Sanctions response needed to Sentsov, Kolchenko case

Via @DarthPutinKGB

Reblogged with permission from Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. The author is one of the leading and most respected human rights activists in Ukraine.


===


By Halya Colnash

International outrage over the long sentences passed on Ukrainian film director Oleg Sentsov and civic activist Oleksandr Kolchenko was as foreseeable as the predetermined outcome of Russia’s Crimean show trial. The courage and defiance shown by Sentsov, Kolchenko and Gennady Afanasyev was certainly not what Moscow had planned. It is now for Ukraine and western countries to demonstrate commitment to rule of law by ensuring proper penalties against all those who take part in Russia’s farcical prosecutions and trials of Ukrainian nationals (and thus far one Estonian).

It was clear back at the end of May 2014 that Russia was seeking a Crimean show trial aimed at sending a chilling warning to other opponents of Russia’s annexation to keep their head low. The Stalinist echoes were present from the outset in the emphasis on the demonized Ukrainian far-right nationalist party Right Sector and in the public demonstration of the ‘confession’ of two of the men – Oleksy Chirniy and Gennady Afanasyev. Both Sentsov and Kolchenko insisted throughout on their innocence and Sentsov consistently repeated his account of the torture and threats he had been subjected to.

That was the Kremlin’s first miscalculation, and there have been many since. Moscow has effectively abducted Ukrainian nationals and its attempts to foist Russian citizenship on the men are overtly illegal. The defence could only be forced to remain silent about the file material for so long. Once the indictments were made public, and from the first day of the trial, it was clear for everybody to see that there was no ‘terrorist plot’, and no evidence at all against Sentsov.

As the Memorial Human Rights Centre pointed out in its statement declaring both men political prisoners, the one charge against Kolchenko was in no way ‘terrorism’. Memorial pointed to analogous cases in Russia where the charges had been different and the sentence at least three times smaller.

The prosecutor Igor Tkachenko ignored all of this, as did the three judges: presiding judge Sergei Mikhailyuk, Viacheslav Korsakov and Edward Korobenko.

There was no response from any of them to Afanasyev’s retraction of his testimony and statement in court that he had given it under duress. There was none when the first real lawyer that Afanasyev has had, Alexander Popkov, read out Afanasyev’s account of the torture he had been subjected to and the threats he had received both before and after his courageous act in court.

The prosecutor and judges are demonstrably complicit in the crime committed against Afanasyev, Kolchenko and Sentsov.

It took a long time for countries to agree to sanctions against people implicated in the death in detention of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. This case, that of Nadiya Savchenko and some other Ukrainians, as well as the trial of Estonian police officer Eston Kohver, are more straightforward. No country should be allowed to abduct foreign nationals and convict them in farcical court trials on fabricated charges.

In the Crimean case there is also compelling evidence of the use of torture, and two of the men are now already serving sentences. Afanasyev in particular is in danger, and measures are needed at international level to safeguard both him and his mother from likely reprisals.

A list is currently being drawn up of all those most implicated. It will almost certainly include four FSB officers identified by the Centre for Journalist Investigations as directly involved in the arrest and torture of, at least, Oleg Sentsov. All four are former officers of the Ukrainian Security Service [SBU] and are, or until recently were, Ukrainian nationals. The four men are Alexander Kulabukhov; Sergei Markov; Dmitry Vasilkov and Alexander Zinchenko. It will also include the investigators, prosecutors, judges and others implicated in the men’s prolonged detention; the refusal to investigate credible allegations of torture; and multiple other violations of the men’s rights.

A similar list is needed for former pilot and Ukrainian MP Nadiya Savchenko, with this certainly including people holding high position in Russia’s Investigative Committee. Ideally such a list could also include those responsible for the ongoing detention without properly legal services of 73-year-old Yury Soloshenko; the detention and torture of Serhiy Litvinov, and at least five other Ukrainians now in Russian detention.

