• Suponina Elena Alexandrovna, Candidate of Sciences, Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer
• Voronezh Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Russian Federation

• BILL No. 957581-6
• MINORS
• ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE
• ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY
• CODE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE
• PROPAGANDA OF NON-TRADITIONAL SEXUAL RELATIONS

In the article, the author analyzes the administrative and tort norms that establish liability for the promotion of non-traditional sexual relations among persons under the age of majority. The prospects for tightening such responsibility are being considered.

• On the issue of the legality of the presence of absolutely certain sanctions in the domestic administrative and tort legislation
• On the prospects for improving Russian legislation in the field of combating violence in the family and domestic sphere
• On the issue of administrative liability for the illegal dissemination of information about a minor who has suffered as a result of an unlawful act
• On the issue of administrative responsibility of parents (other legal representatives) of minors for violating the “children’s curfew”
• On administrative liability for parking in a parking lot located on public territory with missing or unreadable state registration plates

Basic requirements relating to ensuring the safety of persons under the age of majority in terms of the dissemination of information about non-traditional sexual relationships are contained in the norms of the Federal Law of December 29, 2010 No. 436-FZ “On the protection of children from information harmful to their health and development.” Clause 4 of Part 2 of Article 5 of the mentioned law includes information that denies family values, promotes non-traditional sexual relationships and creates disrespect for parents and (or) other family members as information prohibited for dissemination among children.

Federal Law No. 135-FZ dated June 29, 2013, the main regulatory legal act regulating issues of administrative responsibility in the country is the Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses(hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), was supplemented with Article 6.21 (“Propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors”). Before the corresponding norms were consolidated at the federal level, a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation adopted laws on administrative liability for the promotion of pedophilia, homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism among minors.

Thus, on May 24, 2006, the Duma of the Ryazan Region supplemented the local Law on Administrative Offenses with Article 3.10. (“Public actions aimed at promoting homosexuality (sodomy and lesbianism) among minors”); Law of the Arkhangelsk Region No. 336-24-OZ of September 30, 2011 prohibited public actions aimed at promoting homosexuality among minors; December 27, 2011 deputies of the Kostroma regional Duma supplemented the law “On Guarantees of the Rights of the Child” and the local Code of Administrative Offenses with articles on preventing public actions aimed at promoting pedophilia, homosexuality (sodomy and lesbianism), bisexuality and transgenderism among minors. Similar changes and additions were adopted in St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk region, Magadan region, Samara region, Krasnodar region, Republic of Bashkortostan, Kaliningrad and Irkutsk regions.

In addition, such initiatives were widely discussed in the legislative bodies of the Moscow region, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the Kirov and Vladimir regions, as well as the Perm region. However, in connection with the entry into force of the Federal Law of June 29, 2013 No. 135-FZ, these legislative initiatives have lost their relevance, since the legislator of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, establishing administrative responsibility for certain administrative offenses, does not have the right to interfere in the spheres of public relations, the regulation of which is the subject of jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, as well as the subject of joint jurisdiction if there is federal regulation on this issue.

It should be noted that regional laws that established a ban on the promotion of non-traditional sexual relationships among teenagers were immediately subjected to not only informational but also legal attacks from certain individuals and organizations both domestic and foreign.

In particular, in 2009, gay activists, citizens of Russia N.V. Baev and I.B. Fedotova held single protests (pickets) near schools in the city of Ryazan and near the Ryazan Regional Children's Library with posters “I am proud of my homosexuality. Ask me about it" and "Homosexuality is normal." They were detained and found guilty by the court of violating regional law. Gay activists filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which ruled on January 19, 2010 this fact definition No. 151-О-О. The said definition, in particular, states that “The Laws of the Ryazan Region “On the Protection of the Morals of Children in the Ryazan Region” and “On Administrative Offenses” do not establish any measures aimed at prohibiting homosexuality or its official condemnation, do not contain signs discrimination, by their very nature, do not allow excessive actions of public authorities. Accordingly, the provisions of these laws challenged by the applicants cannot be considered as disproportionately restricting freedom of speech.”

