Connect with us

Is Russian Gay Activist Nikolai Alekseev Anti-Semitic?

Published

on

Russian gay activist Nikolai Alekseev, (photo, above,) touring the United States to discuss the state of LGBT equality in Russia, spoke Tuesday evening at Columbia University and was pointedly asked to respond to an allegation — based upon an entry he wrote on the blogging site Livejournal — that the thirty-three year-old celebrated activist, journalist, and lawyer was, indeed, anti-semitic.

The allegations were first made by Scott Long, formerly of Human Rights Watch, who, apparently, last summer was forced to apologize to U.K. gay rights activist Peter Tatchell for five years of personal attacks. Shortly thereafter, Long was “dismissed,” according to veteran journalist and gay activist Michael Petrelis, who added that Long’s, “official explanation for moving on would have delighted the editors of Pravda in Brezhnev’s day.”

Human Rights Watch also offered Tatchell an apology.

Calling their apology “unprecedented,” Doug Ireland of Gay City News detailed the story in July, 2010, writing, “Human Rights Watch (HRW), the world’s largest and most prestigious human rights organization, has made a stunning public apology to Britain’s iconic gay and human rights activist, Peter Tatchell, for attacks heaped on him by HRW’s Scott Long, who directs the organization’s LGBT program.

“Long made numerous public statements about Tatchell that were ‘inappropriate… disparaging… inaccurate… condemnatory… intemperate personal attacks,’ HRW acknowledged.

“In the June 30 apology to Tatchell, head of the militant British gay rights group OutRage!, HRW’s executive director, Kenneth Roth, acknowledging the falsehoods circulated by Long, said, ‘We recognize that personal attacks have no place in the human rights movement.’”

Ireland added that “The HRW statement included an admission from Long that he’d made false statements about Tatchell.”

(That’s the background. Now, here’s how Long’s recent accusation of anti-semitism against Russian gay activist Nikolai Alekseev comes into play.)

Ireland continues, writing, “for some, HRW’s apology to Tatchell raises more questions than it answers.”

“Nikolai Alexeyev (Alekseev,) the lead organizer of the Gay Pride events repeatedly banned in Moscow Gay Prides and founder of GayRussia.ru, is among those who have been objects of Long’s attacks. An attorney, Alexeyev — who has brought 168 lawsuits against Russia for outlawing gay demonstrations and for officially encouraging homophobia — responded via email to a Gay City News request for comment, saying, “The problem of HRW’s LGBT programs is that it turns around the personality of Scott. I’d be happy to work with HRW on monitoring in Russia, especially because my group is the most experienced in Europe in dealing with LGBT cases at the European Court of Human Rights — but not as long as the leadership is what it is. I think Peter is very kind to forgive all this dirt that was put on him. This can only be to his credit.”

Fast forward to now.

As reporter Karen Ocamb at LGBT POV wrote Tuesday, “[t]he specific offending quote, captured by Scott Long, formerly of Human Rights Watch and now a Visiting Fellow, Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School was:

“The Israeli Prime Minister urged Western leaders to support Egyptian dictator Mubarak … And who after this are the Jews? In fact, I always knew who they were.”

Note that the above quote was translated from the original Russian and provided by Long.

Tanya Domi

Tanya Domi

Last night, Adjunct Assistant Professor Tanya Domi, of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (and a frequent contributor to The New Civil Rights Movement,) pointedly posed the question to a subsequently surprised Alekseev.

“You’ve been accused of being anti-semitic, and I’d like you to respond to the charge,” Domi said, adding, “we’re in a university setting and so we want to have an open discussion.”

Alekseev, who throughout the evening’s ninety-minute presentation spoke excellent English, upon answering this question stammered, but said, “To call me an anti-semite is like to say I burned the Reichstag.”

“Burning the Reichstag,” is similar to the American saying, “the pot calling the kettle black” — but a lot worse. As the story goes, Hitler was responsible for burning the Reichstag — the German Parliament — then accusing the Communists of the evil deed as a pretext to gain power.

