Firefighters in Decatur, Georgia have determined that an October fire at a local gender-affirming care clinic was intentionally set in a move one activist has labeled “terrorism.”
The fire in the city’s historic Blair Building was “contained to one office, and no injuries were reported,” according to a recent statement from the City of Decatur Fire Rescue Department.
The statement expressed that an investigation has determined the fire “to be incendiary in nature, indicating the fire was intentionally set.” No suspects have been identified.
The Blair building houses several medical providers, but a police report confirms that the target of the fire was QMed, which focuses on gender-affirming care, Decaturish reported.
“We won’t be intimidated,” QMed owner Dr. Izzy Lowell told Atlanta News First. “We will not stop providing life-saving care to our patients.” While the office is “completely destroyed,” Lowell said the clinic is seeing patients remotely. She also confirmed the FBI is investigating the arson attack as a hate crime.
Georgia passed a hate crime law in 2020. H.B. 426 became the first law in the state to specifically protect LGBTQ+ residents and give stronger punishments to those whose crimes target victims due to their LGBTQ+ identity, or due to other factors such as their race, religion, or national origin.
Trans activist Alejandra Caraballo wrote on X that the attack “is following the antiabortion playbook of destroying clinics to get them shut down.”
“This is terrorism,” she concluded.
The Movement Advancement Project gave Georgia 1 point out of a possible 44.5 for its LGBTQ+ policies, leaving it with an overall rating of “low.”
In March 2023, Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed a ban on trans youth receiving gender-affirming health care. The law revokes the licenses of medical professionals who administer surgeries or hormone replacement therapy for transgender people under the age of 18. The law creates an exemption for cisgender youth; they are allowed gender-affirming care to conform to their sex assigned at birth.
Puberty blockers, however, are not banned under the legislation.
The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all rejected claims that gender-affirming care harms transgender children or adults. Additionally, gender-affirming surgery is almost never performed on youth.
In a recent incident, an anonymous complaint regarding a frequently banned LGBTQ+ book prompted local police to conduct a search in a Massachusetts classroom, citing concerns about “obscene” and “pornographic” material. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has strongly criticized this incident.
“Police going into schools and searching for books is the sort of thing you hear about in communist China and Russia,” Ruth A. Bourquin, senior and managing attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, told The Berkshire Eagle this week. “What are we doing?”
The Great Barrington Police Department and the Berkshire District Attorney’s Office initiated an investigation to determine if Maia Kobabe’s “Gender Queer” contains pornographic material. The inquiry was prompted by a complaint received on December 8, asserting that the book was present in an eighth-grade classroom at W.E.B. Du Bois Regional Middle School.
Upon receiving notification of the investigation, Superintendent Peter Dillon was informed by the police. Principal Miles Wheat, accompanied by a plainclothes officer, conducted a search for the book in the classroom after school on December 8. The English teacher, reportedly unaware of the impending search, was present during the search. Despite the use of a body camera by the officer, the book was not found.
District Attorney Timothy Shugrue announced that Great Barrington Police had concluded their investigation, stating that the complaint did not involve criminal activity. Consequently, the matter was closed, and any further action was referred back to the Berkshire Hills Regional School District. The superintendent assured the District Attorney’s Office that the issue would be reviewed according to the school district’s policies, treating it as a school department matter.
Teachers, parents, and students in the community expressed outrage over the incident. More than 100 students at Monument Mountain Regional High School staged a walkout in protest. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) released a statement supporting the walkout, asserting that “book banning has no place” in the state.
In a Facebook post, the teacher whose classroom was searched wrote, “How on earth is a cop more qualified to decide what books are OK to be in an educational setting for teens?”
According to The Berkshire Eagle, the police argued they had a duty to investigate the complaint about Gender Queer. However, the ACLU of Massachusetts expressed deep concern about this notion.
“They say anytime someone could call they have an obligation to go marching into places wearing a body cam, and you know, interrogating people,” Bourquin said, adding that state laws are “pretty clear about police not having roles in this situation.” Obscenity laws, she explained, have been “carefully crafted to ensure not tromping on constitutional free speech rights.”
Bourquin informed the paper that the ACLU has requested the officer’s body camera footage and other records related to the investigation.
Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, explained that obscenity laws test whether a book has value beyond sexual arousal. This “very specific” requirement is not necessarily something the average person or police officer might understand.
Silverman said that he’s concerned about the precedent the Great Barrington Police may have set amid the national rise in book bans primarily targeting books by Black and LGBTQ+ authors. “While it might be rare now, it doesn’t mean that it will be rare in the future,” Silverman said. “I think the school and the police department have to come forth with a policy to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.”
In a statement, the Berkshire Hills Regional School Committee and Superintendent Peter Dillon apologized for the incident.
“The recent incident at the middle school has challenged and impacted our community,” the statement read. “Faced with an unprecedented police investigation of what should be a purely educational issue, we tried our best to serve the interests of students, families, teachers, and staff. In hindsight, we would have approached that moment differently. We are sorry. We can do better to refine and support our existing policies. We are committed to supporting all our students, particularly vulnerable populations.”
The recent fire at a clinic providing gender-affirming care is being examined within the context of recently enacted hate crime legislation.
Officials in Georgia are probing a fire from the previous year as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate crime, suspecting arson.
The Decatur Fire Department has officially labeled the fire at a gender clinic in the historic Blair Building on October 30 as a deliberate act of arson and is currently treating it as a possible hate crime.
The Decatur Fire Department efficiently controlled the fire, which, as reported by Atlanta TV station WANF, was confined to a single office and resulted in no injuries. Despite the contained nature of the incident, the investigation has concluded that the fire was deliberately set.
This unsettling incident specifically targeted QMed, a clinic renowned for providing gender-affirming care to transgender and nonbinary individuals. Dr. Izzy Lowell, the proprietor of QMed, informed WANF that the fire resulted in the destruction of their office.
The event is being investigated as first-degree arson, a grave felony. This classification is in accordance with Georgia’s hate crimes law, which was implemented in 2020, extending protections to LGBTQ+ individuals. Convictions under this law carry heightened penalties.
Built in 1939, the Blair Building stands as an impressive specimen of Streamline Moderne architecture and holds a place on the National Register of Historic Places. Serving the Decatur community for over eight decades, it has accommodated a diverse range of businesses and offices.
Following the incident, the city has joined forces with federal and state agencies to probe the crime. Despite the ongoing investigation and no arrests made thus far, the Decatur Fire Department has been circumspect in divulging specific details. The case garnered public attention after an anonymous tip about the incident reached Decaturish.
The arson attack has amplified concerns about the safety of facilities catering to specialized services for marginalized groups. The ongoing investigation aims to determine whether this was a hate-motivated crime.
Over the weekend in Seattle, a task force conducted raids on two gay bars, ostensibly in search of “lewd conduct” by both patrons and staff.
“You’re allowed to be who you are in Seattle as long as you don’t go into a gay bar.”
Over the weekend in Seattle, two gay bars were raided by a task force allegedly searching for “lewd conduct” among both patrons and staff.
During the raids in Seattle, investigators reported finding a bartender with an exposed nipple at one venue, and patrons wearing jock straps at another.