A clear message is needed now. The ‘trial’ of Nadiya Savchenko has not begun, but there are all grounds for expecting a similar travesty. The sentences passed on Sentsov and Kolchenko will certainly be appealed.

The appeal court judges, as well as all those taking part in Savchenko’s trial and other demonstrations by Moscow of legal banditry should know now that their actions will have real consequences for them. Criminal orders to destroy human lives should not be obeyed, and those who arrest, torture, abduct and convict those the Kremlin wants punished should, as a minimum, face automatic bans on entry to EU and other democratic countries, and any other measures already applied to those on the Magnitsky List.

Edited to add: The Ukrainian Foreign Minister has said that he will be pushing for sanctions.

See also:

• International protest over Russia’s Stalinist-era style show trial of Sentsov and Kolchenko
• Sentsov and Kolchenko sing Ukrainian anthem as Russian ‘court’ passes expected sentences
• Russian filmmakers join calls in defence of Oleg Sentsov
• Amnesty compares Sentsov's 20-year jail sentence to ‘Stalinist-era show trials’

Free anti-fascist prisoner Alexander Kolchenko

Alexander Kolchenko is a left-wing social activist and antifascist who is being held in captivity by the Russian authorities. Along with renowned film director Oleg Sentsov, he was kidnapped by the Russian FSB (ex-KGB) and detained following the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula,. He is held as a political hostage in Lefortovo jail in Moscow and has been charged with committing “acts of terrorism” and “belonging to a terrorist community”.

A call to action has been organised by the French 'Active Generation: The web activists network' and the International Solidarity Campaign For Alexander Kolchenko.

Only strong and massive pressure on the Putin regime, protests around the world would give a chance to set our comrades free. We demand their immediate discharge and the end of their prosecution.

Why is Alexander Kolchenko in jail?

Alexander, who has undeniably proved his antifascist stance over many years, is facing preposterous accusations of belonging to Right Sector, a radical Ukrainian right-wing organization, whose real role in Ukrainian events is blown out of proportion by Russian official propaganda. In modern Russia any activist — left-wing, anarchist or liberal — can be slandered as a member or sympathizer of Right Sector. This situation is comparable to the hunt for nonexistent 'Trotskyists' under Stalin, or the McCarthy witch-hunt for communists.

Putin’s authoritarian and nationalist regime, which uses in its propaganda everything from religious prejudices and conspiracy theories to outright racism, shamelessly steals “antifascist” rhetoric. And yet anyone who is considered bothersome is called a “fascist”, even if he/she stands on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

The case against antifascist Alexander Kolchenko and civil activist and film director Oleg Sentsov (investigators enrolled them into the same “terrorist” group) is political. It is meant to intimidate inhabitants of Crimea and prevent any resistance on the peninsula.

The most authoritarian of methods are now used in annexed Crimea to repress all discontent. Many people were obliged to leave Crimea because their life and freedom were threatened: lawyers, left-wing activists, students and trade union activists, anarchists, antifascists and Crimean Tatar activists who have fallen victims of ethnic discrimination.

Sentsov (left), Kolchenko (right)

What threats does Alexander Kolchenko face?

A terrible prison sentence of up to 20 years threatens Alexander for a non-existent “terrorist attack” in which he was not involved. Kolchenko and other Ukrainian political prisoners (such as the more famous Ukrainian pilot Nadezhda (Nadia) Savchenko) are detained only in order to demoralize opposition by show trials. Their freedom is directly linked to the stability of the Putin regime: if we can shake the confidence of Putin in his impunity, the prisoners will be set free.

• There is no hope that Kolchenko, Sentsov and others will be judged fairly by the law. 
• Their arrest was unlawful.
• The charges against them are far-fetched.
• It’s not a mistake, the regime knows what it’s doing.

