Coming Out, a St. Petersburg-based LGBT rights NGO, wrote this about the possible consequences of the law's adoption:

[…] If this law is passed, Russian LGBT will live in fear of punishment just for being open about sexual orientation in their social environment. It paves the way to legalized discrimination, justifies violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Moreover, under the pretense of protecting minors, this law in fact will lead to further isolation and greater number of suicides by homosexual adolescents in a country that is already leading in the numbers of teenage suicides. […]

The article cited above also has photos and video from a mini-protest that took place in front of St. Petersburg's Legislative Assembly building on Feb. 8. One protester, who ended up being detained by police, held a poster that said, “Hitler started with anti-gay laws”:

British author and actor Stephen Fry (@stephenfry) posted this comment on Twitter, referring to the Russian composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, who was homosexual, and linking to AllOut.com's appeal, “TELL RUSSIA: NO GAY GAG ORDER”:

Hell's teeth. Something must be done to stop these fantastical monsters. Will talking about Tchaikovsky be banned? http://www.allout.org/en/actions/russia_call

LJ user arzamaskaya ended her post about the lawmakers' initiative with this serious-sounding mock appeal [ru]:

[…] Somebody, do introduce sanctions against us [Russia] at last.

A protest sign outside the Russian consulate in London reads: "Council of Europe Must Defend Russian Gay Rights. Suspend the Russian Vote." Photo by MELPRESSMEN MELPRESSMEN, copyright © Demotix (1/07/11).

LJ user mc-leesnick linked to a Russian-language news item about Stephen Fry's reaction, adding [ru] that Russia, among other things, is also a country where “concrete facts of election fraud are declared 'speculation' before an investigation begins” and where “stealing from the state budget isn't punished but encouraged.”

In the comments section, a rather typical exchange took place between the author of the blog and a reader:

plurlife: There are, of course, many other problems that no one is taking care of. But here we are talking about propaganda and underaged [kids], so to me everything seems logical enough. If you want to love someone of your own gender, do so, but don't make noise about it in the streets and don't hold gay parades. This, however, has to be in the subconscious, not in the legislation.

mc_leesnick: Listen, what's the problem with gay parades? Seriously: what is the problem?

plurlife: The problem is that children see it, they live with it and learn from it, and it becomes normal for them. And the problem is also that after gay parades, mass beatings of such “fun guys” takes place, which is also not very normal - people shouldn't be beaten up because of their orientation. I'm not a homophobe, or whatever you call it, I just don't understand why it is necessary to loudly announce that you're a homosexual, a transsexual, a lesbian, a drag queen? Do not try to convince people that it's normal - no matter how much they want it, it's never going to be normal. […] I don't call it a disorder and I don't think they should be locked and re-made, […], it's just that I don't see a point in such demonstrations - only problems. If even just [a Muslim prayer performed in public causes people to overreact], then what do you expect from homosexuals with their parades.

Another reader, LJ user kuzyabuster, echoed Stephen Fry's irony - and mentioned the lack of adequate response from the city authorities to the truly serious and often life-threatening problem that St. Petersburg's residents have to face every winter:

I can imagine trucks taking out of St. Petersburg the works of [Yukio Mishima], Stephen Fry, biographies of [Alexander the Great], Tchaikovsky, Oscar Wilde […]… Would be better if they were taking snow and icicles out…

Russian journalist Yelena Kostyuchenko is not new to explaining the LGBT community's legal demands to her less knowledgeable compatriots. In May 2011, she wrote a powerful and popular post [ru] about her reasons to attend Moscow Pride 2011, and Global Voices translated parts of it in this text about yet another annual attempt to hold the event.

On February 8, following the St. Petersburg vote, Kostyuchenko (@mirrorsbreath) had a quick - and also quite typical - Twitter conversation with user @vakurov (Aleksandr Vakurov, who describes himself as a “psychoanalyst” and “business consultant”), parts of which are translated from Russian below:

@vakurov: […] What's wrong with it? It's the propaganda that's getting banned, not homosexuality.