The raids in Seattle were carried out by the Joint Enforcement Team (JET), a coalition involving the Police and Fire departments, the state Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB), and others. Around 12:30 a.m. on Saturday, ten task force members entered The Cuff brandishing flashlights, as reported by owner Joey Burgess. Some patrons left the bar, particularly where the exposed nipple incident occurred, during the raid.
On the following night, two members of the Joint Enforcement Team (JET) entered the Eagle at approximately 11:30 p.m., according to owner Keith Christensen. The inspection at this venue revealed patrons wearing jock straps.
Seattle established the JET task force a few years ago to address nuisance businesses and criminal activity. Neither The Cuff nor The Eagle has a history of alcohol or violence-related offenses.
In Washington, venues where alcohol is served are prohibited from allowing nudity.
The owners, along with a coalition of LGBTQ+ advocates, including writer Dan Savage, released a joint statement condemning the raids.
“The absence of violence or liquor-related issues in the citations indicates a concerning focus on targeting queer individuals in queer spaces,” the statement read.
“The community recalls the generational trauma and the homophobia-driven policies of the not-so-distant past, making the recent actions particularly distressing.”
Cuff owner Burgess mentioned that he has been facing the same issue since Pride celebrations in 2022 when the Liquor and Cannabis Board cited his bar for a customer wearing a jockstrap.
Since then, Cuff staff have been compelled to act as “hall monitors” for patrons’ fashion choices; jock straps are prohibited at the venue, and exposed cracks are not allowed.
Burgess attributes a decline in business to the outdated regulations and points to nearby Cal Anderson Park, where individuals are allowed to play kickball in their jockstraps.
“You’re allowed to be who you are in Seattle as long as you don’t go into a gay bar,” Burgess said. “They’re not going into the other bars the same way as this.”
It’s discrimination, according to Burgess. “There is no other answer.”
Eagle owner Keith Christensen is still awaiting a response from JET regarding a potential citation. He mentioned losing 70% of his business due to citations in February 2008.
“These regulations that are so paternalistic, that control people’s bodies and sexualities, pretty much only affect marginalized communities and non-conforming people,” said Madison Zack-Wu, who directs the worker-led group Strippers Are Workers (SAW).
“I do see the thread here of queer venues being raided and strip clubs being prevented from having a sustainable business model as ultimately authoritarian judgment on how queer people and sex workers are trying to move through the world… Both of our communities should have the right to speak up against this.”
Following an incident where a Utah dad became belligerent at his high school-aged daughter’s recent junior varsity basketball game, alleging that a player on the opposing team was transgender, he has been banned from attending future games.
“I wasn’t born yesterday, I know that’s a boy!” the dad shouted at the principal.
Jeff Haney, spokesperson for Canyons School District, informed The Salt Lake Tribune that during a game on January 19, the dad in question was actively challenging the eligibility of a player, vocally expressing concerns based on his perception of the student-athlete’s gender.
The man, whose identity remains undisclosed, allegedly confronted the principals of both his daughter’s school and the opposing school after the incident. Both principals reassured him that every player on the court, including the 17-year-old girl in question, had met the eligibility requirements outlined by the Utah High School Athletics Association (UHSAA). UHSAA mandates that student-athletes provide a birth certificate to verify their gender, and for transgender students, proof of undergoing at least one year of hormone therapy is required.
“I wasn’t born yesterday, I know that’s a boy and you better be able to prove yourself because I am going to the top,” the man insisted after the game, according to one principal.
Haney said the man became so belligerent that he was asked to leave, and the principal of his daughter’s school banned him from future games. “We do not tolerate people coming into our community and our schools and harassing our student-athletes,” Haney said.
The incident on January 19 is the most recent case of parents challenging a student athlete’s gender in Utah since the passage of H.B. 11 in 2022. This law prohibits transgender girls in grades K–12 from participating in girls’ sports. However, the law is currently on hold due to a legal challenge initiated by the families of three transgender students. The legal proceedings are ongoing in court.
In 2022, the parents of two girls who secured second and third place in a Utah track event lodged complaints urging the Utah High School Athletics Association (UHSAA) to investigate the gender of the girl who claimed first place. David Spatafore, a spokesperson for UHSAA, disclosed that additional complaints had been received, asserting that the student did not “look feminine enough.” However, Spatafore clarified that upon investigation, it was found that the student had consistently identified as female since kindergarten.
According to The Salt Lake Tribune, there have been additional similar incidents in Utah, but the Utah High School Athletics Association (UHSAA) has not disclosed the frequency or the specific number of such occurrences.
Marina Lowe, policy director at Equality Utah, commented that these incidents offer a glimpse into what might become more common, especially with the enactment of legislation that allows the public to pass judgment on individuals’ physical characteristics, determining whether they are deemed feminine or masculine enough to participate in certain spaces.
Advocates for the LGBTQ+ community have cautioned that transgender sports bans and bathroom bills may lead to policing people’s gender presentation. In some states, such as Idaho, sports bans have included requirements for genital examinations. This stipulation could subject students under investigation to unnecessary and invasive examinations.
“This doesn’t just harm the trans community. It really harms us all,” Lowe said. “Because once we get in the business of policing someone’s appearance… all of us are going to be subject to this sort of inquiry potentially.”
The law, in place for decades, is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Tennessee is contemplating changes to the criminal code that currently discriminates against sex workers who are HIV-positive.
Currently, the law treats prostitution as a misdemeanor unless the sex worker is HIV+. Then the offense becomes “aggravated prostitution,” and if convicted, workers are required to register as a “violent sex offender.”
LGBTQ+ and civil rights organizations are challenging the law in federal court. Following an investigation in December, the Justice Department concluded that the law infringes upon the Americans with Disabilities Act.
However, the law, which disproportionately affects Black and Latino women, is not being completely repealed.
Initially enacted during the peak of AIDS-related concerns in 1991, the law underwent revisions two decades later, incorporating mandatory lifetime registration as a sex offender.
State Senator Page Walley (R) has proposed a bill aiming to eliminate the mandatory registration requirement while retaining the heightened criminal charge.
Despite the repeal of HIV criminalization laws in multiple states in recent years, Tennessee continues to uphold such legislation. Additionally, in states retaining these laws, individuals of color are disproportionately prosecuted. Notably, a significant majority of those prosecuted under Maryland’s HIV criminal law were Black men.
The term “HIV criminal laws” refers to hastily enacted legislation in the late 1980s and ’90s during the widespread panic over the AIDS epidemic. These laws target individuals who intentionally transmit the virus causing AIDS. Currently, nearly two-thirds of U.S. states and territories have laws that criminalize individuals living with HIV.
This statute exclusively singles out individuals based on their HIV status, trapping them in cycles of poverty without providing any tangible benefit to public health and safety,” stated Molly Quinn, Executive Director of OUTMemphis. “As HIV stigma fades away, it’s high time for state law to align with this progress.
The organization is among the plaintiffs involved in the ongoing legal proceedings.
An estimated 83 Tennesseeans are currently on the registry because of the law.
