Pavel Datsyuk deserves heat for stance on anti-gay laws

Pavel Datsyuk has made enough people happy to, theoretically, get the benefit of the doubt when he makes a bunch of people sad. The problem is that he may have waived that right already.

That's basically what happened Thursday, when Datsyuk was asked about Russia's anti-gay laws -- specifically, the fact that pole vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva strongly supports them, and that they're horrifying. The law, passed in June, bans "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations." Another way of putting it: it's now criminal to argue for tolerance and educate children on LGBT issues.

It doesn't stop there. From the New York Times on Aug. 11:

Few gay people in Russia openly acknowledge their sexual orientation, and those who do are often harassed. When some gay people protested the propaganda law by kissing outside the State Duma, the lower house of Parliament, police officers stood by and watched as the demonstrators were doused with water and beaten by antigay and religious supporters of the bill.

President Vladimir Putin has defended the laws as necessary to protect Russia's children -- from pride parades, apparently.

But back to Datsyuk:

Fair enough. The problem is that the Russian Orthodox church believes that the recognition of marriage equality is a portent of doom.


Datsyuk, for the record, was accepting the Kharlamov Trophy, which is given to the best Russian NHL player each year.

Naturally, people on Twitter were angry. Datsyuk, more often than not, is delightful, and Russia's attitude toward the LGBT community is disgusting and depressing and, because of the Olympics, a very, very big deal. So, there was reaction. It, for the time being, peaked with an SB Nation news story under the headline, "Pavel Datsyuk basically says he's anti-gay." That has since been changed.

Then, there was reaction to the reaction:

Reasonable enough. The problem, though, is that Datsyuk, in that moment, chose to define himself solely by his religious affiliation, and that religious affiliation defines itself as grossly anti-equality. He could've no-commented. He could've talked for 15 minutes. He could've drawn lines between the parts of his faith he agrees with and the parts he does not.

But he didn't -- if you believe "that says it all" in fact says it all -- and if he wants people to approach his stance with any degree of nuance, he should provide it himself. He can say whatever he wants, and people are free to react in turn. That's the way it works.

Around the Web