After the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation issued its ruling, N.V. Baev filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, and I.B. Fedotova - to the UN Human Rights Committee, which in October 2012 upheld the latter’s complaint, recognizing the provisions of the Ryazan region law banning the promotion of homosexual relations among persons under the age of majority as contradicting two articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. At the end of 2013, the Ryazan Regional Court overturned the decision to bring Fedotova to administrative responsibility, and later the verdict of the regional court was approved by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Moreover, in May 2014, the magistrate judge of court district No. 423 of the Tverskoy district of Moscow, S.V. Komlev partially satisfied the claim of I.B. Fedotova, deciding to recover eight thousand rubles for moral and material damages from the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation in connection with her illegal bringing to administrative responsibility for gay propaganda in Ryazan. This was the first time in Russian judicial practice when a decision to pay compensation to an activist of the gay movement was made by a Russian court, and not the European Court of Human Rights.

Similar “actions of disobedience” took place in a number of other subjects of the Federation. The incident with the detention and administrative prosecution of the famous Russian LGBT activist N.A. on May 4, 2012 gained the widest public resonance. Alekseev, who unfurled a poster on the square near the administration of St. Petersburg with the inscription: “Homosexuality is not a perversion. Perversion is field hockey and ice ballet.” To prove that these actions concerned minors, the court accepted statements from citizens indicating that they were with their children at the time of the action. ON THE. Alekseev also appealed his administrative liability in the European Court of Human Rights.

In connection with the above, a completely reasonable question arises: how legitimate and consistent with the realities of today is the norm enshrined in Article 6.21 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation? Let's figure it out.

The key point of the objective side of the analyzed offense is the concept of “non-traditional sexual relations”, that is, sexual relations associated with retreat, rejection of traditions that have developed and taken root in a particular society in a particular historical period. Obviously, this concept is very changeable from a historical perspective and cannot be interpreted unambiguously legal systems various countries and peoples.

Unlike the USA and Western Europe, in which the liberalization of sexual morality is unfolding, in many countries of the rest of the world there is a completely opposite trend. India reinstated criminal liability for homosexuality at the end of 2013. In Brunei, a new Penal Code based on Sharia law came into force in May 2014, under which homosexual men and women face severe punishment, including stoning to death. The Gambia has passed a law banning life imprisonment for homosexuals. In Malaysia, sodomy, or “indecency committed with another male person,” carries a penalty of up to twenty years in prison, a fine and flogging. In Jamaica, homosexuality is punishable by ten years in prison. Aggregated data shows that among the member countries of the United Nations in 2014, seventy-eight countries retained the legal assessment of same-sex contact as illegal, while in five countries (Iran, Yemen, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan), as well as in some regions Nigeria and Somalia were punishable by death.

As for the Russian Federation, then (as the results of sociological surveys show) supporters of non-traditional sexual orientation in our society as a whole are treated very coolly. At the same time, it should be noted that, despite the idea that same-sex marriages are unacceptable for Russia, which can be traced in legislation, judicial practice and political and legal thought, the current Russian legislation does not contain a clear ban on such marriages. As noted by E.A. Isaev, in fact, these relations remain outside the scope of legal regulation.

Thus, Russia does not legally prohibit non-traditional sexual relations and does not persecute citizens for their adherence to one or another way of satisfying sexual passion. The establishment of administrative liability in Article 6.21 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation does not indicate the existence in our country of an absolute ban on non-traditional sexual relations in common system legal regulation. It concerns only the ban on public actions that are aimed at promoting such relationships among adolescents, and is motivated by the fact that persons under the age of majority, due to their mental and physical immaturity, need special care and protection, including proper legal protection.

In this regard, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in its ruling dated February 27, 2013 No. 46-APG-13-2, rightly indicated that the factors and life circumstances from which the child should be protected are determined by the priority goals of protecting the legitimate interests of the child and are formulated in national law, taking into account international norms, generally recognized principles of international law, and these include information that denies family values, information that can harm the health, moral and spiritual development of minors.

On December 18, 2015, a group of deputies introduced draft federal law No. 957581-6 “Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses” to the State Duma, in which its authors provided for tougher penalties for certain administrative offenses that infringe on the family and the rights of minors, including this toughening also affected illegal acts related to the promotion of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors (parts 1, 2 and 3 of Article 10.15 of the bill).

Thus, according to Part 1 of Article 10.15, the administrative fine for individuals is set in the amount of 5,000 to 10,000 rubles (in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - from 4,000 to 5,000 rubles), for officials - from 50,000 to 60,000 rubles, (in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - from 40,000 up to 50,000 rubles); under Part 2 of Article 10.15, an administrative fine for officials - from 200,000 to 300,000 rubles or disqualification for a period of 6 months to 1 year (in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - from 100,000 to 200,000 rubles); under Part 3 of Article 10.15 - an administrative fine from 5,000 to 10,000 rubles (in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - from 4,000 to 5,000 rubles).