@mirrorsbreath: […] Propaganda of homosexuality doesn't exist. In reality, the law stops the work of LGBT organizations, introduces censorship into the mass media and culture.

@vakurov: […] Obviously, I'm not getting something. Don't I have the right to protect my children from the harmful homosexual ideology?

@mirrorsbreath: […] Homosexuality doesn't have an ideology. It's a trait that 5-7% of the population are born with. Relax.

@vakurov: […] No problem. Just don't spoil my appetite. Many people have bad breath - and they aren't demanding special rights.

@mirrorsbreath: […] You are very spiritual, I can see it right away. We do not need special rights - we need equal rights. Do you feel the difference?

@vakurov: […] What inequality are you talking about? Then how about the rights of pedophiles, drug traffickers, rapers, drug addicts? о_0

LJ user vg36 believes [ru] that the new law, if adopted, might affect not just the local LGBT community, but members of the opposition in general:

Until the Russian Federation has learned how to block internet access, the law banning [”gay propaganda”] is ridiculous. But does anyone seriously think that it only targets the Russian LGBT community? […]

They used to send [people dressed up/posing as gays] with rainbow flags to opposition rallies in order to discredit the protesters. Now it turns out that most protesters do not mind rainbow flags - so this will be done [fake gays will be sent in] in order to detain and fine [the protesters]. […]

But the opposition has been asleep, as usual, and/or didn't realize that this was another weapon against them. Or they were afraid to oppose a law that might possibly be very popular with the masses, afraid to defend the freedom of speech of an unpopular group. Well. With the opposition like that, [it's not surprising] we get laws like this and the situation in the country is the way it is.

Written by Veronica Khokhlova · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Written by Alexey Sidorenko · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Written by Veronica Khokhlova · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Written by Alexey Sidorenko · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Written by Alexey Sidorenko · comments (1)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Ex.ua was one of the most popular websites in the country and accounted for 15-25% [uk] of Ukraine’s in-country traffic. It required no paid subscription and attracted millions of users who freely shared pirated video and audio files, games and software.

The news of the site's shutdown caused quite a stir online, with many netizens criticizing the government for going after Ex.ua and calling for its restoration.

Christina Vinovska (@chris_vinovska) tweeted a common appeal:

return #exua immediately!

People are protesting against the shutdown of Ex.ua outside the Interior Ministry in Kyiv. Photo by Sergei Svetlitsky, copyright © Demotix (1/02/12).

While many echoed her plea, others decided to take action both offline (photos of the Feb. 1 protest in Kyiv are here) and online.

Thus, following the release of the online statement about Ex.ua's shutdown by the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry's website went down and remained periodically inaccessible due to “an increased number of visitors and possible DDoS attacks” [uk].

By that time many Twitter, Vkontakte and Facebook users were actively sharing detailed instructions [ru] on how to overload the servers of selected websites. The target list included websites of Ukraine’s President Victor Yanukovych, the pro-presidential Party of Regions, the Cabinet of Ministers, the Parliament, and others.

What seemed to begin as a number of decentralized attempts, quickly turned into a mass organized effort, with Ex.ua supporters forming a “Free Ex.Ua” [ru] group on a popular social network Vkontakte [ru], which gathered over 6,000 members during the first hours of its existence (currently, there are over 41,000 members).

By February 1, the Presidential website was completely down [uk] and the Ministry of the Interior had to announce [uk] that it was going to use its two Facebook accounts until its official website was restored. By mid-day of February 1, Ex.ua had to appeal [ru] to users to stop the attack that succeeded in disrupting the work of nearly all major governmental websites:

Dear users,

Administrators of Ex.ua call on you to stop all illegal activity against governmental websites. […]

At the same time, a heated discussion of Ex.ua’s supposed illegal activity was taking place online.