Governor Mike DeWine, during a press conference in Columbus, emphasized that his veto of House Bill 68 was driven by the overarching goal of “protecting human life.” The bill, if enacted, would have imposed restrictions on both transition-related care for minors and the participation of transgender girls on school sports teams.
If these two bills are enacted together, they would make it a criminal offense for transgender individuals to be in proximity to a minor or a school, treating it as an act of indecent exposure.
In January, a West Virginia Republican legislator introduced three anti-trans bills, one proposing to label trans individuals as “obscene matter” and another aiming to effectively criminalize the public existence of transgender people, as reported by Jurist.
State Senator Mike Azinger introduced Senate Bills 194, 195, and 197 on January 10, all specifically directed at transgender individuals.
Senate Bill 195 proposes changes to West Virginia’s indecent exposure law, aiming to criminalize involvement in what it terms as “obscene matter.” This includes instances that a “reasonable person” deems lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The bill explicitly cites “transgender exposure, performances, or display to any minor” as an example of displays considered “obscene or sexually explicit.” Essentially, if Senate Bill 195 is enacted, a transgender individual could potentially be charged with obscenity simply for existing in public spaces where minors might be present.
Simultaneously, Senate Bill 197 makes it a criminal offense to have “obscene matter” near minors or within 2,500 feet of any public school facility supervised by the state board. The bill specifically highlights “transgender exposure, performances, or display to any minor” as an instance of obscene matter. According to the proposed law, public school staff failing to report a student’s exposure to obscene matter, including the mere existence of transgender individuals, could face prosecution with a potential fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to a year.
West Virginia prohibited gender-affirming care for individuals under 18 in the Spring of 2023. However, Senate Bill 194 goes further by extending the ban on gender-affirming care to trans individuals up to the age of 21. Moreover, it forbids treatment for gender dysphoria unless it aligns with a “cure,” indirectly endorsing conversion therapy.
All three bills are presently awaiting consideration in committee.
In a conversation with independent journalist Erin Reed, who focuses on reporting anti-LGBTQ+ legislation for her blog Erin in the Morning, LGBTQ+ organizer Ash Orr characterized the bill as a clear effort to both criminalize and erase the transgender community in West Virginia.
Orr conveyed to Reed, “The reality is that trans individuals, regardless of age, lead fulfilling and joyful lives—challenging the inaccurate narrative fabricated by extremist politicians. [Senate Bill 194] undermines fundamental values of privacy and autonomy over our bodies, relying on deceptive or entirely untrue notions.”
In March of the previous year, West Virginia prohibited gender-affirming care for minors, with an exception allowing doctors to prescribe medical therapy if a teenager is deemed at risk of suicide, as reported by the Associated Press. The Human Rights Campaign notes that 22 states have enacted laws or policies prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors.
In the past year, there were over 500 legislative proposals aimed at limiting LGBTQ+ rights. In 2023, only three states and Washington, DC did not entertain a bill targeting the rights of queer and trans individuals. The Trans Legislation Tracker reports that for 2024, 275 bills are already under consideration, including 176 carried over from the previous year.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, with 15 victories in Supreme Court cases, notably overturning Roe v. Wade, is detailed in an analysis by New Yorker writer David Kirkpatrick, shedding light on the group’s impact and their upcoming objectives.
Presenting as the host, Terry Gross:
Welcome to FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. In an article titled “The Next Targets For The Group That Overturned Roe” in The New Yorker, my guest David Kirkpatrick explores the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), deemed the most influential arm of the Christian conservative movement. A prominent activist legal group, the ADF has achieved significant success in the courts, with victories such as overturning Roe v. Wade among its 15 Supreme Court cases. Kirkpatrick also highlights the ADF’s influence in areas like allowing employer-sponsored health insurance to exclude birth control, rolling back limits on government support for religious organizations, challenging pandemic-related public health rules, and establishing the right of a baker to refuse making a cake for a same-sex wedding.
The ADF’s current objectives involve either restricting access to the abortion pill, mifepristone, or advocating for its complete ban. Additionally, they aim to limit the authority of the FDA, the agency that approved the pill. The organization is also focused on curtailing LGBTQ rights, particularly those of children and adults who identify as transgender. Later in our discussion, we’ll delve into David Kirkpatrick’s recent interview with a Hamas leader regarding the attack on Israel. Kirkpatrick, a staff writer at The New Yorker, spent 22 years as a reporter for The New York Times. His coverage ranged from the Christian conservative movement to the Arab Spring, and during the Trump administration, he investigated potential ethically questionable connections between administration members and several Gulf nations, including Saudi Arabia. The interview was recorded yesterday morning.
Welcome back to FRESH AIR, David Kirkpatrick. It appears that the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) isn’t widely recognized. Is this intentional? Are they actively seeking to evade public scrutiny?
DAVID KIRKPATRICK: I believe they are becoming more open to public scrutiny. In recent years, there has been a shift in their strategy, moving away from exclusively appealing to the Christian conservative community and now aiming to engage with a broader, more mainstream audience.
GROSS: The Justice Department is appealing the mifepristone ruling. Tell us what the ruling was and the argument that the ADF made.
KIRKPATRICK: The ADF presented a notable argument. Mifepristone, a key component in approximately half of the abortions conducted in the United States, has received approval for over two decades spanning administrations of both political parties. The ADF represented a group of doctors in a Texas district court who asserted that it went against their conscience to potentially treat the adverse effects of this pill. They successfully persuaded the Texas district court judge that the pill’s approval was in error. Furthermore, the judge ruled not only that the FDA had erroneously approved it but also that it should not be shipped across state lines by mail. This decision came at a time when, due to the pandemic, the FDA, under the Biden administration, had sanctioned telemedicine prescriptions and mail-order delivery of the medication.
Did they emerge victorious on all those fronts?
KIRKPATRICK: Indeed, at the district court level, they secured a comprehensive triumph, exceeding, I believe, even their own expectations. However, a stay was promptly issued, and the case has now progressed to an appellate court, with an upcoming appearance before the Supreme Court.
GROSS: The judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, who ruled in favor of the ADF in the lower court, is a Trump appointee and former deputy general counsel of the First Liberty Institute, a conservative Christian advocacy organization that has received grants from the ADF. Does this raise concerns about a conflict of interest?
KIRKPATRICK: Typically, discussions about a judge’s past work don’t center on conflict of interest concerns. The key consideration is often seen as forum shopping. ADF might argue that their choice of Texas was due to the location of the involved doctors, and Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk happened to preside over that district. Realistically, though, it appears they strategically identified a jurisdiction where the judge’s legal background made him predisposed to sympathize with their stance. The organization he previously worked for maintains a close alliance with ADF. Through my research, I discovered that he recently had an ADF intern in his chambers and is expecting another student from an ADF law program to join as a clerk. This suggests they had.
rewrite: GROSS: So what are they pushing for now? What is the ADF pushing for now for mifepristone? Do they want a total ban?
KIRKPATRICK: Well, the ADF is certainly aiming for a total ban. During my reporting, I gained access to an internal conference call within their fundraising department shortly after the initial district court hearing in Texas. At that time, they openly acknowledged that their most ambitious goal, the complete revocation of FDA approval for mifepristone, was a considerable long shot. Undoing an FDA decision, especially one made two decades ago, by a district court judge is highly uncommon and unlikely. Nevertheless, that is precisely what they achieved, and they are currently working to defend that outcome at the Supreme Court level.