Essentially, Alekseev seems to be accusing Long, or those who responded negatively to his Livejournal post, of being the anti-semites, or, at least, evil-doers.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Mwp2dT1IkvI%3Ffs%3D1%26hl%3Den_US

In his speech, Alekseev, “outlined the oppression and even violence he and other Moscow Pride organizers have faced since they first held the event in 2006,” as Michael Lavers wrote. He continued his defense for over three minutes, detailing that he has Jewish friends, and adding that his mother’s stepmother was Jewish, and people he works with are Jewish. This is an unfortunate line of defense as the irony is clear. Who hasn’t heard as a defense of bigotry, “Some of my best friends are (insert oppressed minority name here)”?

But Alekseev denies, emphatically, and for over three minutes, that he is anti-semitic. In the end, he feels it’s lost in translation — “probably there was a semantic in the translation,” Alekseev says, after having accused the Israeli government of saying “all the world should unite around Mubarak… I’m sorry but it pissed me off completely.”

Others have been pissed off completely too, namely Equality California and Robin Tyler, who say, “Our broad coalition of California organizations including Congregation Kol-Ami, Jewish Community Relations Council, Metropolitan Community Church, Los Angeles, Harvey Milk Foundation, SF LGBT Community Center, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Imperial Court of Canada, USA, and Mexico, Gays Without Borders, San Diego LGBT Center, Bayard Rustin LGBT Coalition, Jordan Rustin Coalition, Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club, City of West Hollywood Lesbian and Gay Advisory Committee, Christopher Street West, WEHO, and Get Equal,” “have decided to cancel sponsorship of the California speaking tour of Russian LGBT Activist Nikolai Alekseev.”

“The California sponsors [of Alekseev’s west coast leg of the tour] were unaware of this when they agreed to sponsor Alekseev,” writes Ocamb. “In fact, EQCA’s Andrea Shorter chided Julie Dorf, Senior Advisor for the Council for Global Equality, for not warning EQCA about possible problems with Alekseev when they were having email discussions about international issues.”

But Alekseev beat EQCA to the punch, and canceled the west coast portion of his tour first. And then changed his mind — going, but without the sponsorship — writing on Facebook, “IT IS TIME TO SHAKE CASTRO! AND I WILL DO IT! SO THAT THOSE WHO FORGOT WHAT IS GAY ACTIVISM SWITCH ON THEIR BRAIN AGAIN AND NOT CONCEAL BEHIND THE NAME OF HARVEY MILK!”

(Alekseev apparently uses Facebook a lot. I friended him and was friended me back almost immediately, just hours before his talk at Columbia. I checked his Facebook page and he had written he had just landed in New York only nineteen minutes earlier. When I introduced myself to him at the Columbia event, I referenced the Facebook friendship and he said, “Let’s keep in touch by Facebook.”)

In an earlier Facebook posting, Alekseev acknowledges the Scott Long accusation as the impetuous for his sponsors’ cancelation of his California trip. “Someone called Scott Long decided to run a campaign against me in the last 48h and harassed the sponsors of the events asking them to pull out and cancel,” he writes.

(The obvious question is, why did EQCA and Robin Tyler take Scott Long’s accusation over Alekseev’s reputation? Do we now live in a world where one accusation — albeit unresponded by Alekseev — is grounds for disassociation?)

Alekseev adds, “The bullying campaign by Scott Long made its effect and I got a large pressure which people where not even able to make directly. They understood they were behaving improperly and decided to pressure me indirectly. This is just amazing. This is too much. This campaign has absolutely no reasoning and there is no ground for it.Honnestly, I cannot say that I am disappointed in America. This would be totally untrue.”

It’s apparent that the “bullying campaign by Scott Long” indeed “made its effect” on Alekseev as well. Just two hours after he wrapped up his discussion at Columbia, Alekseev wrote in yet another Facebook message the following very, very long missive:

In the light of the controversy concerning the cancellation of my speaking engagements in California, sponsored by a group of local LGBT organizations, I would like to make the following statement, the essence of which was addressed tonight during my speech at Columbia University.