Both men have refused to take part in their trial, which Sentsov called a "concert". He said at the opening of the trial:

Your Honour, I have already stated that I do not consider this court to be legitimate. We are citizens of Ukraine who were arrested on the territory of our country, and we are being tried on fabricated charges. I don’t, however, feel any animosity to you and other parties to this trial.

A lot of lies have already been spoken here and I therefore feel it necessary to clarify certain things, but I do not plan to later take part in these proceedings.

I consider myself a Maidan activist, but that does not mean that I am a criminal. Maidan was the main deed that I have carried out in my life, but that does not mean that I’m a radical, burned ‘Berkut’ riot police or drank anybody’s blood. We drove out our criminal President. When your country occupied Crimea, I returned there and engaged in the same volunteer work as on Maidan. I spoke with hundreds of people. We considered what to do next but I never called on anybody to carry out actions that could have led to deaths.  I did not create terrorist organizations, and I certainly had nothing to do with ‘Right Sector’.

Do they have support from NGOs?

The renowned Russian human rights organisation Memorial has condemned the trial and stated that it considers both men to be political prisoners. Amnesty International is also concerned.

Film director Sentsov has received support from the UK Culture Secretary John Whittingdale and widely within the film industry. Directors’ Fortnight at the Cannes Film Festival in May dedicated its opening event to Sentsov.

The main prosecution witness, Gennady Afanasyev, has confirmed that his ‘confession’ had been extracted through torture. The sole other witness, Oleksy Chirniy, told the Ukrainian consul and his lawyer that his testimony was given under duress. Kolchenko and Sentsov also say they were tortured. The Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group has suggested that Afanasyev's retraction may mean that he is now in danger.

Kolchenko admits taking part in a failed firebombing of the office of the United Russia party. However, says Memorial, 'terrorism charges are "incommensurate both with the damage caused, and with standards of Russian practice."

Says Memorial:

We assume that Right Sector is being foisted on the indictment in order to create a primitive media image of a nationalist threat in Crimea.

Russian has imposed Russian citizenship on the pair and they are being prevented from seeing the Ukrainian consul and from being defended by a Ukrainian lawyer.

How can you help Alexander Kolchenko?

We’re asking international left-wing and libertarian forces for help. You can organize and lead actions of protest and solidarity, write letters to Kolchenko, send donations for lawyers and food parcels, help his family. It is also important to spread information about his case. Most of all, we need to dissociate ourselves from any forces that support aggressive expansion of Russian nationalism, even if they cover it up with 'leftist' and 'anti-imperialist' rhetoric. Putin’s regime is doing just fine without your sympathy, better save it for those who have become its victims.

When to start?

You can start right now by helping us to spread this text, translating it into other languages and sending it to comrades. We also strongly encourage you to organize demonstrations in support of Alexander Kolchenko and other political prisoners jailed in Russia.

Only strong and massive pressure on the Putin regime, protests around the world would give a chance to set our comrades free. We demand their immediate discharge and the end of their prosecution.

• Sign the on-line petition: Free Kolchenko Petition
• Take action via Amnesty International 

For case updates check the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group website.

This text has been adapted from The Ukraine Solidarity Campaign.

Edited to add: As the trial opened in a tiny courtroom in Rostov Sentsov made the following powerful statement:

Did French Muslims save Jews from the Nazis?

A recent film has sparked debate over the role of the Great Paris Mosque in saving Jews from the Holocaust.

'Free Men (Les Hommes Libres)' tells the story of an Algerian black marketeer caught by the Nazis and sent to infiltrate the mosque, suspected of harboring Jews. There he sees the horror of the Nazis actions against French Jews and forms an unlikely friendship with a Jewish gay man.

The film, screened last year in Israel, is one of a new wave examining the long buried reality of France under occupation.

It wasn't until 1969 that a French film truly confronted the reality of Vichy and collaboration. That was Max Orphuls' 'The Sorrow and the Pity', but it wasn't shown on French television until 1981. President Mitterrand refused to apologies for France's role in the deportations of Jews.