Facebook user Sergei Sidorenko wrote [ru]:

In response to the mass mourning of the Ex.ua’s untimely death, I would tell you something different from what half of the Internet has been yelling about:

I do not have a single piece of licensed non-free software on my computer
I watch only pirated films
I jailbroke my Apple iPod soon after the purchase
Even the licensed Windows installed on my laptop I soon [removed] and installed a pirated one, because it was more convenient for me

But I have to admit that shutting down Ex.ua was the RIGHT THING. And I don’t understand those who now yell, “Yes, they were pirates, but was that a reason to close them?” […]

Guys, if we want to live a civilized [life], let’s at least not condemn the obvious attempts to establish legality.

In defense of Ex.ua, Yaroslav Fedorak of Blogosphere.com.ua wrote [uk]:

Yes, I really do believe that according to today’s legal framework, file-sharing website Ex.ua was conducting an illegal activity and sooner or later would have been closed. But don’t be too quick to throw stones at me! The problem here lies in the legal framework itself, which is hopelessly outdated and no longer meets the needs of the current super-dynamic and hyper-volatile environment.

Amidst such discussions, it was not long before Ukrainian Internet users began to question whether the authorities themselves were following the letter of the law. Giving in to increased media attention, the Ministry of the Interior had to admit [uk] that it was also using pirated software, while holding negotiations with Microsoft to end this practice. Netizens were outraged.

Yurko Chervony (@skinik) tweeted [uk]:

They should first shut themselves down, and not #ex.ua “[The Ministry of the Interior] admitted that half of the software [they're using] is illegal” tinyurl.com/7tjq7c8

Many netizens shared an online comment [uk] by Oleksandr Severyn of Maidan.org.ua:

When marauders fight with pirates, pirates become national heroes

Other netizens, however, believed that the government's action against Ex.ua was motivated not so much by the copyright violations, but by the website hosting [ru] an extremely popular parody video [uk] mocking the Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych.

Pavlo Rizanenko (@rizanenko) tweeted [uk]:

Our authorities closed #exua because they did not want to have an uncontrollable information resource on #UaNet [Ukrainian Internet – GV]. Piracy was just an excuse rizanenko.livejournal.com/983.html

Whatever the actual causes of its shutdown, following the unexpected mass reaction of Ukrainian netizens, Ex.ua was back online [ru] as early as February 3, when the investigators concluded [ru] that piracy allegations did not have to result in blocking of the site's domain name.

Many netisens viewed it as a positive case of online consolidation and organization of Ukrainians.

Serge Lavrinchuck (@Lavrinchuck) tweeted [uk]:

The #EXua story, of course, has its positive sides. When else the Ukrainian people would have united like this to attack government websites?

Numerous observers referred to the attacks as the “online revolution” [ru]. Maksym Savanevsky, editor of the Internet business and SMM website Watcher.com.ua, wrote [uk]:

What has changed in the society in the past 60 hours.

Most important: the citizens have had a taste of their victory. They have felt that “together they are many, and they cannot be defeated”. It is difficult to recall similar events since 2004 [Orange Revolution – GV].

Yes, the scope was not the same. Yes, everything happened online, inside warm apartments. But it has been a while since the authorities looked so helpless in the face of the people’s simple desire to get something they thought they deserved.

Still, others were critical of the society mobilizing in defense of a pirate website. Jouranlist Serhiy Shcherbyna wrote [ru]:

Where are you, the renowned [citizens], when honest, normal businesses are being bluntly taken from ordinary mid-level entrepreneurs? […] Why nobody touches the Tax Inspection's website for their regular [pressure] on business?

Why would you not [disable] the Interior Ministry's website when people are being killed at [local police stations]? Why would you not [disable] the Kyiv City Administration's website for [icy] roads on which people are breaking arms and legs every day?

