By Karena Avedissian

In an unprecedented move, a group of almost thirty Diasporan artists and intellectuals released a statement condemning proposed anti-gay legislation in Armenia. 

The draft legislation sought to outlaw the “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations”, which, if adopted, would in essence codify state-sponsored discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Though the proposed legislation has been tabled for now, the Diasporans’ appeal has comes at a time when reports of intolerance by the Armenian authorities against voices of dissent and of lack of protection for citizens are increasing.

In May 2012, the gay-friendly bar DIY was firebombed - an act Republican Party spokesman Eduard Shahnazarov called “patriotic”.

In August 2013, the so-called “gender law” - a law that merely continued Armenia’s gender equality policy initiated in 2009 - was suddenly construed to be cloaking “gay-propaganda”, inciting a wave of hate speech and disinformation across social and mainstream media.

The controversy resulted in the capitulation of the law’s sponsors, who consequently excluded the offending word “gender” from the legislation.

Also, in August 2013, Republican Party MP Hayk Babukhanyan publicly called for women’s organisations to be shut down. Staffers of some organizations began receiving death threats afterwards.

This petition by prominent Diasporan Armenians is significant given what many see as reticence on the part of traditional Diasporan institutions to confront problems of governance in the Republic of Armenia, and to engage in progressive social programmes, preferring instead to pursue non-controversial channels of religious and cultural philanthropy.

However, where these existing institutions have failed in challenging discourses of power, individuals have succeeded, and have started new debates surrounding Armenian politics and society.

The statement is also important because LGBT and other marginalised individuals in Armenia do not always have the opportunity or privilege to raise awareness or to challenge dominant discourses about themselves.

The LGBT community and other minorities in Armenia already face discrimination in employment and healthcare, and they also face violence in the army.

The current lack of hate-crime legislation in Armenia leaves these communities vulnerable to attacks, and the anti-gay legislation would have completely removed options available to victims of hate crimes. Furthermore, it would have disabled their support networks to which they would normally turn to for assistance and it would take away their recourse in law and society.

The proposed anti-gay legislation and the ensuing debate in Armenia is not an isolated event, but rather part of a wider contemporary discourse, particularly across the former Soviet space.

Similar legislation has been proposed in Ukraine, and has been already been adopted in Russia - which was mentioned specifically in the petition, and where rapidly rising homophobia and xenophobia have been left largely unchecked.

In Georgia, though no such draft laws have been proposed, acts of violence against sexual and religious minorities by members and followers of the Orthodox Church - themselves becoming a rising political force–often go lightly punished or not punished at all.

In Armenia, many observers saw the controversy over the gender law as a planned campaign to drum up support for the Eurasian Customs Union by stoking societal fears.

Opponents of the law, including nationalist groups, portrayed it as something that would undermine traditional Armenian values and the family. “Gender” suddenly became a code word for homosexuality, which itself was portrayed as a foreign and “European value” through the use of anti-Western discourses that highlighted supposed declining moral standards.

 The emergence of these new trends that give arbitrary notions of morality and nationalism precedence over human rights and the rule of law are a cause for concern.

 With the spectre of an Armenia integrated in the Eurasian Customs Union, and with ever increasing political interdependence with Russia, it is not clear whether the international political leverages previously used to defend human rights and rule of law in specific cases will be of any significance in the future.

 However, if the Diaspora is seen as a national resource of Armenia with the potential to leverage politics in the Republic, then what these artists and intellectuals accomplished with their statement was to expand the political and cultural debate about these issues in Armenia.

 At the same time, interventions like this petition from the outside, though critical, are not enough - they can only facilitate and complement existing local efforts.

 Effective contention requires sustained and context-specific strategies, and no one knows the local terrain better than existing grassroots activists and organisations. For this reason, we would do well to listen to these voices.

From LGBT issues, to the rule of law, to the environment – people in Armenia are already working on these issues. They simply need more space to speak out publicly, and they need to be safe.

Outside advocacy, bringing with it crucial awareness, can facilitate this.

(Karena Avedissian is a doctoral researcher at the University of Birmingham studying social movements in southern Russia)

Photo: Narek Aleksanyan