I would like to state that I am a strong believer in human rights and equality for everyone, irrespective of any personal characteristics, whether it is sexual orientation, race, gender, national or ethnic origin, religion or any other basis.

I did publish in my blogs the comments which were addressed against the Israel Government after Israeli Prime Minister called the world to support Egypt dictator Mubarak and to unite around him, disregarding popular public efforts to oust him. I was angry that anyone could support this dictator as he was killing his own people. My comments appeared to blame all Jews for the actions of the Israeli government and its supporters.

The accusations of me distributing anti-Semitic statements on blogs were initiated by notorious human rights campaigner Scott Long who had to quit his position at Human Rights Watch (HRW) due to his involvement into slandering British human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell for which both Mr Long and HRW had to make a public apology.

(I’d like to draw your attention to this next paragraph, which, if true, says it all.)

Mr. Long was intentionally waiting for my trip to the US to start this campaign against me, which he started the day I arrived in Chicago, a month after this comment were made by me and already long ago after it was removed and address directly with the few who read them and contacted me to discuss it. If Scott Long was truly interested in stopping anti-semitism, why did he wait a month to raise an objection, but instead wait until I landed in the US to start this tour? One can doubt Mr Long would have ever distributed this information if I did not have any speaking engagement in the US. I regret this personal vendetta which goes on between the 2 of us for years might have hurt other people.

I would like to say that I have several Jewish friends who I treasure, including one Jewish American who played a significant role in Moscow Pride movement for years, helping to organize all our events in Russia. I adore her and I consider her as one of the most outstanding people I met in my life. Without her Moscow Pride campaign would not be as successful as it was.

My mum’s stepfather was a Jew who immigrated to Israel from Soviet Union.

I am one of the only persons who always defended Jewish people against the hypocrisy of Switzerland during World War II. This is the topic which almost noone is courageous enough to raise neither in Switzerland itself, nor elsewhere. Just as noone was courageous enough to challenge Gaddafi regime from within Libya and I already did it in 2002 during my trip there risking problems to exit this country.

My grandfather died in World War II fighting the regime which is responsible for killing of millions of Jews. He was fighting for freedom and liberation aged younger than me now. I don’t even know where he found his resting place.

Every time I am in Berlin, and a few weeks ago was not an exception, I visit a massive monument to millions of Jews who died under Nazi devastating rule.

I always dreamt to visit Jerusalem and I am sure I will do it very shortly.

I am a great believer in justice and a great opponent of all injustice. I am always very direct in what I say and sometimes people interpret it the way they want to use it against me.

It is true that I had to cancel my appearances in California due to enormous pressure from the organizers of the tour there. I always said in the last 48h that I would answer any question anyone might have about this issue after my speeches and make them public. And so, I did it tonight at Columbia University in New York., an institution which I admire for not surrendering to the harsh pressure Mr Long put on them in the last day to cancel my appearence. But I still plan to come to California as I know many people are waiting for me there and I have no right to punish them or disregard them.

Closing this statement I would like to stress that I was not personally contacted by any organizers of my tour in California with questions concerning my statements on policy of the Israeli Government. I was not invited in the several conference calls Californian organizers held in the last 48 hours on this issue.

So, is Russian gay activist Nikolai Alekseev anti-semitic? Only Alekseev can know for sure. Was the wording of his Livejournal statement unfortunate, assuming nothing was “semantic in the translation,” as Alekseev puts it? Definitely. Has he responded to the charges sufficiently to exonerate himself? Only you can decide.

But America should know that Alekseev, who is credited by The Advocate as being “the most visible crusader in his country,” patently denies that he is anti-Semitic. And America should also know that his accuser apparently “was intentionally waiting” to make his accusation, and has, as Alekseev said, been “burning the Reichstag.”

The Reichstag, it seems, has been burned a lot.

All photos © Caleb Eigsti, taken March 1, 2011 at Columbia University

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

White House Confirms Trump’s Shift That Pushes SAVE Act Further Right

Published

on

The White House has confirmed President Donald Trump is moving to push the controversial SAVE America Act further right — which could make it even easier for the left to reject.

