jūratė Juškaitė of the NGO Lithuanian Human Rights centre, one of many strongest advocates of Macaitė; ‘she didn’t agree that details about two individuals of the identical intercourse who love one another could be dangerous to kids.’ A few of Macatė’s buddies publicly wondered if the authorized battles over her e book, and particularly the hate marketing campaign that ensued after publication, might need contributed to her sickness.
The homophobic assaults would possibly certainly have been extra damaging to her skilled fame as a kids’s creator than the restriction on her e book. On the outbreak of the controversy, quite a few commentators not solely reiterated that the fairy tales might be seen as ‘propaganda of homosexuality’, but additionally implied that the creator aimed to ‘distort the picture of household and thus slowly and purposefully destroy the state’. To be named an enemy of the state is definitely not the type of fame that each kids’s creator hopes for.
Minors safety or ‘homosexual propaganda’ regulation?
Regardless of being phrased non-specifically, part 4 § 2 (16) of Lithuania’s Minors Safety Act has till immediately 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 videos 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 part of the upcoming Baltic Satisfaction 2013 – the second homosexual pleasure march ever to take place in Lithuania. The nationwide broadcaster knowledgeable LGL that they may 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 other people in varied social conditions and inspiring assist 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, nonetheless, Satisfaction ultimately came about in all circumstances. Vilnius has develop into welcoming to homosexual pleasure and different LGBTQ neighborhood 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 with no consideration {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 ‘homosexual propaganda’ regulation was handed in 2013. You will need to be aware 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 Courtroom of Human Rights, after a homosexual activist was arrested within the metropolis of Ryazan for holding an indication saying ‘homosexuality is regular’.
But it surely took a couple of years to ‘good’ 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 probably embody something vaguely associated to LGBTQ activism and schooling, whereas additionally avoiding phrases equivalent to homosexuality and thus specific discrimination, to seem like in step with human rights requirements. The passage of the invoice elevated each state persecution of LGBTQ activism and self-censorship of something seemingly too ‘homosexual’: from a memorial to Steve Jobs to the rainbow imagery within the flag of one among 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 in style assist for him wavered throughout the 2008–2009 financial disaster. The crackdown on imaginary western enemies who allegedly goal to import to Russia ‘gender ideology’, ‘homosexual 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 acquire re-election in 2012.
Such processes came about not solely in Russia. Within the 2010s, all nations of the Eurasian Financial Union (EEU), a company that unites the 4 post-Soviet states of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia with Russia, launched legal guidelines modelled on the Russian ‘homosexual propaganda’ regulation. In 2017, Amnesty Worldwide reported that the political, financial and cultural affect of Russia through the Russian-language media had considerably contributed to the rise of hate crimes in opposition to LGBTQ individuals and the overall silencing of sexual minority activism in these nations.
Paradoxes of homophobia
The implementation of the adjustments to Lithuania’s Minors Safety Act in 2009–2010 could be seen as part of the wave of state-sanctioned homophobia within the post-Soviet area. This may appear paradoxical. In any case, not like a lot of the members of the EEU, Lithuania is democratic and pluralistic, and places lots of effort into countering Russian affect and propaganda. General, it has a transparent pro-western route, 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 in opposition to Russia and elevated army assist from the West.
All of that is very true for the conservative occasion 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 occasion 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 info that promoted ‘gay, bisexual and polygamous relations’. After public protests and criticism from the EU, the textual content was ultimately changed. Once more, like in Russia, specific point out of homosexuality was eliminated; the regulation now refers to ‘household values’ and the idea of the household as it’s enshrined within the Lithuanian structure. However there isn’t a doubt that the regulation was crafted to counter ‘homosexual propaganda’. Certain sufficient, the modification has solely been utilized to restrict info on same-sex relations.
The resemblances between part 4 § 2 (16) of Lithuania’s Minors Safety Act and Russia’s ‘homosexual propaganda’ regulation has confirmed uncomfortable for the TS-LKD, which has aimed to border the authorized provision as primarily ‘pro-European’. Conservative politicians such because the MP Mantas Adomėnas have argued that the safety of household and kids is in step with genuine European traditions, and that limiting the unfold of pro-LGBTQ info ought to be seen as defending ‘European Christian civilization’.
Russian discussions of the ‘homosexual propaganda’ regulation have been additionally embedded in discourse on ‘conventional values’ and civilizational-Christian narratives. It’s apparent, nonetheless, that the restriction of human rights of LGBTQ individuals and the liberty of expression usually shouldn’t be suitable 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 varied EU establishments, most just lately by the European Courtroom of Human Rights.
Though the Courtroom’s determination is legally binding, the Lithuanian Parliament (the place TS-LKD holds the bulk) voted in November final yr in opposition to the removing of the part of the Minors Safety Act that enabled the censorship of Macatė’s e book. Based on the MP from the Labour Social gathering, the regulation is critical to prevents kids from being uncovered to the ‘propaganda … about similar intercourse partnerships and relationships’. On prime of that, the president of Lithuania, Gitanas Nausėda, expressed his concern that altering the discriminatory regulation would ‘give a inexperienced gentle to degrade the household’.
The president’s rhetoric, like that of different populist politicians, clearly reveals that the homophobic view of gay individuals as a menace to kids and ‘household values’ nonetheless has robust political forex in Lithuania. That is manifested in unending debates concerning 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 assist in parliament.
Not like in Russia, homophobia in Lithuania shouldn’t be immediately fuelled and orchestrated by the state. As an alternative, it arises from a community of political, non-governmental and non secular organizations and establishments (associated to the Catholic Church specifically), all of which goal to exert affect on parliamentary politics and society at giant. 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 info in Lithuania lately has been made attainable by a authorized provision copied from the Kremlin’s masterminds. This case appears unlikely to alter any time quickly.