GROSS: From the tape you mentioned, you quoted the head of development saying, “this is a massive pushback on the FDA and the Biden administration from a regulatory standpoint. And so, you know, there’s just a ton of corruption in the bureaucratic state, and pushing back on these agencies is a big deal.” It appears that part of their objective is to challenge the so-called bureaucratic or administrative state, aligning with a significant conservative goal, reminiscent of the objectives advocated by Steve Bannon.
KIRKPATRICK: In the United States, there’s a tendency for groups on the left to focus on left-leaning causes, and similarly, groups on the right emphasize right-leaning issues. This alignment is a reflection of our partisan system. For instance, someone may initially be concerned about global warming on the left and eventually become passionate about the right to abortion. A similar progression occurs on the right. With the ADF, we are witnessing a 30-year-old organization that originated at a time when there was minimal Christian conservative legal advocacy. They entered a landscape where there was a constitutional right to abortion and significant separation between church and state. Their mission was to challenge and overturn both aspects. Three decades later, they have achieved remarkable success with both Supreme Court precedents overturned. Now, as they seek the next battle, they are also expanding their outreach to a broader audience, a common strategy for any group aiming to sustain growth and financial support over time.
GROSS: To what extent did the ADF contribute to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, both in the lead-up to the decision and during the Supreme Court case?
rewrite: KIRKPATRICK: It was enormous. I mean, one reason why I felt comfortable saying that they are now the most influential part of the Christian conservative movement is they’re not just, you know, taking on a client who comes to them needing help, they’re actually reaching out to legislatures in states around the country and saying, we’d like to help you draft some legislation. In this case, they helped the state of Mississippi draft the abortion ban, which was later challenged in the case that ultimately overturned Roe. Then they acted as lawyers for Mississippi, defending that all the way up to the Supreme Court. And even before that, they’d been laying the groundwork for this for decades, you know, blocking and tackling and trying to establish earlier precedents that, little by little, would winnow down the scope of Roe – to establish, for example, the right of a state to have parental notification laws or waiting periods or notifications for women seeking abortions, all of which over time gradually helped pave the road to the overturning of Roe.
GROSS: Are they actively seeking to overturn the decision that legalized gay marriage?
KIRKPATRICK: It’s an intriguing question. When I discussed this with Kristen Waggoner, who leads the organization, I pressed her on it because the cases they’ve pursued closely resemble the type of legal challenges one might bring if there were a long-term legislative strategy to overturn Obergefell. They opposed Obergefell and maintain that it was incorrectly decided. She stated that they are not currently seeking to overturn Obergefell. However, she continues to believe it was wrongly decided, and the ADF perceives it as having various negative consequences for the broader culture. While liberals may see Obergefell as a recognition of the evolving sentiments in American public opinion, the ADF holds a different perspective.
Conservatives tend to believe that Obergefell played a role in shaping public opinion, asserting that the widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage, especially compared to the state of the country two decades ago, is a consequence of the Obergefell decision. Among the current standing decisions and precedents, none is more objectionable to the ADF and its allies than Obergefell.
GROSS: What other initiatives is the ADF undertaking to curtail LGBTQ rights?
KIRKPATRICK: Currently, a significant focus for them revolves around transgender youth, particularly in the realm of sports. They have found success, particularly in cases involving the question of whether a girl born as a girl faces a disadvantage when compelled to compete against a girl born as a boy in a track meet. They were among the first, if not the first, to bring such cases to court, specifically addressing the rights of girls born as girls. This has sparked a nationwide surge in legislation in over 22 states to regulate these situations, and they continue to advocate for their stance in various legal battles. Additionally, they are actively involved in other matters, such as schools addressing students according to their chosen pronouns, potentially conflicting with parental preferences, and discussions surrounding regulations on medical care for minors undergoing transition. These are all areas where the ADF is currently highly engaged.
GROSS: Let’s take a brief pause, and we’ll continue our conversation. For those just tuning in, I’m speaking with David Kirkpatrick, a staff writer for The New Yorker. His article, “The Next Targets For The Group That Overturned Roe,” explores the Alliance Defending Freedom. Stay with us. This is FRESH AIR.
(AUDIO CLIP FROM JULIAN LANGE’S “IOWA TAKEN”)
GROSS: Welcome back to FRESH AIR. Let’s resume the conversation from my interview recorded yesterday with David Kirkpatrick, a staff writer for The New Yorker. Our discussion revolves around the Alliance Defending Freedom, an activist Christian conservative legal group. The article in focus is titled “The Next Targets For The Group That Overturned Roe.”
In your portrayal of Kristen Waggoner’s perspective within the ADF, it seems she envisions a scenario where traditional beliefs on marriage and gender are under threat. The mention of concerns about dissenters being compelled to salute rainbow flags, teachers influencing children’s beliefs on gender, and the inclusion of trans females in shelters for battered women suggests a broader perspective on societal shifts. I’m curious to explore more nuances in the ADF’s viewpoint. How does the organization articulate its stance on navigating the evolving landscape of societal values and individual rights? Additionally, are there specific instances or legal cases that you found particularly emblematic of the ADF’s concerns in this regard?
KIRKPATRICK: Yes, I believe it captures their perspective. It’s important to take a moment to empathize with their standpoint. Consider if you adhere to a sexual ethics viewpoint prevalent in the United States and much of the world until the 1970s, where marriage is seen as between a man and a woman, with the purpose of procreation. From that perspective, it might feel like there has been a significant and dramatic shift against these beliefs. Waking up in 2023 to a constitutional right not only to gay sodomy but also to same-sex marriage, along with schools increasingly promoting comfort with diverse sexual orientations and even suggesting exploration of gender identity for children, can be perceived as a challenging and unsettling time for those holding more traditional views on sexuality.
Now, how does the ADF perceive this situation? They often describe it using terms like “totalitarian.” Waggoner conveyed to me her concerns about what she characterized as a majoritarian, authoritarian shift, where the prevailing liberal view on sexual ethics, now a majority in America, is perceived as being forcefully imposed on dissenting individuals. This perspective aligns with their belief that they are currently championing the free expression of what they see as an embattled minority.
GROSS: I’d like to note that you mentioned “gay sodomy” because one of the cases related to gay rights involved overturning a sodomy law in Texas. I assume that’s the reason for using that particular expression.
KIRKPATRICK: Yes, indeed. I’m 53 years old, and during my college years, there was a Supreme Court precedent that endorsed the right of states to criminalize gay sodomy. It wasn’t until 2003 that this precedent was overturned. So, I can recall a time when the legal landscape and constitutional stance on this issue were quite different.
GROSS: The ADF employs the rhetoric of the civil rights movement but directs it towards causes that run counter to the values advocated by the civil rights movement and civil liberties groups. Would you agree with that characterization?