Many were confused or critical when President Trump claimed on Thursday that the SAVE Act — a voter ID bill that critics say will disenfranchise millions of Americans — would reshape rules for sports participation and health care access for transgender people, which the current text of the bill does not actually do.

According to Trump’s Truth Social post, the bill requires voter ID and proof of citizenship to vote, and no mail-in ballots except for illness, disability, military, or travel. It also bans “men in women’s sports,” and “transgender mutilation surgery for children, without the express written approval of the parents.”

The president, after uproar from the right, dropped the parental approval portion and called to ban all transgender surgery for children.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked on Friday about Trump’s additions to the legislation.

READ MORE: ‘Pure Amateur Hour’: Trump Slammed for ‘Absolutely Racing to Betray His Voters’

After declaring that he wants the SAVE Act passed “as soon as possible,” Leavitt acknowledged that Trump “has added on some priorities” to the bill in recent days, “namely no transgender transition surgeries for minors. We are not gonna tolerate the mutilation of young children in this country. No men in women’s sports. The president putting all of these priorities together, it speaks to how common sense they are.”

“These are all common sense priorities of this president that are backed by the vast majority of Americans and he wants Republicans to act on them as quickly as possible,” she claimed.

According to Democracy Docket, Leavitt’s comments “mark the first time the White House has publicly confirmed that Trump is pushing to attach anti-transgender policies to the SAVE America Act.”

Noting that even if the Senate were to pass the legislation with Trump’s latest priorities in it, the bill would have to head back to the House, Democracy Docket reported, “for another vote — a potentially difficult hurdle given the narrow margin by which it passed initially.”

But, even “without those additions, the bill faces long odds in the Senate, where most legislation requires 60 votes to pass and where Democrats have vowed to block it.”

Republican Majority Leader John Thune has said he opposes changing the Senate’s filibuster rules to help the bill’s passage.

READ MORE: ‘Dreaming of Gilead?’ WaPo Hit for Op-Ed Mourning Lack of Evangelicals in ‘Halls of Power’

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Pure Amateur Hour’: Trump Slammed for ‘Absolutely Racing to Betray His Voters’

Published

on

President Donald Trump and his administration are under fire for what critics say is a lack of planning for his war against Iran. The fallout is already being felt in the economy, from rising gas prices to sinking financial markets, and a myriad of other potential crises.

“I’ve seen a lot of Presidents fall short of their promises but I’ve never seen any President just doing the opposite of everything promised on purpose,” charged U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI). “Prices, Epstein, wars. Just absolutely racing to betray his voters.”

One hour later, he followed up, writing: “Did they think this through?”

The Atlantic’s Karim Sadjadpour earlier this week reported, “I have spoken with current and former U.S. officials privy to the decision making” on Iran, “who describe a total lack of planning and contradictory aims among those worried about the war effort and those more concerned about the war’s domestic political implications.”

Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Ken Martin earlier in the week charged: “Trump and his incompetent administration had no plan to get Americans out of danger after their planned attack on Iran. Now, American citizens are stuck in an active war zone. This is a complete disaster.”

READ MORE: ‘Dreaming of Gilead?’ WaPo Hit for Op-Ed Mourning Lack of Evangelicals in ‘Halls of Power’

On Friday, the State Department said that 24,000 Americans had returned from the Middle East, but thousands more remain. The “vast majority” of those who returned “were able to make their way home on their own through commercial means,” the Associated Press reported.

The rapidly rising price of oil and gas, and access to them, appear to be among critics’ greatest concerns.

“Apparently no one in the White House thought starting a war in the Middle East might affect oil prices,” lamented U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ). “Now families are paying the price at the pump for pure amateur hour.”

Longtime journalist Jim Roberts delved even further.

“Listening to White House official Kevin Hassett this morning is making it crystal clear that the Trump administration had no plan for dealing with the disruption of energy supplies in the Mideast,” he wrote, adding: “And now the Pentagon is trying to figure out how to protect ships in the Strait of Hormuz.”