President Chiric finally acknowledged France's guilt in 1995. Last year Francois Hollande told the 70th anniversary commemorations of the mass roundup by French police of Paris' Jews that "the truth is that the crime was committed in France, by France." All Parisian students pay a visit to the internment camp at La Cité de la Muette ("The Silent City") in the suburb of Drancy.

In the film the head of the mosque, Si Kaddour Ben Ghabrit, is seen protecting Jews, largely through false papers saying they are Muslim. One who becomes friends with the protagonist is based on the famous singer Salim Halali, an Algerian Jew. After the Nazis become suspicious that Ben Ghabrit is forging papers, he has a false headstone placed in the cometary to show that Halali's grandfather was Muslim.

Says the film's director, Ismaël Ferroukhi:

It shows another reality, that Muslims and Jews existed in peace. We have to remember that − with pride.

His point is underlined by Halili being played in the film by the Israeli Palestinian actor and musician Mahmud Shalaby.

Shalaby told Haaretz:

As a Palestinian, I could identify with the suffering he endured as a Jew. Halali is not Jewish only, but also an Arab with characteristics of Muslims from North Africa. At that time, religion was not of importance. Jews and Muslims lived together in brotherhood and love, without anything to come between them. Halali united everyone.

The ability of the mosque to aid Jews came from the fact that North Africa Jews and Arabs shared many similarities, including similar names. According to Jewish-American historian Robert Satloff, it is not clear whether the mosque deliberately and knowingly chose to help Jews. However witness testimony claims that 1,732 Resistance fighters including many Jews were hidden in the cellars, in a part of the mosque normally out of bounds to non-Muslims. A button would provide an alert when there was a raid.

One document has been sourced demonstrating the concern of the occupation authorities about the mosque. The current head of the mosque says that individual Muslims would bring Jews they knew to the mosque to be helped but they have no documentation confirming their role during the war, which would be unlikely to exist anyway as it would have incriminated them.

The Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial authority says that they have done research on the mosque's role but have been unable to confirm any details. If evidence were found, they say, "we would be glad to bring up the matter of recognizing Benghabrit as a Righteous Among the Nations."

The film's success has brought new information to light. At one screening, a consultant on the film, Benjamin Stora, a French historian, was told by a woman that -- contrary to assumptions -- it was not just Jews of North African origin who were saved. She said that her Ashkenazim Jewish mother was one.

Film trailer with subtitles after the jump:

Postscript: *Northern Ireland only: Why is the BBC ghettoising the Troubles?

Over at Slugger O'Toole, Mick Fealty promoted my post asking whether the BBC was ghettoising films about the Troubles by only showing them in Northern Ireland.

*Link to Mick's post with warning that Google is saying 'site compromised' of Slugger as of writing.

This attracted some interesting comments, as you'd expect from the leading website devoted to Northern Irish politics and life.

One piece of interesting pushback came from Brian Walker, a former BBC journalist, Political Editor and manager in Belfast.

Walker said that BBC Northern Ireland (NI) are not to blame.

The national networks are commissioned by a team under their own controllers. I’m sure the local BBC do their best to get network showcases. For one thing it spreads the costs. I wouldn’t rule out versioning and airing on BBC4.

Possibly, though my survey could only turn up one example of that transfer to British BBC TV.

Another commentator, Nevin, added this nugget of evidence:

Not just NI, it seems:

Q673 Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: You have mentioned Scotland and Wales. In England you hardly get a Scottish story. On Newsnight you have the opt out and there is a real sense that with devolution bits of the country have been cut off from each other. 2005 source [pdf file]

This is a news related comment but it has wider relevance. One of those giving evidence was Pat Loughrey, the then BBC Director of Nations and Regions and former BBC NI Controller.

I haven't watched much Scottish or Welsh regional output because, frankly, it hasn't appealed. But this complaint sounds like one to do with the BBC's structure being 'ghettoised'.