KIRKPATRICK: Well, the ADF wouldn’t characterize it in that manner. From their perspective, and it’s important to note this is a conservative viewpoint, the civil rights movement, as interpreted by liberals, is seen as centered around expanding individual personal freedoms. This includes the right to abortion, the freedom to express any sexual orientation, and the ability to explore gender identity freely – all considered aspects of personal freedom and part of the broader civil rights movement. However, the ADF’s stance is rooted in the belief that some of these issues involve ideological considerations related to sexual ethics. They argue that, at this point in American history, the liberal viewpoint on sexual ethics has become the majority, even dominant, perspective. In this context, they assert that they are, in a way, following the example set by the early history of the ACLU, which advocated for minority perspectives and protected free speech rights. This is certainly how they prefer to present themselves currently. Ultimately, whether listeners find this portrayal as overstated or not is a matter for individual interpretation.
GROSS: How do critics of the ADF respond to their strategy of asserting support for the rights of a minority group, specifically those who resist LGBTQ rights?
KIRKPATRICK: Essentially, critics argue that it’s a form of double talk, emphasizing the freedom to discriminate over the freedom from discrimination. They see it as an inversion of priorities, asserting that it leads to an inevitable clash. In a world where expressing racist views to discriminate is unacceptable, opponents of the ADF contend that refusing service to a same-sex couple is analogous to a restaurant owner refusing to serve a Black customer. The fundamental conflict lies in the tension between one person’s freedom of expression and another person’s right to equality.
GROSS: You obtained access to leaked recordings, including a talk by Jeffrey Ventrella, a senior counsel and senior vice president of academic affairs and training at the ADF. Ventrella designed the curriculum for various ADF training programs, including the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, aimed at instructing law students in the Christian conservative principles and strategies of the ADF. The internal lecture, titled “Lordship and Liberty,” explores the role of Christianity in America, and you have an excerpt from this talk given at the Blackstone Fellowship.
(AUDIO CLIP FROM RECORDED LECTURE)
JEFFERY VENTRELLA: Jesus Christ is Lord. This is the foundational and ultimate declaration that Christians make regarding the entirety of reality, politics included. Believers currently assert by faith what will eventually become evident to everyone. All earthly authorities are subordinate to the sovereignty of Jesus Christ, necessitating our steadfast presence in the courts, judiciary, and academia. In simpler terms, as someone else once expressed it, to request Christianity to stay out of certain domains is to request God not to be God, given that He is the sovereign Lord. We are obliged to advocate for these principles, to uphold just laws that truly contribute to the well-being of humanity as a whole. As attorneys, we possess the expertise needed for such advocacy.
GROSS: That recording featured Jeffrey Ventrella, a senior counsel and senior vice president of academic affairs and training at the Alliance Defending Freedom. The leaked tape was provided to you by a group known as Documented.
KIRKPATRICK: Indeed, that is accurate.
GROSS: Is he suggesting that the ADF aims to establish a Christian nation in the United States?
KIRKPATRICK: According to them, no. They strongly reject the notion that they are advocating for a theocracy. They would vehemently emphasize that their interpretation of biblical teachings includes principles of tolerance. Interestingly, what they express is not entirely dissimilar to messages heard in certain left-leaning or progressive churches in New York. Both sides may assert that the Bible guides their understanding of justice, social welfare, and even tax policies. The controversial aspect lies in the tone and emphasis of how these ethical beliefs influence political engagement.
You know, when he addresses a private audience of Christian conservative lawyers, the message doesn’t come across as pluralistic. The tone suggests that, while Christianity was indeed the dominant religion at the time of the founding and influenced the thoughts of many founders about the Constitution, there’s not much emphasis on pluralism as liberals or even some liberal churches would stress today. Their stance is unapologetic, asserting that Christianity serves as their blueprint for the world, defining what it means to be a believer. While they may argue that this doesn’t necessarily entail imposing their beliefs on others, in the contemporary pluralistic and secular culture, such sentiments can sound disconnected.
GROSS: Let’s pause briefly, and we’ll delve deeper into our discussion. For those just joining us, I’m Terry Gross, and my guest is David Kirkpatrick, a staff writer for The New Yorker. Our conversation centers on the Alliance Defending Freedom, an activist Christian conservative legal group, explored in Kirkpatrick’s article titled “The Next Targets For The Group That Overturned Roe.” Stay with us; we’ll also touch on Kirkpatrick’s recent interview with a leader of Hamas. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
GROSS: Welcome back to FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. Let’s resume the conversation from my interview recorded yesterday with David Kirkpatrick, discussing the Alliance Defending Freedom, characterized as the most influential arm of the Christian conservative movement. Kirkpatrick’s article, “The Next Targets For The Group That Overturned Roe,” delves into the ADF’s initiatives, notably its success in the courts, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Now, they’re focused on endeavors such as restricting access to the abortion pill mifepristone and curbing LGBTQ rights.
Some notable individuals have either taught or participated in the educational programs offered by the ADF’s educational branch. Could you share the names of some of these prominent figures?
KIRKPATRICK: Perhaps the most intriguing figure is Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has taught at ADF on multiple occasions. Interestingly, during her confirmation hearings, she stated to the Judiciary Committee that she might not be fully aware of all ADF’s positions and didn’t extensively research the stances of every organization she visited for lectures. Another noteworthy lecturer from around the same time is Senator Josh Hawley, whose wife serves as a lawyer for ADF.
GROSS: There are connections between the ADF and two influential congressmen – Steve Scalise, who previously sought the position of House speaker but was unsuccessful, and Jim Jordan, currently aspiring to become the House speaker. Last fall, they jointly hosted an ADF reception for recently elected lawmakers. Could you elaborate on their ties to the ADF?
KIRKPATRICK: I don’t have explicit information on a specific connection between either of them and the ADF. However, what seems apparent is that the ADF has increasingly become a significant player within the conservative and Christian conservative spheres. Beyond legal advocacy, they engage in what could be described as strategic influence, providing guidance to legislators across various states, shaping legislation that aligns with their preferred principles.
In recent years, they’ve extended their influence to the federal level, engaging with the United States Congress. Through initiatives like their ambassadors program, non-legal civilian supporters of ADF have the opportunity to learn about the organization’s principles and contribute to their promotion in their communities. ADF also collaborates with a network of churches and ministries nationwide, offering legal guidance. They’ve evolved beyond being merely a law firm and now operate more as a movement. Given this broader scope, it’s understandable why prominent Republican leaders in Congress might find it advantageous to align themselves with the ADF in hosting a reception for new lawmakers.
GROSS: Can we observe a significant number of the lawyers or judges trained by ADF currently engaged in legal defense or active in the courts?
KIRKPATRICK: Absolutely. I believe you are referring to their fellowship program, the Blackstone Fellowship, which targets first-year law students during the summer between their first and second year. This program has grown significantly, accommodating around 125 law students annually. Graduates of this fellowship often proceed to clerk for federal or state judges, or pursue roles in government. As a result, many clerks currently working for federal judges have undergone ADF’s training, creating a notable connection when these judges preside over ADF-related cases.
GROSS: In recent months, two federal judges concluded legal disputes by instructing involved parties to undergo ADF training specifically focused on the First Amendment. One instance involved a lawsuit against Southwest Airlines initiated by a flight attendant alleging termination due to her anti-abortion stance. Southwest is contesting the case. How did the involvement of ADF training influence the resolution?