The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson warned, “By April, energy experts say, the Iran War could be a full blown energy crisis.”

Citing reporting from the Financial Times, macroeconomist Philip Pilkington wrote that the “Trump administration forgot to refill its Strategic Petroleum Reserve before launching Total War in the Middle East.”

Patrick De Haan, the widely cited head of Petroleum Analysis at Gas Buddy, referencing President Donald Trump’s remarks about the price of gas rising, warned: “it doesn’t appear the admin is yet aware there’s actually a problem, so that means there’s nothing yet to fix. I do hope this changes soon.”

READ MORE: ‘Flashing Red’: Jobs Report Sparks Expert Warnings of Recession — or Even Stagflation

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Dreaming of Gilead?’ WaPo Hit for Op-Ed Mourning Lack of Evangelicals in ‘Halls of Power’

Published

on

Washington Post readers are pushing back against the paper and an op-ed that laments what its author sees as a shortage of evangelical Christians in the “halls of power.”

“Evangelicals are 23 percent of U.S. adults and one of the most loyal Republican voting blocs, with 81 percent backing Donald Trump in 2024,” writes author Aaron M. Renn. “Yet despite six of the nine Supreme Court justices being appointed by Republican presidents, there are no evangelicals on the Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court “is just one of the many elite institutions in which evangelicals are absent or underrepresented,” he continues. Declaring that evangelicals “have excelled in politics,” he points to U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and House Speaker Mike Johnson as examples.

Arguing that evangelicals “are also prominent in well-run and profitable businesses with relatively low cultural impact, such as food processing (Tyson Foods) and retail (Hobby Lobby),” he says that “they are all but absent from the leadership of prestigious universities, major foundations, Big Tech companies, leading financial firms and large media companies.”

READ MORE: ‘Flashing Red’: Jobs Report Sparks Expert Warnings of Recession — or Even Stagflation

“A stronger evangelical presence in elite institutions could strengthen them while addressing polarization and public mistrust,” he continues. “The lack of evangelicals in the halls of power contributes to anti-institutional public sentiment. It also deprives those institutions of an important pool of talent.”

Washington Post readers scorched the op-ed and the paper.

“The author remarked, more than once, of the lack of formal education among the vast numbers of evangelicals,” wrote one reader. “He then questions the lack of said evangelicals on corporate and college boards and in executive offices. Am I the only one seeing a connection here?”

“Is this not a request for a new DEI program to benefit evangelicals?” asked a reader.

“I am an evangelical Christian,” said a critic. “Please don’t hold up Mike Johnson or Josh Hawley as an example of what Christ calls us to be. Perhaps the reason for our absence in the halls of power is the fact that the majority chose to elect an amoral, corrupt narcissist to be president. We should be absent from that depth of depravity.”

READ MORE: Revealed: The Real Reason Kristi Noem Was Fired

One reader encouraged the author to “go see the musical Godspell and see just how far off the mark the American Evangelicals are.”

“Since when did adherence to fundamentalist religious beliefs become a litmus test for government or institutional leadership?” asked a reader. “Aren’t we currently bombing a country based on that system? This ‘newspaper’ is devolving into an internet forum.”

“So now MAGA wants DEI for Evangelicals,” said one reader. “This is fantastic stand-up comedy material.”

“In some cases, not all, the author is confusing evangelical with fundamentalist,” wrote one critic. “The author is also narrowing the meaning of evangelical by using a political frame, not a theological frame. Many evangelicals define themselves via strict adherence to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (or the Plain) … I wish the author had explored at least modestly the increasing breadth of what the designation ‘evangelical’ represents in Christianity, not on Capital Hill.”

“Do you expect to be trusted in fields of science when you deny evolution?” asked a reader.

“Evangelical Christianity is the antithesis of intellectual pursuit, science, and progress,” wrote a reader.

And one critic, appearing to refer to “The Handmaid’s Tale,” charged: “Dreaming of Gilead, are you?”

READ MORE: Trump’s Iran War Triggers Gas Price Shock — Especially in Red America

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.