Why are Ukrainians able to protest only when their social benefits and [free stuff] are taken away? Freedom of speech, the lawlessness of the authorities, politically-motivated [imprisonments], a half-dead economy and, most of all, a country that is nearing a collapse, all this is not causing such an outrage.

While the online polemics continue and the future fate of Ex.ua remains unclear, as of February 6, the website is operational and works on restoring its full capacity.

Written by Tetyana Bohdanova · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Known as the first Emperor of Russia, Peter the Great included a “recruit obligation” in his efforts to form the Imperial Russian Army. The term of service in the 18th century Russia was for life, until it was reduced to 25 years in 1793, 20 years with an additional 5 years in reserve in 1834, and 12 years active duty in 1855. Russia's modern conscription practices date back to a 1967 law that remained largely unchanged until the mid-2000s, when the term of service was reduced to 1 year in 2008 for all men aged 18-27.

Russian soldiers march during a rehearsal for the Victory Day military parade at Palace Square in St. Petersburg. Photo by Elena Ignatyeva, copyright © Demotix (18/04/11).

Writing for The Volokh Conspiracy Blog, a group blog comprised mostly of law professors, Ilya Somin put the practice of conscription in its historical context by paraphrasing an article written by economist Joshua Hall:

Economist Joshua Hall has an interesting article describing an oft-ignored, but very important expansion of freedom over the last several decades: the declining use of military conscription. He notes that, as of 1970, some 80% of the world’s governments used conscription, including the US and many of the democratic nations of Western Europe. By 2009, that had declined to 45%, and many of those nation that still have conscription have reduced the length of conscript’s terms and made it easier to escape the draft. Even France, the nation that first pioneered conscription in the 1790s, abolished it in 2001.

Hall also gives a good summary of the economic case against conscription. Most knowledgeable people are aware of the standard points that conscription reduces the quality of the military because professionals are, on average, better soldiers than short-term conscripts, and that conscription creates major social costs by forcing people to serve who would be more productive in other occupations. Hall notes two other ways in which conscription is inefficient that are less well-known – that it creates deadweight losses by diverting people from their preferred occupations to those which have draft exemptions, and that it encourages governments to underinvest in military equipment and instead sacrifice more lives in battle rather than capital […]

In addition to the economic inefficiency issues associated with conscription, there are governmental hazards as well in that it is known to incite corruption. International Defense and Security Programme Blog discussed in general terms the importance of applying a mandatory military service law equally, regardless of socio-economic status, and then cited Russia's military as a specific example of the methods by which conscription corrupts the military, along with efforts the Russian government has taken to address these issues:

Compulsory military service can be a cause of pervasive corruption within the armed forces. Such is the case in Russia. In order to avoid conscription, would-be soldiers pay bribes to the military authorities, medical personnel in charge of assessment and officials in draft boards. Such practices are widespread and publicly acknowledged.

In July 2010, Russia’s nationalist Liberal Democratic Party, led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, tabled draft legislation which would allow potential conscripts to pay a sum equivalent to US $32,500 to avoid military service. The resulting funds would be channeled toward the costs of the Ministry of Defence (MoD). This measure, aimed at Russia’s military commissions, signifies both the great extent of draft corruption in the country and a clear recognition of this reality.

Serious attempts to deal with this issue have been made in recent years by the Russian government. The length of conscript service was shortened by six months in April 2008 to one year, while the list of exemptions from conscriptions has also been made more restrictive. However, the 2004-7 federal government programme designed to trial a transition to fully professional armed forces was largely ineffective, due to poor design and pervasive corruption which prevents full remuneration from reaching the contracted soldiers.

