You're reading: Ukraine ‘chooses homophobia over EU integration’

Even after the European Union reminded Ukraine that a visa-free regime would depend on the adoption of certain human rights bills, Ukraine’s parliament on Nov. 5 failed to pass a landmark bill on discrimination – a move that activists say may scare Europe off for years to come.

European
Commission chief
Jean-Claude Juncker spelled it all out for President
Petro Poroshenko very clearly in a letter on Nov. 5. He reminded the Ukrainian
president that there were certain prerequisites for approval of a visa-free
regime with the EU: namely anti-corruption reforms and the adoption of
legislation to prohibit discrimination in the work place on the basis of sexual
orientation.

Far from
being seen as a beacon of human rights victories, Ukraine has long struggled
with a stigma against homosexuals, and the most recent gay rights protest over
the summer ended in violence and bloodshed after homophobes attacked the march.

The attack
was a stark reminder of the Soviet Union’s imprint on Ukraine. Homosexuality
was a criminal offense in the USSR, and even after its collapse, “archaic”
takes on the issue have maintained a tight grip on large portions of society,
as the publicist and commentator Vitaly Portnikov said. The EU’s encouragement
to change the Labor Code was a way to shed that skin and move closer to
European norms.

The anti-discrimination
bill submitted to parliament was prescribed in the EU-Ukraine Action Plan on
visa liberalization. Not only did the legislation lay out protections for
homosexuals; it also prohibited discrimination on the basis of skin color and
religious belief.

But with a
suspiciously large number of lawmakers absent during the vote and many
abstentions, the bill failed to pass, with a mere 117 votes out of the required
226.

Political
consultant Taras Beresovets said that even liberal lawmakers voted against,
fearing that homophobic sentiment among voters might hurt their support.

Some
lawmakers cited “Christian” or “conservative” values for their reluctance to
vote for the anti-discrimination amendment to the Labor Code. Some argued that
approval of the bill would lead to the legalization of gay marriage – a claim
that drew indignation from gay rights and human rights activists.

“Lawmakers
chose homophobia over a visa-free regime,” said Bogdan Globa, an activist and
aide to the head of the parliament’s committee on human rights.

While
he was not surprised by the decision, Globa said, he was “shocked by the level
of deceit and manipulation” in lawmakers’ arguments.

“When
they explained their votes against, they said that the bill could lead to legalization
of gay marriages. Yet this anti-discrimination norm is part of the Labor Code,
it’s in an entirely different sphere,” he said.

“We’ve
really (wasted) our chance of a visa-free regime, because it would be
impossible to adopt a new Labor Code now, over such a short period of time,” he
told the Kyiv Post.

Zoryan
Kis of Amnesty International Ukraine agreed that parliament’s decision would
likely prove detrimental to the visa-free regime.

“This was one of the simplest tasks to fulfill (in the
action plan from the EU). It wasn’t hurting somebody’s corrupt interests or
providing biometric passports, all it required was that lawmakers vote for this
one bill. It was so easy. And yet they couldn’t do it because of their own fear
,” Kis said.

According
to him, the bill’s rejection was not just a sign of homophobia among lawmakers,
but also of a lingering Soviet mentality.

The
European Union had set requirements for Ukraine as far back as 2010, years
before the EuroMaidan Revolution and subsequent war with Russia that turned the
country’s economy upside down. But the amendments had taken on new importance
in light of Ukraine’s determination to move closer to the EU.

There was
resistance to the bill from the get-go, however, with some lawmakers having
asked the EU in September 2013 to waive the anti-discrimination requirement.

For Kis of
Amnesty International, the bill’s rejection was a painful reminder that even
after ordinary Ukrainians gave their lives to forge a new country during the
EuroMaidan Revolution, the legacy of the former Kremlin-backed government was
still deciding the fate of the next generation.

“The authorities
did everything they could to not adopt this law. Just like the previous
government, they are using various methods to block the adoption of such norms,”
he said.

Worse yet,
he said, the argument made by current lawmakers against the amendment was the
same one used by Yanukovych ally and former Prime Minister Mykola Azarov during
his time in office – a sign that not much has changed with the new government.

David
Stulik, a spokesperson for the EU in Kyiv, told the Kyiv Post that the
recommendations for Kyiv had been very “clear” in the action plan, hinting that
the bill’s rejection could jeopardize visa-free regime plans.

Stulik
stopped short of offering any definite prognosis, however.

Portnikov
said the anti-discrimination amendment, even if passed, wouldn’t really signal
an end to discrimination.

“To
really reject discrimination against sexual minorities, we need society to
discriminate against homophobia itself, and to introduce criminal liability for
homophobia,” Portnikov wrote.

He was
skeptical that the anti-discrimination requirement by the EU was meant to eradicate
stigma. Portnikov, who is openly gay, argued on his Facebook page that the
anti-discrimination requirement could be seen as an attempt to prevent gay
asylum seekers to the EU citing a lack of anti-discrimination legislation.

Regardless, activists agreed that the bill’s
rejection would only damage Ukraine’s reputation.

“Ukraine agreed to this plan itself, and now it’s
behaving like a bad student who, after not doing their homework, says, ‘Oops, I
didn’t know we were supposed to do this task as well,’” Kis said.

Break down of the parliament’s vote on the anti-discrimination norm

Parliament factionsVotes forVotes against + abstainYes vote in percent of present MPs
Petro Poroshenko Bloc784066%
People’s Front224533%
Batkivshchyna7558%
Samopomich41324%
Radical Party0170%
Former Party of Regions factions0680%

Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc’s and Batkivshchyna of the former Prime Minister
Yulia Tymoshenko were providing most votes for the anti-discrimination bill,
followed by the other government coalition partners. Samopomich MP Olena Sotnyk told the Kyiv Post that the low support provided by her faction was a protest against the norm being presented in breach of procedure.
Opposition parties didn’t provide
any votes for the bill.

Staff writer Allison Quinn can be
reached at
[email protected]

Staff writer Johannes Wamberg Andersen can be reached at [email protected]