Walker also commented on one show I pointed at as, I thought, suitable for such a transfer, the history of Ulster Presbyterians, 'An Independent People':

This was an ambitious series but in concept definitely NI/Irish, I’d say, and well worth doing in those terms. It could be probably aired in its present form in Scotland without much of a remake but I think it would need subtantially reversioning for the networks.

This is not a criticism by any means. NI’s audience is distinct and not all ambitous programme ideas should be made on the condition that they are only worth funding if they get network airings.

I'm not so sure about that on revisioning. For one thing, BBC4 has vast amounts of time to fill, which it generally does with repeats (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that), so why not repeat that show there. For another, check the schedule, there are some remarkably esoteric shows on. Plus that show had a fascinating middle episode on the role of Ulster Presbyterians in the American revolution.

I take the unfashionable view that the NI audience needs its owns share of high quality expensive programming. And not all of it should be made for networks in mind. Great if you can co-commission or export some of it but not always essential and not always appropriate.

No, but that wasn't my point. Film and television is replete with examples of shows which were made for very specific audiences yet found much wider appeal. I don't think this is 'either/or'. What seems to be happening -- one region's shows being blocked out, perhaps because of the way the BBC is structured --  is a deprivation for the British audience if we rarely if ever get the chance to see something from that perspective, something not made with 'us' in mind. Or put it this way, we still watch American shows which have no consideration, are not revised, for 'us' -- or Danish ones for that matter.

Australia is fortunate in having what I think is a unique in the world TV channel, the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), which was set up by a Liberal (conservative) government in the 1970s to cater for an increasingly multicultural Australia. That channel shows TV and films from literally all around the world and is full of gems which audiences for whom the programming wasn't done (i.e not the minority from the relevant country of origin) are grateful to get an opportunity to see.

Walker does point out that the TV landscape is rapidly changing, shown by the fact that I am able to watch '*Northern Ireland only' shows at all on iPlayer. However, again, I beg to disagree as, from my web experience for one, the looming era of thousands if not millions of 'channels' does not really mean that the masses will find something. We will probably always have someone, whether a public or a private corporation, to whom we hand over the remote control and say 'I've had a hard day at work, here, you curate for me'. Most people, after all, only regularly visit, what is it, seven web sites? What shows, after all, does iPlayer, more specifically the Editors there, promote? Not BBC NI ones, or other regional output, as far as I can see, ever.

Postcript: Outing and 'positive images' in Hollywood

In this post, reflecting on discussion of 'positive images' in mainstream movies, I noted how:

Something like William Friedkin's Cruising can now be looked at by bleeding-edge film-maker James Franco as a sexy artefact to be examined. Back then it was yet another movie in which gay people receive their just desserts: death. Both that and the now seen as camp Basic Instinct, made 12 years after Cruising, attracted demonstrations when they were being filmed.

Huffington Post reports that Friedkin, like Silence of The Lambs director Jonathan Demme before him, has now expressed regrets.

I thought there might be some negative criticism of it, but I thought that that would come from more of the so-called 'straight community' who were not used to seeing those events depicted. To be accurate, the film was about the S&M world. It was a murder mystery set against the backdrop of the S&M world at that time, in the late-seventies. It was not about the gay community at all. But, here's the historical fact about it. Gay liberation had begun to make powerful steps forward and I'm sure when 'Cruising' came out, it was not the best foot forward for gay liberation. I recognize that in hindsight but I didn't at the time.

To say the movie is "not about the gay community" is disingenuous to say the least but, hey ho, regret ...

*Northern Ireland only: Why is the BBC ghettoising the Troubles?

Why is excellent TV about the Troubles, the war in Northern Ireland and Britain, only shown in Northern Ireland?

This month the BBC broadcast a fascinating and moving documentary, from which the above image comes. It is one of the most famous photographs of the whole war. It shows the priest Fr Alec Reid administering the last rites to a dying soldier, who had strayed into the wrong place and been beaten to death and shot by the IRA.