The author understands perfectly well that it is impossible to solve all the problems voiced in this article by merely mechanically increasing penalties. But the fact that such an increase is completely justified is obvious today both to the legislator and to the law enforcer.

Bibliography

1. Federal Law of December 29, 2010 No. 436-FZ (as amended on June 29, 2015) “On the protection of children from information harmful to their health and development” / [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: www.base.consultant.ru (access date: 10/01/2016).
2. Federal Law of June 29, 2013 No. 135-FZ “On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law “On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development” and certain legislative acts Russian Federation in order to protect children from information promoting the denial of traditional family values” / [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: www.base.consultant.ru (access date: 10/01/2016).
3. Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses dated December 30, 2001 No. 195-FZ (as amended on July 6, 2016) / [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: www.base.consultant.ru (access date: 10/01/2016).
4. Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated January 19, 2010 No. 151-О-О “On the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizens Nikolai Aleksandrovich Alekseev, Nikolai Viktorovich Baev and Irina Borisovna Fedotova for violation of their constitutional rights by Article 4 of the Law of the Ryazan Region “On the Protection of Morals” children in the Ryazan region" and article 3.10 of the Law of the Ryazan region "On Administrative Offenses" / [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: www.base.consultant.ru (access date: 10/01/2016).
5. International Covenant of December 16, 1966 “On Civil and Political Rights” / [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: www.base.consultant.ru (access date: 10/01/2016).
6. Romanovsky G.B. On the prohibition of propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations // Citizen and Law. 2014. No. 1. pp. 3-15.
7. Tikhomirov D.A. Liberalization of sexual morality in modern world// Knowledge. Understanding. Skill. 2015. No. 3. pp. 93-108.
8. Ananskikh I.A., Chernova O.Yu. Same-sex marriage: politics or law? Western experience and Russian assessment // World of Politics and Sociology. 2016. No. 2. pp. 109-115.
9. Isaeva E.A. Same-sex couples and children: aspects of British and American legislation // Social and legal notebook. 2012. No. 2. P. 138-147.
10. Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 27, 2013 No. 46-APG13-2 “On the cancellation of the decision of the Samara Regional Court dated November 13, 2012 regarding the invalidation of certain provisions of paragraphs 2 - 9 of Article 11.2 of the Law of the Samara Region dated November 1, 2007 N 115-GD “On administrative offenses on the territory of the Samara region" / [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: www.base.consultant.ru (access date: 10/01/2016).
11. Bill No. 957581-6 Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses // Official website of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation / [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: www.base.consultant.ru (access date: 10/01/2016).

The situation of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender people in the Russian Federation Kochetkov (Petrov) Igor

Criminal liability for homosexual relations

Criminal prosecution of the very fact of homosexual relations has not bypassed the domestic legal space. The Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960, in its original version, contained the crime of “sodomy” (Article 121), according to which sexual intercourse between a man and a man was punishable by imprisonment for up to five years. Sodomy using physical violence, threats or taking advantage of the dependent position of the victim was punished more severely than rape: imprisonment for up to eight years. Sodomy against a minor (without the use of violence) also entailed stricter penalties than heterosexual sexual intercourse with a person under puberty, and was punishable by up to eight years in prison.

With the fall Soviet Union Democratic transformations in Russia also led to the reform of criminal legislation. Already in 1991, the need to decriminalize non-violent homosexuality was emphasized at the official level, and in 1993, Art. 121 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR was amended: only sodomy committed with the use of violence or threats against a minor, as well as taking advantage of the dependent position or helpless state of the victim, began to be considered a crime, while the maximum liability for the corresponding crime was reduced to seven years.

The provisions of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996 can be characterized as a step towards recognizing the admissibility of homosexual relations:

1) a special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, containing specific elements of crimes, no longer considers sexual relations between persons of the same sex as such as a crime;

2) despite the identification of two different elements of crime - rape (heterosexual sexual intercourse, Art. 131) and violent acts of a sexual nature(including sodomy and lesbianism, Art. 132), - responsibility for these crimes is identical (in both cases, the punishment can be imprisonment for a term of three to six years in the case of unqualified personnel and from four to ten years or from eight to fifteen years in the presence qualifying characteristics, which are also formulated in the same way);

3) The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation considers together and equates crimes consisting of coercion to acts of a sexual nature (Article 133) and sexual intercourse and other actions of a sexual nature with a person under sixteen years of age (Article 134), regardless of their homosexual or heterosexual nature (i.e., the age of consent is equal for heterosexual and homosexual relationships), and responsibility in both cases is provided for within the same framework.