KIRKPATRICK: In that particular case, the judge endorsed a settlement stipulating that Southwest’s attorneys undergo instruction on the First Amendment from ADF. However, Southwest is currently challenging this decision on appeal, and the outcome remains uncertain. I found it noteworthy because ADF is generally viewed as a partisan organization, advocating on contentious issues where there’s significant disagreement among Americans. Here, a federal judge directed Southwest’s legal representatives to seek guidance on the First Amendment from ADF, which struck me as extraordinary.
GROSS: In the recent Supreme Court term, individuals who had undergone ADF’s training program served as law clerks for Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Sam Alito. They played a role in the case involving a web designer who refused to create a website for a same-sex wedding, if I recall correctly.
KIRKPATRICK: Yes, for a same-sex wedding.
GROSS: Additionally, they were involved in the case concerning the Justice Department’s appeal to halt the mifepristone ban. So their influence extends quite significantly.
KIRKPATRICK: Indeed, I considered it a significant indicator of the mainstream acceptance and success achieved by the Blackstone Fellowship and ADF. While Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett likely had well-established positions on the matter before hiring those clerks, it underscores the proximity of ADF’s ideology to the influential centers of legal authority in the nation.
GROSS: Well, we need to take another break here, so let me reintroduce you. My guest is David Kirkpatrick, a staff writer for The New Yorker. In a recent article, he writes about the Alliance Defending Freedom. The article’s called “The Next Targets For The Group That Overturned Roe.” He also has a new article in which he interviews one of the leaders of Hamas, and we’re going to talk about that after we take a short break. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF SOLANGE’S TRACK, “WEARY”)
Yes, Mousa Abu Marzouk has been a longtime member of Hamas and is currently living in exile in Qatar.
Certainly. He played a key role as one of the earliest political leaders of Hamas when the group was formed in 1987.
GROSS: I found it surprising to learn that he only became aware of the Israeli invasion after it had already occurred on Saturday morning. Why was he not informed in advance?
KIRKPATRICK: Well, you’ve got to remember that Hamas is acutely aware of Israeli surveillance. They’re probably also aware that wherever their exiled leaders are – in this case, in Doha – they also are going to be under a lot of surveillance. So if they want – if Hamas wants any hope of preserving the secrecy around a campaign like the one they launched on October 7, they’ve got to be very, very quiet about it, and they can’t be blabbing about that to their political leaders abroad. You know, it’s also true that the Hamas political leaders and military leaders are sometimes complicated to sort out. You know, you – the – they say that the political leaders set the strategy and direction and the military leaders execute it. But it’s also a little bit true that the political leaders are, in some cases, speaking and defending decisions made by the military leaders. So it’s a complicated relationship between the two sides of the group.
GROSS: Did he offer any insights into how Hamas evaded Israeli intelligence and the Israeli military?
KIRKPATRICK: No, he did not. In fact, at certain points, he sounded almost surprised by their own success. You know, Hamas, like the rest of the world, believes that Israel has one of the most formidable intelligence services, and plenty of Hamas plots have been foiled by Israeli spying. And he told us that he was honestly quite surprised to see just how successful and how far their fighters were able to get.
GROSS: He said that Hamas was ready to release women, children and the elderly who were being held captive by Hamas, in addition to releasing citizens of other countries if Israel ceased its military campaign. How do you interpret that?
KIRKPATRICK: He presented it as a gesture of magnanimity, basically. You know, we’re civilized people, we’ll release these noncombatants. I think more realistically, it was an effort to begin negotiations. You know, he was saying, look, if you stop the bombing, we’ll release these prisoners. And I have to believe that Hamas is hoping they will get something in exchange for their many hostages.
DISGUSTING: What was his rationale for the assaults?
KIRKPATRICK: We extensively questioned him, focusing less on the justification and more on the timing. From his perspective, Hamas operates as a resistance group with the goal of liberating Palestine, the Palestinian people, and ending the occupation. According to him, their attacks on Israel align with this objective, as they perceive themselves as a group dedicated to confronting and opposing Israel.
On the flip side, Israel has a longstanding presence in the region, and many of their grievances have persisted over time. We extensively questioned him about the timing of their actions. What stood out to me, and somewhat surprised me, was the sense of desperation, even though he didn’t explicitly use that term. My interpretation was that they find themselves in a situation where the Israeli government is veering further to the right than ever before. The messages coming from the Israeli government indicate a new level of disregard for the Palestinian cause, which is concerning from the Palestinian perspective. Simultaneously, various Arab states, once supporters or allies of the Palestinian cause, have started to establish relations with Israel. During the Trump administration, several Gulf states took this step, and now even Saudi Arabia, a key remaining Arab state, is evidently moving toward recognizing Israel.
And I must mention, a significant aspect of the policies adopted by this right-leaning Israeli government involves the promotion and defense of expanding settlements, particularly in instances of violence between settlers in the West Bank and Palestinians. The repercussions have been severe, with a considerable number of Palestinians losing their lives—approximately 200 in this year alone. Additionally, there have been instances where ministers from the Netanyahu government visited the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a move perceived by Palestinians as an attempt to augment the Jewish presence at this sacred Muslim site. All these developments are disheartening. Abu Marzouk conveyed to us that they are contending with numerous pressures, having made efforts for years to explore various avenues of coexistence with Israel, all of which have proven unsuccessful.
GROSS: Did he express any opinion on whether the Israel-Hamas conflict could escalate into a broader regional war?
KIRKPATRICK: We inquired about that too. There has been considerable focus on Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group that also advocates for the Palestinian cause. Would they escalate the situation?
GROSS: And both Hezbollah and Hamas receive funding from Iran.
KIRKPATRICK: Yes, to a much greater extent. Hezbollah is more directly and completely aligned with Iran, sharing the Shiite affiliation with the Iranian government. There has been considerable speculation about whether they might escalate hostilities against Israel on an additional front, potentially expanding it into a broader war, a two-front conflict, or even involving Iran. Abu Marzouk, however, was remarkably categorical in denying any such escalation. Essentially, he stated that while they may wish for a regional war and conflict against Israel, it’s not a plausible scenario. He firmly expressed his expectation that Hezbollah would adhere to its existing cease-fire with Israel, ruling out the likelihood of a larger regional conflict. While some may view this as a strategic statement in the context of war where misinformation is common, the fact that he acknowledged their desire for such a conflict makes the denial seem credible for now.
GROSS: He conveyed that one of his concerns is that, despite the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, it might postpone the normalization of relations between the Saudis and Israelis. However, he emphasized that it won’t necessarily jeopardize the future of that relationship.
KIRKPATRICK: Considering the immense impact of Israeli retaliation on the Palestinian population in Gaza, with a significantly higher number of Palestinian casualties compared to Israelis at this early stage of the conflict, and recognizing that the Israeli response is just commencing, it’s evident that Palestinians in Gaza are enduring and will continue to endure considerable suffering. Consequently, we frequently questioned Abu Marzouk about the justification for this, asking what they stand to gain. In the Western context, there’s speculation about whether they are attempting to obstruct the potential recognition of Israel by Saudi Arabia, given the growing indications of diplomatic relations between the two. I was taken aback by how candid he was, stating that he didn’t even believe they could prevent it. Essentially, he asserted that it’s inevitable, and their best hope is to possibly delay the process.