The documentary was '14 Days' and covers a fortnight during which the British state shot three IRA members in cold blood in Gibraltar, then their funeral was attacked by a Loyalist gunman and then two soldiers were killed. When he was administering to the soldier Fr Reid had in his pocket a letter which he was carrying in his capacity as a go between. Reid was one of the earliest actors to attempt to bring together key parties to try to get a ceasefire, that letter was from Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to the leader of the 'moderate Catholic' SDLP, John Hume.

The film uses the device of those two weeks and the focus on one man to try to tell a bigger story of how individuals can have great impacts during momentous times, times when all hope appears lost. It's cinematic and has many powerful images like the one above, the capturing of which itself forms part of the narrative.

'14 Days' is not without its problems.

Professor John D Brewer writes that Reid's pain as he relives this time is seen in his face but it isn't properly explained in the film:

I am certain that what peaceful future Northern Ireland has is down in no small measure to the courageous individuals like Father Reid in the churches who brought paramilitaries, politicians, civil society and others together in sacred spaces.They were not all Catholic clerics. Many were Protestants. We glimpsed in 14 Days the equally seismic role of clergy like Harold Good, Ken Newell and others, working alongside or in parallel to Father Reid.

But there was one thing we didn’t get from this otherwise excellent programme. The Catholic and Protestant clergy more or less acted on their own authority, outside the conservative, cautious institutional church. They were mavericks, independents, easily left out on a limb when the secret back-channel dialogue they were facilitating became public and the institutional church disowned them.

Father Reid was pilloried by the Catholic Church – as was Ken Newell by some of his fellow Presbyterians. Only the Methodist Church gave its peacemakers something approaching official backing. And that is why Father Reid paid such an emotional price for his compassionate commitment to peacemaking.

....

The institutional churches did not perform with honour in trying to establish peace and relegated themselves to burying the dead and comforting the widows. The job of getting their hands dirty was left to a select brave few and it is appropriate to echo that never before was so much owed by so many to so few.

Mick Fealty, aka the blogger Slugger O'Toole, spoke with me about the film and echoed Brewer's criticism. Fealty said that a "more penetrating documentary would have looked in more depth at the context and the deaths of the three on Gibraltar to see where the political story was."

In that famous photo, Reid was carrying, says Brewer, "the first draft of the eventual blueprint that evolved later into the Downing Street Declaration and thence the Belfast Agreement." The 1998 Belfast Agreement, also known as the Good Friday Agreement, reestablished devolved government on the basis of power sharing.

But this version of history leads on to another problem, says Fealty, and one which comes back to the problem of British TV viewers not hearing about Northern Ireland. "I think it ['14 Days'] suffers from 'Peace Processism'", says Fealty. "This place is in a sustained state of cold war."

Brits don't want to know

Outing and 'positive images' in Hollywood

A speech last week arguing for an end to anti-LGBT stereotypes by a Hollywood studio leader has received much attention. Amy Pascal, chair of Sony Pictures, said:

Old stereotypes still exist. The most benign stereotypes would have a gay kid believe that they will end up being the asexual, witty best friend of the pretty girl, or a drag queen, or a swishy hairdresser. The list goes on.

Of course, there are great images, too, like the family in The Kids Are All Right. The way the boy in Perks of Being a Wallflower and the middle-aged man in Hotel Marigold and the 75-year-old man in Beginners come out to a better, richer, more fulfilled life. It’s treated as a celebration.

I hated The Kids Are All Right. I hated the people depicted, just the worst sort of self-absorbed Californian liberals, I hated the dialogue, but what I most hated was how they treated the help, the Hispanic gardener, something which received no comment in any review I saw. So, one persons 'positive image' is anothers waste of time and money.

Pascal led off by citing The Celluloid Closet, Vito Russo's seminal history of gay representation at the movies. Tellingly, Pascal referred to the documentary, not the book.

