X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Coffee House

No shame in protesting against pro-Putin conductor, Valery Gergiev

12 November 2013

2:00 PM

12 November 2013

2:00 PM

For a moment I thought someone had spiked my tea with LSD. With escalating levels of disbelief, I read Melanie McDonagh’s bizarre account of last Thursday’s protest at the Barbican against the pro-Putin Russian conductor Valery Gergiev. Then, as her article became ever-more divorced from reality, I wondered if perhaps she had been the victim of an acid prankster.

Melanie is usually a fine writer. What prompted her to scribble such tosh? She lambasts the ‘barracking’ and ‘bullying’ of Gergiev, describing him as a ‘Russian composer’. Actually, he’s a conductor and he was nowhere in sight that evening. We were on the pavement outside, not in the ‘concert hall’.

It was a small, good-natured, peaceful protest. We held placards and waved sparklers. Hardly a menacing mob. True, we shouted ‘Shame’ and ‘Gergiev! Stop supporting Putin. Stop supporting tyranny.’ But does this really amount to ‘bullying’ the maestro? It was certainly not the ‘sustained and disruptive harassment’ alleged by Melanie. No concert was interrupted and no audience members were prevented from accessing the Barbican.

It is true that a week earlier I walked on the stage on the opening night of the new London Symphony Orchestra Berlioz season. I made my entrance before the performance had started and Gergiev wasn’t there. After a polite 60 second critique of his pro-Putin stance, I left — mostly to applause. Some of the audience may have been applauding my departure but others seemed genuinely supportive of what I had said.

Melanie says Gergiev has ‘made clear that he is not prejudiced about gay people’. I agree and commended him for saying this. But I also pointed out that although he doesn’t discriminate, he supports a Russian president, Vladimir Putin, whose regime does discriminate against gays and lesbians.

[Alt-Text]


We are told by Melanie that it is his own business if Gergiev backs Putin. The implication being that it is none of our business. This is tantamount to saying that supporters of tyrants should get a free ride; a bit like saying people should have not protested against the defenders of the Soviet and apartheid regimes.

In a further leap towards the realm of fantasy, Melanie insinuates that we were trying to stop Gergiev performing freely in the UK. Not true. We have not called for him to be banned or interrupted his performances. Melanie queries why I have attacked the new Russian anti-gay law when, she claims, homophobic ‘Arab states’ have never got the ‘Tatchell treatment’. This is plain daft. For three decades, I’ve campaigned against all human rights abuses (not just anti-gay abuses) by Arab leaders, including by those in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Algeria.

Melanie comes close to defending the new Russian anti-gay law, misleadingly describing it as being about ‘child protection’. She seems to echo Gergiev’s false claim that it is solely concerned with stopping child sex abuse. In September, the Dutch newspaper, Volkskrant, quoted him as stating: ‘In Russia we do everything we can to protect children from paedophiles. This law is not about homosexuality, it targets paedophilia.’

Such a claim is blatantly untrue. The new law criminalises actions or words that make homosexuality sound ‘interesting’ or ‘attractive’, or that suggest homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally valid — in circumstances where this may be witnessed by a person under 18. Why shouldn’t young Russians know the facts about same-sex love and Tchaikovsky’s homosexuality? Moreover, this law prevents gay Russians under 18 from receiving affirmative counselling and safer sex advice, which puts them at greater risk of suicide and HIV.

Already, the new law has been cited to sack teachers for no other reason than because they are gay. It’s also been used to convict people for saying homosexuality is ‘normal’, even where there is no evidence that someone under 18 witnessed it.

Our protest was not about ‘officious Englishmen’ telling Russians they must reform their laws. It was in defence of the Russian constitution against a law that violates its guarantees of equal treatment and freedom of expression. We were protesting in solidarity with gay and straight Russians who have asked for global protests against Gergiev, Putin and the anti-gay law. We were supporting them, in the same way that many of us supported persecuted dissidents during the Soviet era.

I defend the right to protest, including the right of others to protest against me. I’ve defended anti-gay Christians against prosecution and given over my podium to disruptive critics to let them have their say. I’m saddened that Melanie McDonagh doesn’t seem to understand that the right to protest is also for those we disagree with. Even sadder, she’s chosen to make more of a fuss about our brief peaceful protest than about the sustained assault on democracy and human rights by the Russian regime. A case of misplaced moral priorities, in my view.

Peter Tatchell is the Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close