GROSS: What was the process for securing an interview with him?
KIRKPATRICK: My colleague, Adam Rasgon, played a key role in securing the interview. Having previously worked for The Jerusalem Post and The New York Times in Jerusalem, with a close focus on Palestinian affairs, he promptly reached out to Abu Marzouk after the recent attack to understand his perspective. I had interviewed Abu Marzouk years ago during my time as the Times bureau chief in Cairo, so I recognized the potential for an intriguing interview. I was keen to collaborate with Adam, who initiated the initial contact.
GROSS: What significance does his position hold within Hamas?
KIRKPATRICK: He’s been a senior figure in Hamas from the very beginning. I mean, he was in on the ground floor when the organization was founded in 1987, when it first came together, and, at different times, I think, has been their top political leader. So he’s certainly a significant voice within the organization.
GROSS: You engaged in a conversation with someone associated with a group responsible for a horrendous attack on Israelis, involving the slaughter of innocent people, including young concertgoers, the elderly, and babies. How do you manage to remain composed during the interview and determine what questions to ask without letting anger overwhelm you?
KIRKPATRICK: We gave careful consideration to the ethical implications, especially when giving a platform to someone associated with an organization that has carried out a heinous attack, resulting in the loss of civilian lives and violations of international law. Our approach aimed to avoid merely providing a platform for his statements. Instead, we conducted a reported dialogue, asking the questions that many readers would want answers to, such as the reasons behind Hamas’s actions and what they hope to achieve, considering the unlikely prospect of meaningful, long-term change and the significant impact on Palestinian civilians. Our focus remained on these critical inquiries.
And we approached him because these are the individuals who possess the information needed to address those inquiries. These questions are of paramount importance to our readers and the global community right now, and the only individuals with the potential to provide insights are the leaders of Hamas. To uncover these details, engaging in a thoughtful, unbiased conversation is crucial. It’s about striking a balance—ensuring a careful and fair dialogue that doesn’t merely hand him a microphone but allows his perspective to be heard in a measured way.
GROSS: David Kirkpatrick, a staff writer for The New Yorker, is my guest. You can find the article he co-wrote about his interview with Mousa Abu Marzouk, one of the leaders of Hamas, on The New Yorker website. More from our recorded interview yesterday coming up after a break. This is FRESH AIR.
(AUDIO CLIP FROM TODD SICKAFOOSE’S “BARNACLE”)
GROSS: Welcome back to FRESH AIR. Let’s return to my conversation recorded yesterday with David Kirkpatrick, a staff writer for The New Yorker. Recently, he and Adam Rasgon published an article on The New Yorker website discussing their interview with Mousa Abu Marzouk, a senior political leader of Hamas.
Marzouk’s statement about exploring coexistence with Israel seems contradictory to Hamas’s stated goal of the destruction of Israel. The coexistence claim may be part of their public relations or diplomatic strategy, but it contrasts with their long-standing objective.
KIRKPATRICK: The situation is more nuanced than a straightforward answer. In recent years, Hamas has exhibited signs suggesting a willingness to coexist with Israel. They’ve engaged in negotiations through intermediaries for work permits, fishing rights, and other measures to improve the conditions in Gaza. There have been political statements that appear, to some extent, to retract the antisemitic elements from their original charter. They’ve hinted at accepting Israel in the long term and participated in elections with the Palestinian Authority, which, established by the Oslo Accords, inherently supports a two-state solution. So, in their actions, there does appear to be some level of willingness to coexist with Israel. It’s not entirely inaccurate.
Simultaneously, they have consistently maintained their advocacy for genuine Palestinian independence, the right of all Palestinian refugees worldwide to return, and they have not relinquished their weapons. It’s a more intricate situation. Some Israelis now contend that Hamas’s rhetoric of coexistence was deceitful, a ploy to instill a false sense of confidence and security while secretly preparing for the recent attack. Abu Marzouk counters this by asserting that they genuinely attempted coexistence, but the lack of substantial progress toward genuine Palestinian self-determination hindered their efforts.
GROSS: Surely he must be aware that an invasion of Israel by Hamas would provoke a massive response. The ongoing bombing campaign has already led to the deaths of thousands of Gazans, and it seems likely he anticipated such consequences. With borders closed and people directed to flee their homes, those seeking safety have faced deadly attacks both in the south and along evacuation routes. Homes are being destroyed, and the aftermath will leave many without a place to return. Do you think he acknowledges any responsibility for the dire situation faced by the very people he aims to defend, considering the substantial hardships they are enduring?
KIRKPATRICK: Yes, it’s worth noting that his older brother was killed in an airstrike shortly before our interview. I first met him a decade ago, and we spoke this week. I believe he is aware of the significant toll on Gazans. He expressed the view that Gazans were willing to endure this cost, emphasizing their commitment to the struggle and their readiness to pay an even higher price to end the Israeli occupation. While the people in Gaza lack a voice in this situation, it’s challenging to fathom the position of a Hamas leader who has brought such retaliation upon the people of Gaza.
GROSS: There are reports of a 45-minute phone call between the leader of Iran and Mohammed bin Salman, the leader of Saudi Arabia, marking their first-ever conversation. What do you interpret as the meaning and significance of this development?
KIRKPATRICK: I believe it signals a mutual desire from both sides to steer clear of a regional war at the moment.
GROSS: That’s an encouraging sign.
KIRKPATRICK: It’s a hopeful sign, but let’s not get carried away. We’re still facing a situation where Iran is on the verge of nuclear weapons development, well within reach. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is seeking assistance from the United States to develop nuclear power, ostensibly for peaceful energy purposes. However, they openly express the need for nuclear parity with Iran for self-defense. While the two leaders spoke during this Israeli-Palestinian conflict, expressing a desire to avoid war between themselves, we must recognize the looming potential for a new arms race in the region. So, despite this positive development, caution is warranted.
GROSS: Thank you for sharing your insights with us.
KIRKPATRICK: My pleasure.
GROSS: I conducted my interview with David Kirkpatrick yesterday. You can find his article, “What Was Hamas Thinking?” co-written with Adam Rasgon, on The New Yorker website. Additionally, Kirkpatrick has an article on the Christian conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, available on the website and in print in The New Yorker.
Tomorrow on FRESH AIR, we’ll have Greta Lee, the lead in the movie “Past Lives.” Our film critic Justin Chang hails it as an exquisitely thoughtful and moving film, describing it as the most affecting love story he’s witnessed in quite some time. Greta Lee’s extensive credits include roles in TV shows such as “Russian Doll,” “Girls,” “Inside Amy Schumer,” and “High Maintenance.” She is currently a prominent cast member on the series “The Morning Show.”