Russo's book is about how representation was there right from the beginning of cinema, if you knew where to look. But in the later years Celluloid Closet shows how so much of this became relentlessly negative. This is hardly surprising. Just as is happening now in Africa, increasing gay visibility in the United States at that time created a backlash.

I thought of this time when reading Richard Smith's take on Pascal's speech:

It's a bit simplistic and resurrects a rather tired 80s argument about "positive images" in popular culture. Haven't we got over this by now?

During those 'tired' 80s and well into the 90s, Hollywood representation became a leading gay political issue. This was the time of the AIDS crisis, of Act-Up civil disobedience, and of a movement challenging Hollywood on the streets. There were protests at the Oscars, twice. Location filming was disturbed.

The power of the culture to impact facts on the ground is self-evident now, when we see something like the Vice President of the United States citing TV show Will and Grace for why he changed his view on marriage.

Actor Wilson Cruz, who starred on cult classic TV series My So-Called Life in the 1990s, explained on Melissa Harris Perry:

We cannot overstate how powerful that is when someone walks through a story and experiences a life on their television screens in their home. They really understood who we are as a people. So now they're voters. Now they're legislators and running the country. So story is important because we get into the heart and the mind of people.

Back then the power of the culture was self-evident too, if only to some, and that was because the negativity was relentless. Something like William Friedkin's Cruising can now be looked at by bleeding-edge film-maker James Franco as a sexy artefact to be examined. Back then it was yet another movie in which gay people receive their just desserts: death. Both that and the now seen as camp Basic Instinct, made 12 years after Cruising, attracted demonstrations when they were being filmed.

'Inning' Jodie Foster

A modest proposal on language

David Shariatmadari has an interesting piece 'The language of LGBT love' in the Guardian.

He looks at an update of a film made about young gay people in London in the 1980s for the current London Lesbian and Gay Film Festival.

That GLC-funded, Daily Mail provoking, three decade old film he found striking in its innocence of language, of how people described themselves and their lives. Whereas today ...

... what stood out was the way they talked.

Translated into 2013ese, the blunt vox-popping of shoppers ("D'you know any lesbians?") morphs into something more postmodern ("Do you know anyone who self-identifies as LGBT?"). This generation namechecks "genderfluidity" and appears to embrace "questioning" (the last word in the variant LGBTQ) as an identity, as opposed to a phase, or a state of mind. In spite of claiming they want to get away from definitions and labels, to avoid "putting people in boxes", they reflect an online culture that finds room for the asexual, the pansexual, the heteroflexible and the demisexual. The boxes haven't gone away, they've just got smaller. Personal definitions are listed, menu-like, in that vast banqueting hall of the self that is social media.

Someone should really do a timeline on when and how this overwhelming, alphabet soup of PC language descended on us.

A couple of things struck me.

'Queer' is a vile term. Much of my and earlier generations of gay men got killed off by Iris the Virus, so less around to complain then, but all those still standing remember what that term meant and it still sends a shudder up my spine. It seems a bit ridiculous to, on the one hand, hear today's activists paying tribute to those who went before and, on the other hand, hear this hideous word still used in polite company, let alone 'reclaimed', whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean (by whom? who for?).

Both Ellen (DeGeneres) and (Rachel) Maddow, two of the most famous lesbians in the word, to pick off the top of my head, refer to themselves as 'gay'. Everyone knows what they mean.

So here's the proposal, drop 'LGBTQIetc' and just use 'gay'. Everyone knows what you mean because we went through all that stuff which a timeline should be written about and now everyone knows that 'gay' does not mean just 'gay men' -- the reason this process started in the first place and why we now have the London Lesbian and Gay Film Festival. 'Gay' = that whole 'alphabet soup' plus 'heteroflexible' and whatever the next flavour-of-the-month term comes out of some University.

Simples.

HT: Fagburn
Image: Uly's Comics