On Experts in Enemies of Humanity

The transition to democracy is not an event but a process. The same is true of the transition away from democracy. Nevertheless, there are events and periods that are turning points in these processes. In the history of the struggle for democracy and respect for human rights in Slovenia, one such period was the year 1984.

The beginnings of an organized and influential movement for democratization came from the peace movement, which rebelled against the omnipresent power and influence of the Yugoslav People’s Army, from youth movements that openly questioned the ideology of their mentors, and from the LGBT community.

For homosexuals, life in communist society was hard. They were labeled deviant, and most took care not to reveal their identity—let alone live it publicly. And then one day homosexuals in Slovenia decided they would no longer hide. In 1984, the Student Cultural Center ŠKUC founded MAGNUS as a Cultural Organization for the Socialization of Homosexuality. This was a key milestone at the beginning of profound social and political changes.

I was eighteen at the time. I remember the reactions to the founding of MAGNUS and to the congress organized in Ljubljana. If they were fairly restrained in Slovenia, many in other parts of the country went berserk. A torrent of poisonous hatred was poured on the “faggots and lesbians from Ljubljana.” I admired the calm and determination of the LGBT activists. I understood that they were fighting for their rights, freedom and dignity, but also for mine. Ever since, I have been a committed advocate of the rights and equality of individuals and social minorities. For their sake, but also for my own. Without respect for the rights, freedom and human dignity of all groups and people in society, sooner or later there is no freedom and humanity for anyone.

What went on in those times four decades ago, when the foundations of a democratic and open society in Slovenia began to be laid, can be seen in Boris Petkovič’s excellent documentary LGBT_SLO_1984, which in my opinion should be shown in all Slovenian schools during civic education classes.

If the democratization of social space begins (among other things) with attitudes toward the LGBT community, the same holds when the process goes in the opposite direction. Homophobic discourse is today a central weapon of authoritarian populists for undermining liberal democracy. This is no coincidence. Liberal democracy is a social system based not only on regular elections but also on the constitutional, legal and actual protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals against abuse and arbitrariness by those in power. Authoritarian populism, meanwhile, is a political paradigm that claims the exclusive right to represent the nation as a monolithic and homogeneous community. On the basis of this exclusivity, authoritarian populism claims the right to delegitimize (and persecute) political competition, places itself above the courts and attacks critical media and civil society. To undermine the constitutional, legal and other safeguards that constrain it, populist authoritarianism focuses on exploiting, stoking and instrumentalizing social frustrations and prejudices against certain social groups. Above all migrants and homosexuals. This is a scenario we can follow in Hungary, and also in Trump’s war on diversity, equity and inclusion. When safeguards against abuse of executive power and the prejudices of an enraged majority no longer apply to one social group, they soon no longer apply to anyone.

The doctrine of instrumentalizing homophobia to tear down liberal democracy is popular today among politicians in many parts of the world, but they are mostly imitators. The author of the concept is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In 2013, the Russian Duma almost unanimously (the only one who voted against was Ilya Ponomarev, who is now in Ukraine) adopted the Law on the Protection of Children from Information Advocating the Denial of Traditional Family Values, or, in short, the anti-LGBT law. It was the first time Russia said openly and without reservation that it did not intend to respect obligations regarding the rights of LGBT persons arising from the European Convention on Human Rights, “because this is contrary to Russian values.” Homophobic discourse is a constant of Putin’s authoritarianism. This is how the Russian vozhd put his understanding of human rights into words in December 2022, addressing members of the Russian Council for Civil Society and Human Rights: “Human rights doctrines are being used to destroy the sovereignty of states and to justify the political, financial, economic and ideological dominance of the West.” The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, was even more explicit. “The aggression against Ukraine was necessary,” the church grandee explained, “because there was a danger that a pride parade would be organized in Donbas.” In Putin’s Russia, members of the LGBT community are an internal enemy threatening the sanctity and purity of the Russian nation and a fifth column of the decadent West, which seeks to establish global hegemony by destroying traditional family values. Homosexuals are, so to speak, enemies of humanity. In November 2023, the Russian Supreme Court declared the “international LGBT movement” an extremist organization. Now homosexuals are being imprisoned as terrorists. In recent days they have gone after publishers of “LGBT propaganda.” They face up to twelve years in prison. Several hundred book titles, among them Žižek’s collection of jokes, have been ordered banned and destroyed. The method has not been specified, but we know from history how this matter is handled when traditional values collide with degenerate art.

All of the above is a long introduction to explaining why I was surprised by a recent statement by a prominent representative of the party Levica, member of the National Assembly Dr. Tatjana Greif. She posted on the social network X the completely daft claim that the grandfather of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had been a senior official of Nazi Germany. What does this have to do with the homophobia of the Russian regime? Wait a moment.

First, it is surprising that someone who holds high political office, and a doctorate on top of that, would write something so dumb. The honorable doctor could have checked that the claim is false with two or three clicks and by using more reliable sources than the one she cites. Namely Maria Zakharova, director of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry and one of the main mouthpieces of Kremlin propaganda. Which, of course, also includes spreading homophobic messages. “What is happening in Western countries regarding the LGBT question is a classic dictatorship of liberalism,” she replied in 2021 to a journalist’s question about the European Court of Human Rights’ decision on violations of these rights in the Russian Federation. In February this year she applauded Trump’s decision to cut most USAID humanitarian programs, which supposedly served “to promote the LGBT agenda” and “to fund genital transplants on rodents.”

Some may think the honorable MP supports all elements of Russian policy—you know, yuck Europe, yuck Ukraine—except its attitude toward the LGBT community. Perhaps, but that reminds me of the joke about the journalist who, as she left the theater, asked the freshly widowed American First Lady, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”

I think a response to its member’s outburst could also be expected from the leadership of her party. I would expect them to react to the fact that a prominent member is riding the waves of the most primitive anti-EU sentiment and trying to discredit the President of the European Commission with obvious lies served up by the Russian propaganda machine. Not to mention that this is open support for an ideology and people who are undisguisedly hostile to the fundamental values of a democratic society, including and starting with hatred of the LGBT community.

Why the honorable MP and doctor of science did not think it necessary to check dumb lies from the mouth of the leading Kremlin propagandist, she explains herself: “Maria Zakharova knows history and the enemies of humanity well; she is a woman who has never spoken in vain.”

On the last part of the sentence I have to agree with the honorable MP. The words of Maria Zakharova and her bosses are never and in no way “in vain.” They have consequences. Including for the people the Russian regime labels enemies of humanity. What can happen when certain groups of people are labeled and dehumanized in this way, we know from history.