(AUDIO CLIP FROM AARON GOLDBERG’S “TROCANDO EM MIUDOS”)
GROSS: Executive production for FRESH AIR is led by Danny Miller. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Amy Salit, Phyllis Myers, Roberta Shorrock, Sam Briger, Lauren Krenzel, Heidi Saman, Ann Marie Baldonado, Therese Madden, Seth Kelley, and Susan Nyakundi are responsible for producing and editing our interviews and reviews. Molly Seavy-Nesper serves as our digital media producer, while Thea Chaloner directed today’s show. Tonya Mosley is our co-host. I’m Terry Gross.
In under 48 hours following the ban on the ‘global LGBTQ+ movement’ for alleged extremism, LGBTQ+-friendly bars experienced police raids.
A still from the documentary Queendom, in which Russian queer performance artist Gena Marvin challenged the gender norms of the Putin regime through a series of daring public performances. Photograph: Publicity image
Scarcely after Russia declared the “international LGBT public movement” as extremist, masked police conducted a raid on a bar in central Moscow where Vasili and his friends used to gather for LGBTQ+ parties on Friday nights.
“It was an ordinary Friday evening until the police suddenly stormed in,” recounted Vasili, who requested a name change due to safety concerns.
Vasili detailed how he and approximately 100 others were instructed to face a wall while the police conducted searches for drugs and photographed their passports.
“The police alleged it was a drug raid, but everyone knew they targeted the club because it was a queer night,” he expressed. “Standing against that wall, you realize how limited your rights are as a gay person in this country.”
On the evening of December 1, at least two other LGBTQ+-friendly establishments in the Russian capital were subjected to raids, occurring within less than 48 hours of the country’s top court, in a landmark ruling, outlawing the “global LGBTQ+ movement” as an extremist organization.
Although sexual minorities have confronted enduring social exclusion and prejudice in both the Soviet Union and its Russian successor, the Kremlin initiated its legal assault on Russia’s LGBTQ+ community in 2013. This began when Vladimir Putin signed the infamous law prohibiting the “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” among minors.
However, in major cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg, gay Russians and their allies managed to find avenues for self-expression despite prevailing laws. A lively LGBTQ+ party scene flourished, to which authorities largely turned a blind eye.
“Before the [Ukraine] war, there was a recognition that within one’s home or at a queer gathering, you could still be true to yourself,” remarked Karen Shainyan, a prominent Russian gay rights advocate and journalist.
“We genuinely believed that attitudes towards sexual minorities were getting better, with more people openly discussing queer topics,” Shainyan, who initiated a popular LGBTQ+-themed YouTube channel in 2019, further commented.
Surveys also suggested that positive sentiments toward the queer community were slowly improving over the last five years, progress that Shainyan is concerned might be reversed.
“The conflict in Ukraine altered everything,” he remarked.
Since Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Russian leader has initiated a renewed campaign to champion what he terms “traditional values,” with anti-gay rhetoric becoming a cornerstone of his political agenda.
Shainyan stated that the Kremlin is explicitly connecting the suppression of LGBTQ+ expression to its rationale for the war. The government asserts to its citizens that Russia is not only engaged in a conflict with Ukraine but is also part of a broader, existential struggle against Western liberal values, often characterized as “satanic.”
In the preceding year, Putin enacted a law prohibiting “LGBT propaganda” among adults, criminalizing any action deemed an effort to endorse what Russia terms “non-traditional sexual relations” — whether in film, online, advertising, or public spaces. Following the implementation of this law, bookstores and cinemas removed all content featuring LGBTQ+ themes.
The real-world repercussions of labeling the “international LGBT public movement” as “extremist” at the end of November are still not entirely evident.
Historically, the authorities have employed the extremist designation to pursue legal action against human rights organizations, religious groups, and political opposition figures, including associates of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny and members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some individuals in these groups have been handed extended prison sentences.
According to human rights activists, the language used in the ruling, which targets the “international LGBT public movement” as a broad and ambiguous umbrella term rather than a specific entity, provides Russian authorities with the latitude to target any individual or organization they deem to be associated with the “movement.”
Activists mentioned that there will be less overt consequences as well, with institutional oppression adversely affecting the mental well-being of the queer community.
“The rapidity of the crackdown is difficult to comprehend,” remarked the Russian queer performance artist Gena Marvin.
Prior to the conflict in Ukraine, Marvin defied the gender norms set by the Putin regime and confronted the Russian state’s homophobic stance through a series of bold public performances, documented in the critically acclaimed film “Queendom.”
In her final performance in Russia shortly after the commencement of the war, she strolled through the streets of Moscow, adorned in barbed wire, delivering a potent statement against the conflict.
“We have entered a grim new era where some Russians are branded outlaws from the day they are born,” remarked Marvin.
Both Marvin and Shainyan departed the country following the commencement of the war and are currently residing in other parts of Europe. On the day of the extremism ruling on November 30, Shainyan co-founded a LGBTQ+-focused media outlet named “I Just Got Lucky” with the aim of “uniting Russian queers and providing them with a platform of support.”
Numerous individuals from the queer community are actively seeking avenues to leave the country, as stated by Evelina Chaika, who leads the NGO Equal Post, an organization that assists queer Russians in the relocation process.
Chaika mentioned that her organization recorded a sixfold surge in relocation requests following the “extremist” ruling by the supreme court.
“We currently receive an average of 12 requests per hour on how to leave Russia, which amounts to more than 100 requests a day,” she stated.
Those opting to depart for the Western countries often encounter an uncertain and arduous journey. Harlem, who leads LGBTQ World Beside, an organization specialized in assisting queer individuals with the asylum process in the Netherlands, mentioned, “The asylum process for Russian LGBTQ+ members in Europe is very challenging and can easily take over a year.”
Harlem, who altered his name due to safety concerns after arriving in the Netherlands, shared this information with The Guardian during the funeral in Amsterdam for Mikhail Zubchenko. Zubchenko, a 24-year-old queer Russian, tragically took his own life while awaiting the processing of his asylum application in a Dutch refugee camp.
Zubchenko became the fourth Russian LGBTQ+ asylum seeker to take their own life in the Netherlands last year, highlighting the especially precarious circumstances faced by sexual minorities in refugee camps, according to Harlem.
“LGBTQ+ refugees are highly vulnerable; many had to hastily flee the country for safety reasons, leaving everything behind,” noted Harlem, a gay man who personally left Russia seven years ago.
“We observe that many individuals in the community are experiencing significant mental distress due to the prolonged asylum process, challenging living conditions, and the escalating oppressive situation back home,” expressed Harlem.
The recent extremism ruling in Moscow will compound the stress for those awaiting a decision from their host country.
“You understand the critical importance of these interviews,” remarked Dzam, who departed from a Muslim-majority region in Russia where he faced threats to his life. “If you don’t succeed in the asylum process, you can’t simply go back home. There is no life there for you,” he emphasized.
However, most of Russia’s LGBTQ+ community either cannot or choose not to leave their homes.
“This is my country. I don’t know where else to go,” expressed Vasili, who was still dealing with emotional recovery from the police raid.
Vasili made the decision to cease attending LGBTQ+ events and only discuss his sexuality with his closest friends.
“Many in this country do not endorse the war in Ukraine but choose to remain silent to avoid trouble,” he commented. “It will be the same for my sexuality. I will just pretend not to be me.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.