However, since the adoption of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a number of political figures have attempted to amend the criminal legislation and introduce criminal liability for the promotion of homosexual relations, but none of the proposed projects was adopted.

Of particular note is the project “On introducing an amendment to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for criminal liability for the promotion of homosexuality,” proposed by deputy A.V. Chuev several times during 2003-2006. in various editions. This bill was intended to establish criminal liability for “propaganda of homosexuality contained in a public speech, publicly displayed work or mass media, including expressed in the public demonstration of a homosexual lifestyle and homosexual orientation,” with liability in the form of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities.

It should be noted the position of the Government of the Russian Federation regarding the changes proposed by Chuev, expressed in official reviews of the draft draft:

Since homosexuality itself is not a criminal offense, its propaganda cannot be considered as a socially dangerous encroachment on the object of criminal legal protection. The proposed addition contradicts the provisions of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (in terms of restricting the expression of one’s opinions and beliefs), as well as Articles 8, 10 and 14 of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provide for the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of expression and prohibition of discrimination.

In order to ensure the protection of sexual freedom and sexual integrity of both men and women, the legislator established criminal liability for crimes of a sexual nature, including sodomy and lesbianism, associated exclusively with violence or the threat of its use. In turn, the commission of actions of this nature by mutual consent of the parties does not constitute not only a crime, but also an administrative offense. In this regard, responsibility for the promotion of homosexuality cannot be established in the absence of responsibility for homosexuality itself. Besides, this proposal does not comply with the provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 2124-1 “On the Mass Media,” in particular Article 4, which establishes a ban only on the dissemination of information, the dissemination of which is prohibited by federal laws.

Chapter 2. Criminal liability 2.1. The concept of crime and punishment in criminal law Criminal law is one of the branches of Russian law. It establishes the basis and principles of criminal liability, determines which are dangerous to the individual, society or

31. Criminal liability of a notary The most repressive in nature is criminal liability. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation introduces the following crime - “Abuse of powers by private notaries and auditors.” Objective side (part 1 of article 202):

Article 87. Criminal liability of minors 1. Minors are persons who at the time of committing a crime were fourteen years old, but not eighteen years old.2. Juveniles who have committed crimes may be subject to

16. Criminal liability as a phenomenon of legal consciousness Criminal liability should be considered both from the position of the incentive motive of behavior, the motive-forming factor of action, and from the position of the measure of behavior required from an individual. In other words, criminal

108. Criminal liability of minors Criminal liability of minors occurs upon general rules established in the Criminal Code for all persons who have committed crimes. However, a number of norms of the Criminal Code contain provisions defining criminal

Section V. Criminal liability

107. Criminal liability of minors According to the legislation of the Russian Federation, minors who have committed serious offenses are subject to criminal rather than civil liability. Criminal liability of minors occurs according to general rules,

7.5 Criminal liability of minors The current criminal legislation provides for special rules devoted to the peculiarities of the criminal liability of minors (Chapter 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Identification of the peculiarities of criminal liability

2. Criminal liability Criminal liability for violations of copyright and related rights is provided for in Art. 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Violators of copyright and related rights may face up to 5 years of imprisonment (criminal liability in the Russian Federation may be

Criminal liability for committing an accident Criminal liability for violating traffic rules and operating vehicles is provided for in Article 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: “1. Violation by a person driving a car, tram or other mechanical

Criminal liability Ignorance of the basics of legislation and lack of analysis possible consequences operations carried out may threaten officials of organizations with criminal liability measures. The application of criminal liability measures is provided for in

§ 4. Criminal liability (principles of criminal liability; crimes against environment; criminal punishment) According to the Law of the Russian Federation on environmental protection, officials and citizens guilty of environmental crimes, i.e.

§ 65. Criminal liability. Punishment Black robe, arms back, shorn head lowered... A man walks along a long gloomy corridor, accompanied by a guard. He commands: “Forward! Stand! Face the wall! Forward!" Barred doors open and then close.

§ 67. Criminal liability of minors In a country with a high crime rate, the growth rate of child crime is usually higher than the growth rate of adult crime. The reasons are obvious. Criminal activity creates conditions in society that

The ECHR upheld the complaint of Russian gay activists and recognized that the Russian law banning gay propaganda among minors is discriminatory and violates the right to freedom of expression

Judges of the European Court of Human Rights (Photo: Vincent Kessler/Reuters)

Having considered the complaint of LGBT activists Nikolai Baev, Alexey Kiselev and Nikolai Alekseev, the European Court of Human Rights decided that the Russian law banning the promotion of non-traditional sexual relations among minors violates the right to freedom of expression and contains discrimination. All three who applied to the ECHR from 2009 to 2012 were brought to justice in Russia for promoting non-traditional relationships.

