Oh my.

Are you serious?

Yes.

So to be clear, you should respect the law of the country you're in even if it violates the basic human rights of a select group of people?

Just making sure you understand what you're insinuating, and how ridiculous it sounds.

Apparently she said she identifies as neither male nor female, but lives as a female... I can kind of understand the 'it' so a certain extent.

As a foreigner, yes.

She kicked Luxuria?

All I remember was her saying "meglio fascista che frocio"

You actually don't have to listen to their ****. Change happens because people make it happen. You're either young or naive. or both

Yes, the people from that country. I'm pro-choice and I find being pro-life almost as idiotic as being anti-gay, yet I don't think I or others should go lecture countries about their policies on that matter. Same thing for the death penalty, the age of consent being 13 in Japan, circoncision in several countries, alcohol being forbidden in Saudi Arabia etc. If change there must be, it has to come from the inside of the countries, not the worldwide moral police.

Therefore, when I go in Saudi Arabia, I won't drink alcohol. When I go in Russia, I won't do what they call 'gay propaganda' etc. If I'm not happy, I can always not go there, but don't knowingly act like an ethnocentric fool and then cry when you face the consequences.

Equating drinking alcohol, or circumcision to imprisoning people due to their sexual preference are extremely different things. Claiming others who stand for the basic human rights as "ethnocentric fools" simply displays that you lack a clear foundation of the history of human rights. Change can come from outside of the country as much as within it, and to attempt to minimize those trying to fight these battles as "fools" is reprehensible.

I don't know if I agree with this.

idontcaraboutyou has a point. The American model of "do it this way because it's how I do it and I'm right" is what's reprehensible. No one can have the presumption of dictating policy outside of their borders.

I'm hard pressed to find a situation here a policy choice or change that was imposed by a foreign party upon another country actually stuck. Change is effective when people take it into their own hands.

This is all nonsense. There is no rule-book in our heads that forces us to abide by the regulations in other countries. You don't respect the basic rights of humans, I don't respect your laws, it's as simple as that. Respect is earned

You're subject to the laws and regulations of the country you're in. It's the most fundamental precept of law. There is no extra-territoriality that you're protected by the laws of your own country. If you break the law in another country, regardless of how you feel about the law, you can and you will be arrested.

Do any of you realize that you're essentially advocating vigilante justice and selectively choosing which laws to follow?

It's a violation of someone's freedom (I'm talking about alcohol for adults, obviously), as is the pro-life policy. As a gay individual, you probably feel that imprisoning people due to their sexual preferences is more offensive, and for obvious reasons, but others will find other policies much more offensive : I'm sure a lot of women find pro-life policies much more dreadful than the non-respect of sexual preferences. It only makes sense to have a certain bias to what affects you the most.
Change almost never comes from outside the country. Local populations usually dislike interventionism, and rightfully so.

As Patri says, this means that you are basically revocating the concept of law and of Westphalian sovereignty. I don't think you realise what would be the consequences of that : they would far far outweigh the violation of what you deem as basic human rights (basically, it would be war).

Of course, you're free to not respect a country's laws, but don't come crying afterwards when they arrest you for that. They are perfectly entitled to do so and you would be the one in the wrong there legally speaking, not them.

Ugh what a ****ed up ****ing place.

Well, you can choose to not drink alcohol in Saudi Arabia, but people can't choose to be not gay, even if they are in Russia.

If respecting one country's law means putting people there at risk of harm, abuse or even murder, I just don't think it's a right thing to do.

I guess that's what international activists are for. If people can't help themselves and there's no domestic force strong enough to help them, is it right for people all over the world to abandon them as well?

You all are living in liberal Western countries with your pro-choice (I mean generally, not just about the abortion thing) ideals, and you obviously don't know what it feels like living in a conservative society. As one living in such environment, I am very thankful for any and all foreign activist who have ever helped make a change in my country.

PS: I'm not from Russia.

I'll give you that as far as alcohol policy is concerned. But do babies choose circoncision ? No they don't. Do women always choose to become pregnant ? No they don't.

It's not about it being right or wrong, that's a far too subjective notion. It's about law, the notion of a sovereign state, their legal right to impose their policies in their own borders etc. The world, and especially diplomacy, does not function based on what is perceived as being right or wrong by a minority of the world population.