Mikhail Prokhorov's 2012 presidential election program included putting an end to Russia's compulsory military service by 2015:

• Create a professional, mobile, high-tech army, able to respond quickly to local and regional conflicts;
• Pay special attention to our strategic nuclear forces and space-based weapons as means of ensuring Russia’s independence and security;
• End military conscription from 2015 while moving to a professional army;
• Ensure social benefits for war veterans (free education, tax exemptions and soft loans to start businesses or buy housing) […]

Global Voices discussed in a post entitled, “Russia: Demographic Collapse Means ‘No One Left to Draft',” how the low birth rate of the 1990s has affected Russia's ability to maintain conscription quotas. However, demographic decline was only one of the major factors that General Nikolai Makarov, Russia's chief of the General Staff, mentioned in a RIA Novosti article quoted in the aforementioned GV post; dedovshchina was the other one:

Russia has no conscript-age young men left to recruit […].

The current conscript service crisis in the Russian Armed Forces is mainly due to demographic decline, bullying and brutal treatment of conscripts. […]

Marina Litvinovich reported for Global Voices on a relatively new trend where social media accounts of those who have died have been converted into memorials. One such memorial was dedicated to Evgeniy Shamukhin, a Russian soldier who had been drafted and then beaten to death during a dedovshchina ritual:

I was drafted in November 2007 and served in the Academy of the Ministry for Emergency Situations in Moscow region. On May 13, 2008, I was brutally beaten up by my fellow soldier Alexandr Revyakin. He was beating my head with his feet regardless of my appeals to stop it, and at the end I lost consciousness. Suffering serious injuries and not coming to my senses I passed away in a hospital on May 19, 2008. On August 14, 2008, the military court of Solnechnogorsk city sentenced Revyakin to 6 years and 6 months of detention.

Russia has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, and it is believed that close to 1 million Russian people have taken their own lives since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Russian Defense Policy Blog argued that the dedovshchina practices associated with Russia's compulsory military service make young soldiers even more prone to suicidal actions:

Dedovshchina has always had potential to drive desperate conscripts to take their own lives to escape it. Hence, the majority of Russian Army suicide cases are investigated under Article 110 of the RF Criminal Code, “Incitement to Suicide.”  Western legal tradition has long experience with incitement, but “incitement to suicide” is a little unusual. Not so for Russian military prosecutors and criminal investigators.

The author went on to list recent accounts found in the Russian press of young Russian soldiers who had indeed taken their own lives or who had attempted to do so:

In late August, a conscript on guard duty in Volgograd shot himself, leaving a suicide note blaming dedovshchina in his unit. The case is being investigated under Article 110.

In late August, a conscript from a Krasnoyarsk unit was detailed to the Railroad Troops brigade in Abakan to help prepare for Tsentr-2011. With only three months left to serve, he went AWOL, and apparently hung himself.

In mid-August, a conscript in Kaliningrad jumped off the boiler house roof and sustained a number of serious injuries, but survived. He had left a note asking that no one be blamed in his death.

In early August, a conscript in the 735th Missile Regiment, 62nd Missile Division in Uzhur killed himself while on guard duty at night. He had served six months.

In early March, in Belogorsk, a conscript due to demob in a few days shot himself to death.

In early February, a conscript in Sergeyevka shot himself to death. The case was being investigated under Article 110.

Public awareness of the soldiers who have taken their own lives has grown recently. A June 2011 Radio Free Europe article described an incident where protesters gathered in Moscow in response to the surge of soldiers who had died under such circumstances in the previous months.

In a November 2011 post, Russian Defense Policy Blog relayed the results of a poll conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation, which surveyed 3,000 people living in 64 of Russia's regions. Many of the questions that were asked reflected a widespread awareness that dedovshchina exists, that it is related in some way to compulsory military service, and that many young men resort to illicit activities in order to avoid military service:

Finally, buried deep in the results, participants were asked for their views on the state of affairs in the Russian Army in coming years:

• 19% said it will improve.
• 19% said it will worsen.
• 35% said it will stay the same.
• 26% said hard to answer.

However, when asked to compare military service conditions today against those 10-15 years ago, more respondents said they are easier (39%), and many fewer said they are harder (14%), by comparison with Russians asked the same question in 2002 (just 6% and a whopping 64% respectively).