The court found that the Russian law violates Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It states that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression and this right includes freedom to hold opinions and freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference from any public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The decision also states that in connection with the violation of Article 10, there is also a violation of Article 14 of the convention. The article is called “On the prohibition of discrimination.” “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention shall be ensured without discrimination of any kind on grounds of sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, belonging to national minorities, property status, birth or any other characteristics,” it says.

The only Russian judge at the ECHR, Dmitry Dedov, who voted against this decision, issued a separate, dissenting opinion. In it, he argued that the court "seriously failed to take into account the fact that the privacy of children is more important than freedom of expression."

Press Secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov said that the ECHR decision will be considered after the Kremlin familiarizes itself with the full wording of the verdict, Interfax reports.

Member of the Human Rights Council (HRC) Ilya Shablinsky told RBC that the ECHR decision creates the preconditions for further filing of claims against Russia, but will not be able to influence changes in Russian legislation. “This decision of the ECHR requires the reaction of the Russian courts - to adjust their position [in relation to cases of propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations], to take into account the opinion of the European Court. But this decision, alas, does not oblige the Russian legislator to change the Administrative Code, which is a pity,” he said. According to Shablinsky, Article 6.21. The Code of Administrative Offenses (“Propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors”) “does not solve anything, but only gives reasons for bringing to administrative responsibility.” “The adoption of this norm was of a political nature, in order to show a certain course towards the protection of traditional values. The decision to abolish it must also be political,” added the HRC member.

Managing partner of the law firm "Dmitry Matveev and Partners" Dmitry Matveev explained to RBC that citizens of Russia who will be involved in the future under Article 6.21. Code of Administrative Offences, may refer to the decision of the ECHR. “It is impossible to say that now Russian judges must make different decisions. But the fact that they must take this position of the ECHR into account is certain. And decisions will be made based on specific circumstances,” he explained. If a decision in a Russian court “is made against them, then they can appeal to the ECHR in the same way,” the lawyer added.

In September 2014, the Russian Constitutional Court “Propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors.” The court concluded that the article did not contain discriminatory provisions. The decision stated that the ban on gay propaganda among minors is aimed “to protect such constitutionally significant values ​​as family and childhood,” as well as to protect the health and spiritual and moral development of children.​

At the same time, the Constitutional Court noted that the law considers only public actions illegal, the purpose of which is to disseminate information that imposes and popularizes non-traditional sexual relationships among minors; the established ban does not allow for a broader understanding.

The applicants in the case regarding the discriminatory nature of the article on LGBT propaganda were the founder of the Moscow Gay Pride movement Nikolai Alekseev, as well as gay activists Yaroslav Yevtushenko and Dmitry Isakov. They demanded that Article 6.21 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offenses (propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations) be recognized as contradicting a number of provisions of the Russian Constitution, in particular guaranteeing the right to freedom of thought and speech, as well as the right not to be discriminated against.

A law banning homosexual propaganda was adopted in 2013. The law defines propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships as the dissemination of information aimed at developing in children non-traditional sexual attitudes, the attractiveness of such relationships, a distorted idea of ​​the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional relationships, as well as the imposition of information that arouses interest in such relationships.

Quick navigation through the material

Ban on gay propaganda in modern Russia differs from the Soviet country in more free morals. Having access to the Internet, young people become involved in various subcultures. These are hiphoppers, hipsters, rockers, punks and others. The state does not infringe on the right of taste in music or clothing, there is no persecution due to bright hair color or refusal to eat meat. Unlike the European Union, where most countries allow non-traditional marriages, Russia remains conservative. Homosexuals are no longer subject to arrest, but since 2013, the law has prohibited the promotion of such relationships. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin signed a law banning the promotion of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors (Law No. 135).

Attitudes towards non-traditional sexual orientation in Russia

Most of the population of the Russian Federation grew up in Soviet times, considering this era an example for the rising new generation. In those days, “there was no sex,” and homosexuality was considered a serious illness. Non-traditional relationships in the USSR fell under an article of the Criminal Code. Many were imprisoned, beaten and persecuted. Only in the 90s did they get rid of persecution and began to defend their rights. Due to sexually transmitted diseases, in particular AIDS, many Russians are against same-sex relationships. Gay pride parades and rallies are broken up by people with radically opposing views. The issue of unconventional love in the state is acute, so the legislative branch decided to intervene.

criminal lawyer

Free legal consultation in Moscow and other cities of the Russian Federation

Get legal advice on criminal law

Law prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality

Federal Law No. 135 prohibits active promotion of non-traditional communications. The legislative branch explains that the impressionability of adolescents can affect the child’s psyche and impose unconventional views. The ban on the promotion of homosexuality applies exclusively to minors. In front of children, you cannot actively demonstrate same-sex relationships, or hold rallies and parades. The media should not show homosexual relationships as role models.
At the same time, it is possible to cover the life of homosexuals, being in non-traditional relationships is not prohibited, walking hand in hand and speaking neutrally about one’s position is also possible. The main thing is not to obsessively show unconventional love in front of teenagers, so as not to provoke them into rash actions. The child's psyche is structured in such a way that the child repeats words and actions received in society. Nothing should shape their sexual preferences. Time must pass for an informed choice; if a minor himself searches for information on the Internet and decides to become a member of a sexual minority, then this is no longer considered propaganda.
The law banning the promotion of homosexuality is protected by the executive and judicial authorities of the Russian Federation. Violation of the law may result in administrative liability. A Russian citizen will be fined up to 5,000 rubles for disseminating information, civil servants will pay 40-50 thousand rubles, organizations will be punished in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles with suspension from work for 3 calendar months. Foreigners engaged in propaganda among children will be detained for 15 days and then immediately deported from the country. For campaigning through mass communication channels, fines are several times higher and offenders are punished more severely.

European Court of Human Rights

A ban on gay propaganda violates freedom of speech, Europe says. The court protects absolutely all human rights: to life, housing, food, religion, nationality, skin color. Same-sex relationships are no exception, because this is the choice of an individual. In many countries, homosexuals live on equal terms with the traditional family. In some states they have advantages over others: they are the first to receive medical care, they can request refugee status, and so on. That is, a non-traditional family can be accommodated without problems in a tolerant developed country, while the average family’s chances of moving to another country are not so great.
The ECHR considers the Russian Law on the Prohibition of LGBT Propaganda to be discrimination against sexual minorities. Activists appealed to European defenders with a claim of infringement of rights. According to them, non-traditional couples are deprived of freedom of speech. The judge from the Russian Federation opposed decision taken with the explanation that the interests of children are more important than self-expression. But the European Convention on Human Rights took the side of fundamental freedoms and made a final decision in favor of sexual minorities. The Russian Federation paid EUR 49,000 to the individual social group applicants as compensation for moral damages and legal costs.

Criminal law legal services in Moscow and other cities of the Russian Federation

Get legal advice by phone

LGBT community

This abbreviation stands for the community of all sexual minorities: lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders. Rainbow symbolism, triangle Pink colour with lambda they distinguish this social group from others. Baev, Kiselev and Alekseev are defenders of LGBT rights in Russia. Infringement of one's rights is associated with discrimination based on gender, reminiscent of historical cases involving the persecution of African Americans and representatives of other religions.
The ban on gay propaganda has galvanized LGBT people. The Rainbow Association, founded in 2006, actively defends the rights of gender minorities, supporting the movement with rallies, actions, protests and public speeches. Nikolai Alekseev is considered the ideological inspirer and leader. His victory at the European Court of Human Rights gives an opportunity to a separate social group to defend its rights without fear of persecution. These are the rights to health care, work, justice, privacy and non-traditional relationships. Homosexuality is no longer considered a crime or a disease, but cases of discrimination still occur. For protection, you can contact a lawyer online incognito. Residents of Moscow and other cities can count on legal support.

Statistics

The majority of citizens support the ban on campaigning by the LGBT social group. More than 80% are against the promotion of homosexuality. In addition, more than 40% of the population considers homosexuality a crime that should be criminalized. A quarter of the citizens surveyed insist that being gay is shameful. More than 15% demand the imposition of penalties for non-traditional sex. The European Convention on Human Rights supports the social group. LGBT representatives are full-fledged donors, have equal rights in court and, most importantly, can speak about their views without fear. They achieved equality in many ways, but not in terms of family. In the Russian Federation, a homosexual couple will not be able to adopt a child. And 67% of the population agree with this. If you have any questions, ask them online to a lawyer.

Attention! Due to recent changes in legislation, the legal information in this article may be out of date!