Written by Donna Welles · comments (1)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Despite temperatures of -20 degrees, thousands of Russians went out to the streets to participate in election demonstrations. Many, organised online, were protesting against the current election procedures and possible re-election of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Others, partly organised by pressure and bribes as well as fear of possible revolutions manifested that Putin should stay.

Bolotnaya vs Poklonnaya

Numerous demonstrations took place in nearly all big Russian cities. Most of them were of protest-oriented. Ridus.ru compiled a list of photo reports from different cities all around the country: Barnaul, Saint-Petersburg (1), Omsk, Yekaterinburg, Moscow (1, 2, 3), Kemerovo, Ivanovo, Perm, Tambov, Irkutsk, Chelyabinsk.

In Moscow, an anti-Putin demonstration started as a march and ended up at Bolotnaya square. A pro-Putin demonstration took place at Poklonnaya gora.

"We started to better warm up" poster at Bolotnaya Square, Moscow. Photo by Alexey Sidorenko

Symbols of the protesters included white ribbons, self-made posters and white balloons. In Moscow, white balloons were released at the end of the demonstration as popular musician Yuri Shevchyuk performed the song “Motherland” (see the recording of the performance here [ru]).

Many protest posters were inspired by Internet memes or quotes of Putin or his allies that circulated online due to their hypocrisy, bad grammar, or plain absurdity. Most of them were handmade with a high level of creativity, a distinctive contrast to the Soviet-style posters supporting Putin at the Poklonnaya event (see coverage [ru]).

The pro-Putin event in Moscow included some sincere supporters of Putin and his version of stability. At the same time, several cases of mass bribery and coercion were reported (1, 2). A few of my friends said that employees of public budget organisations were given a choice: either be fired or go to the event and receive a small award (depending on the source price varied from 500 to 1,000 rubles).

YouTube user Bandarlog20120204 uploaded a video shot at Kutuzovskiy prospect (next to Poklonnaya gora), where a lady distributed money to other people. When she realised she was being recorded, the lady tried to escape, thus provoking anger among those who did not manage to receive the ‘compensation' for participation.

A hard dialogue among protest groups

Pro-Putin events mostly consisted of deliberately apolitical crowds (mostly labour unions, or the Soviet-era GoNGOs). On the other hand, protest events almost in every city consisted of at least four main groups: the general public, leftists (social-democrats and communists), nationalists, and liberals. This ‘coalition of negative consensus,' however, did not work well everywhere.

The video below shows particular difficulties in finding a common ground among liberals and nationalists in Saint-Petersburg. An LGBT-activist who was given the floor was booed. After he finished, a nationalist activist came and started a speech that there should be ‘no [homosexuals] on the Russian soil.' Then, he himself was severely booed by all other participants and was forced to leave the stage and was called ‘a Nazi' and ‘a fascist.'

Lady waving to protesters. Photo by Vasiliy Maximov (Ridus.ru)

The missing network

After the demonstration was over, the Levada center published [ru] an interview with Boris Dubin, a renowned Russian sociologist, who described in detail the difference of “For Fair Elections” (FFF) movement compared to the previous protest movements:

Лет пятнадцать, наверное, как ничего похожего по скорости сплочения людей не было. Мы давно понимали, что есть 15-20, а по некоторым вопросам и 25 процентов взрослого населения, которые этот режим не принимают. Но это люди разрозненные, у них нет общих символов, нет общих лидеров. Не было понятно, как это меньшинство могло себя проявить. И вот оказалось, что в декабре, как, кстати, уже случалось в других странах в 2000-е годы, все завертелось вокруг проблемы «честных выборов», и дальше процесс пошел очень быстро.

He pointed out 3 main elements of unrest: 1. it is a principal protest against contemporary socio-political regime, 2. the sense that the real election results were different, 3. the failure of the government to accept citizens as partners. He also noted an unusually high level of connectedness among the protesters:

Пришли люди, внутренне связанные, которые реально или хотя бы воображаемо солидарны друг с другом, и им интересно и важно быть вместе. А для большинства российского населения это абсолютно нехарактерно. Все-таки в основном население раздроблено, размазано, людей соединяет только телевизор и убеждение, что, какая бы плохая власть ни была, надеяться можно только на нее. Власть у нас плохонькая, но наша, примерно так большинство населения думает.

According to Dubin's research, while 15 per cent of Russians would definitely participate in the protest actions, 44 approve such actions, and 40 per cent of the population condemns them. Dubin also discussed the role of the Internet in the protest actions: 60 per cent of the attendees of December 24 protest event (so called Sakharov demonstration) found out about the event online. 30 per cent found out about the event via their more connected colleagues. As Russian society lacks most conventional social networks (like church organizations, labour unions, etc) most people believe only their closest friends and families.

Although Dubin doesn't speak about the role of the Internet directly, it seems logical to suppose that in the absence of conventional networks, it is the Internet that has become the missing network that united so many uncoordinated ‘angry citizens.'

A Twitter parody account @igor_sechin ironically concluded [ru]:

Страна разделилась. Одна половина - за честные выборы, другая - за честные выборы Путина.

This post is part of our special coverage Russia Elections 2011/12.

Written by Alexey Sidorenko · comments (1)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Written by Veronica Khokhlova · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Written by Alexey Sidorenko · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Written by Alexey Sidorenko · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Written by Alexey Sidorenko · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Written by Alexey Sidorenko · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Written by Veronica Khokhlova · comments (1)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Hello World!

Welcome to another edition of the Global Voices podcast. In this episode we talk through some of the ideas and issues surrounding the global Occupy movement and protests, as we listen to recordings from our team in different parts of the world.

My Greek Co-Host

In this edition, I “occupy” the podcast with Asteris Masouras, Global Voices author and Global Voices in Greek editor.

Asteris has been monitoring the global #Occupy movement online since it all began. Who better to accompany us through this edition of the podcast?

We got together on Skype and discussed Greece, Europe, and the Occupy world, especially in regards to how the movement communicates with itself and others.

Occupy Denmark

Global Voices in Danish co-editor, Maria Grabowski Kjær in Denmark, visits the Occupation there to find out what their methods and messages are. Though many seem to think the protesters are hippies, Thomas, who helped organise the movement in Denmark, aims to prove that this stereotype is not true at all.

Thomas of Occupy Denmark talked to Maria Grabowski Kjier about the movement

London papers

Here in London, the Occupy movement at St Paul’s Cathedral is presented with a newspaper called The Occupied Times of London. I met with Steve Maclean, the editor of the paper, to find out how it works.

Occupy London, Steve Maclean, editor of The Occupied Times

A Camp in Maine

Frances Harlow is an independent radio producer, and friend of Global Voices. In Portland, Maine in the United States, she recorded at a local Occupy camp during her studies at the Salt Institute, after graduating from Brown University.

Frances’ report shows that it’s not always easy to consolidate a message among such passionate people. You can listen to more of Frances' brilliant audio work here.

What do you make of the global Occupy movement? Is there a camp near you or do you participate?

It’s not easy to fit the entire movement into a short podcast but it has been interesting to highlight the similarities and differences across borders. There’s a whole lot more you can read up on at the special coverage page about the global Occupy movement on Global Voices.

Music Credits
In the podcast you can hear lots of lovely Creative Commons music. Thanks to Mark Cotton for his fantastic creations and thanks also to all of the wonderful voice over performances and clips that help to glue the podcast together.

The Global Voices Podcast, the world is talking, we hope you’re listening!

This post is part of our special coverage #Occupy Worldwide.

Written by Jamillah Knowles · comments (1)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper