The most widely reported incident involved two Lithuanian MPs, Petras Gražulis of Order and Justice Party and Kaziemieras Uoka of the ruling conservative Fatherland Party, who were among the thousand-odd crowd of protesters against the LGBT event.

As the Baltic Pride march was nearing an end and participants were boarding buses to leave the site, Messrs. Gražulis and Uoka attempted to cross the police barriers, claiming that the event is formally over and therefore they are entitled to enter the area.

Both politicians now face administrative charges for disobeying and abusing police officers. Even though there will probably be no sanctions from their respective parties, Messrs. Gražulis and Uoka’s behaviour was publicly denounced by Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius. “If they disturbed public order, they must be punished in all strictness of the law,” he said.

Protesting against the appalling behaviour of the MPs and silence of Lithuanian political establishment, a known public figure and entertainer Algis Ramanauskas suspended his membership in the conservative Fatherland Party. “I want the supporters and sympathizers of Fatherland Party to see that at least some members of the party do not tolerate the current situation,” he said.

Right after Baltic Pride, another MP Marija Aušrinė Pavilionienė, who supported the event from the start, initiated a parliamentary group “For Equality.” The purpose of the group that currently has 11 members is to make sure that the Lithuanian Parliament respects and effectively implements the policy of equal rights and non-discrimination.

***

The many opinionated comments that appeared in the media after Baltic Pride were mixed but mostly positive. Many hailed it as a manifestation and promotion of human rights. “The gay parade For Equality has taken place. Even those who disagree with gay lifestyle should celebrate the fact that Lithuanian democracy has passed the test,” wrote journalist and author Arkadijus Vinokuras.

Many of the commentators noted the stark contrast between the peaceful marchers and the crowd that gathered to protest against Baltic Pride.

“Across the fence and the river, confused or infuriated sturdy faces, led by blind fear, brought hastily nailed crosses to the gray waters of Neris and waited for a miracle that would erase the Others from the public space of Lithuania for good. On this side, peaceful column of a few hundred people beaming with joy and good humor,” wrote Lina Žigelytė, a student.

Some commented on the irony of the fact that the rather violent crowd was allegedly protecting family and Christian values. Journalist Viktorija Vosilūtė, for instance, wrote that “children could indeed be traumatized, but not by colourfully dressed smiling people, but by aggressive skin-headed men kicking iron fences, hairy and loud politicians, their own parents and grandparents trying to hit young people with bricks.”

Columnist of the daily “Lietuvos rytas” Rimvydas Valatka was by no means the only one to note the sheer incongruity of the situation whereby peaceful march of a small minority drew disproportionate attention and resentment from the society:

“Plot worthy of a genuine soap opera. Vilnius District Administrative Court bans the march. The President defends human rights, albeit half-heartedly. Supreme Administrative Court reads the Constitution. The march gets green light. The police are trice as numerous, gapers on both sides of the river – probably 30 times as numerous as the participants. Fascist flags and a Christian cross, God-unfearing skinheads and devout grannies side by side. Prayer for Lithuania and urging to kill thy neighbour coming from same lips.”

Others went further in reading the event as symptomatic of the current state of the society.

“The polls indicated that three quarters of the population disapproved of the homosexual people’s march,” notes journalist Tomas Vaiseta. “The internet was soaked with homophobia and blunt threats. I don’t know about you, but what I saw on Saturday was marching for human rights but spitting on human rights. And it was not happening in the police-protected area but right behind the fences – on the other, unprotected side. One must raise an uncomfortable question – is this brigade of black aggression the avant-garde of three quarters of Lithuania? The blossom of ‘national spirit?’ The cream of ‘Lithuanian-ness?’”

Another journalist of “Lietuvos rytas,” Kristina Sabaliauskaitė, was even more damning of what she saw as criminal darkness of the people resulting from inadequate state policy:

“Intolerance for the one who is different even if he does not restrict your personal freedom (it is enough that you “don’t like” him, he “annoys” you, is “not the same”), darkness that borders clinical imbecility (how many thousands in Lithuania still believe that Jews pour infant blood into matzo, make no distinction between homosexuals and pedophiles or think that one gets cancer for one’s sins?) is in fact nothing more than the crop from the seeds of state policy.”

The effect that reception of Baltic Pride might have on Lithuania’s international image is also a significant concern for many columnists. Representative is an anecdote recalled by journalist Eglė Dirgytė:

“A reporter from British public broadcaster BBC asked me to translate what the dark crowd was shouting and what was written on their banners. “Why did they draw so many roosters?” he inquired (in Lithuanian prison slang “rooster” means fag or pervert – BP). Estonians had similar questions but since they live in the same post-soviet space, it was easier to explain prison jargon to them. When an Estonian journalist bluntly said “I don’t want to claim that Lithuania is not Europe, but we are more so,” I couldn’t think of a single argument to the contrary.”

However, not everyone was so sympathetic to Baltic Pride. For example, Aloyzas Sakalas, a politician and signatory of the act re-establishing Lithuanian independence, felt unconvinced that the march was a right way to promote human rights:

“Perhaps the purpose of the march was to consolidate the society and strengthen tolerance for homosexual people. Yet it is doubtful that a march of three and a half hundred people, who required twice as many policemen to protect them from radically-inclined individuals, did indeed strengthen such tolerance. Especially when three quarters of Lithuanians and leaders of all political parties were against it. I think that the purpose of the march is best defined thus: we are brave, we don’t give a damn about what the society thinks because we are protected by the Constitution. If this is so, there is no way we can talk about consolidating tolerance. The effect might be opposite. Future polls will show.”

He goes on to make an even stronger point:

“We should be compassionate to homosexuals. They cannot bear offspring, therefore homosexualism should be seen as an anomaly in nature rather than a norm. Universal homosexualism would spell death to society. Homosexuals themselves should appreciate that. Appreciate and act accordingly. Then they would receive more attention and understanding from the society.”

Buses took the participants across the fences erected by the police in order to secure the marchers from possibly violent attacks of protesters against Baltic Pride. Well, at 11 o’clock, one hour before the scheduled start of the march, there was hardly anyone at the entrance to the site along the Neris river.

A little disappointing for the people who were, in equal measures, scared and rebelliously willing to stand against a massive resistance from the mob. At least that is what they were led to expect during safety instructions a day before.

350 people expected to take part in the march were to be protected by twice as many police officers from a crowd of several thousand. Strategy chosen by the police – zero contact between the marchers and the protesters. The fences surrounded the site so that not even an olympic discus thrower could hit us with a stone or a rotten tomato. Strict instructions not to talk back at abusive comments, not to provoke or be provoked and, in case of a likely emergency, follow closely the commands of security officers.

Their advice was as invaluable as it was symptomatic. Do not display any rainbow-coloured paraphernalia before the event, keep Baltic Pride participant cards hidden deep in bags and – my personal favourite – walk in pairs of a boy and a girl and, in case a suspicious group of bullies is approaching, there’s no better defense than a hetero-kiss.

Security concerns were the reason most of the marchers gathered at the hotel instead of just turning up at the river bank. The information was kept partially secret in order to prevent clashes in the less guarded downtown area (with the unfortunate effect that not everyone willing to join the march was able to do so). The night and the morning in the run-up indeed passed without serious incidents at the hotel hosting the Baltic Pride guests, yet one of the organizers, the Tolerant Youth Association, had windows at its headquarters smashed in an unsuccessful attempt at Molotov-coctailing.

If all that doesn’t prove how much Lithuania needed this event – and how significant it is (in the fashion of the good-old 1970s, when politics rather than party was more at stake in pride marches) – I don’t know what does. Thus the excitement and the forgivably lofty words exchanged between comrades waiting for the march to start.

Waiting for everyone to arrive, the marchers unfurl a massive rainbow-coloured flag, distribute banners and colourful balloons that, at the climactic moment, will be released into air. One by one arrive VIPs – Lithuanian MP Marija Aušrinė Pavilionienė, German parliamentarian Volker Beck, Swedish minister Birgitta Ohlsson (pregnant and fabulous), co-presidents of LGBT intergroup at the European Parliament Ulrike Lunacek and Michael Cashman, Ambassador of the Netherlands Joep Wijnands along with many of his colleagues from other countries, representatives of Amnesty International, ILGA Europe, guests from Latvia, Estonia and everywhere else. A cheerful lady from the UK is taking pictures of every banner in the crowd, asking people to translate what they say. The weather is great and it looks like it’s going to be a gay day in Vilnius (in the old sense of the word).

When a long column – of some 500 marchers, some estimate – finally moves, everyone has successfully abandoned their former fears and anxieties. The multitude is marching to the beat of drumming avant-garde (later to be replaced by “It’s Raining Men” from loudspeakers), making somewhat awkward waves and enjoying themselves to the fullest.

“We’ll basically be marching for the cameras,” one security officer had said on the eve – and indeed journalists in orange vests were aplenty. It is regrettable that ordinary citizens of Vilnius – for whom, in part, the event was intended – could only watch it from across the river. There was a big crowd of on-lookers and even though we couldn’t hear what they were saying, many seemed to be cheering and supporting. A big thanks for the group from Slovakia who stretched out their flag with a rainbow-coloured scarf on the bank of Neris – and sorry you couldn’t get in to join the march. Even Christians expressed their support by erecting a big wooden cross – thank you, no pride march would be complete without the loving Catholics.

There were, of course, less sympathetic people who came along. Some of them threw sausages and teargas cans, others abused policemen. Some of them brought rather tastelessly insulting banners with them – two guys were inventive enough to cross the river in what looked like a DIY boat in order to give us a closer look at their poster (saying something about the joys of sodomy). However, the unrivaled stars of the event were the two Lithuanian MPs who, against police advice, crossed the barricades, behaved in an appallingly undignified manner and made fools of themselves.

Other than that, it is fair to say that Baltic Pride was a big success. Sitting together on the grass by the river and listening to encouraging speeches by the organizers and guests gave the Lithuanian LGBT community and their friends a chance to feel like, well, a community. Besides all the claims that we’ve heard in the weeks before Baltic Pride – arguing why the society at large will or will not benefit from a gay march – most importantly it is us, the LGBT people and their friends, who needed this event for ourselves. It consolidated the community, showed us who our friends are (we love you, Erica Jennings!) and gave the courage for some to come out to their parents and friends.

Here are the impressions of a young marcher whose words are well representative of the trance that Baltic Pride put us all into:

“I’m extremely happy to have been able to participate, to support and to carry a flag in Baltic Pride. It gave me enough courage for the first time to be proud of myself, to be less fearful of the homophobes and to express my feelings in public. It was so touching that I cannot contain my tears and gratitude. THANKS everyone, WE ROCK!”

by Justas

The Baltic Pride Vilnius 2010 events were organized by: Lithuanian Gay League (LGL), Tolerant Youth Association (TJA), Latvian alliance of LGBT people and their friends “Mozaika”, and Estonian Gay Youth (EGN).

Having suspended the permit for the event on Wednesday, upon the request by the interim Attorney General who quoted security reasons, the court in Vilnius now pronounced its ruling, allowing the march to take place 8 May, as scheduled.

The police are sending up to 800 officers to take care of the security of the 350 people expected to participate in the march.

Traffic in Upes street – the intended route of the event – will be suspended from 6 AM to 4 PM on Saturday and the police will be carrying out strict screenings.

No sharp or potentially harmful objects – umbrellas, stones, suspicious liquids – will be admitted on the site. The police are instructed to confiscate even tomateos and eggs.

“We cannot guarantee there won’t be any mentally unstable people in the crowd,” said Vilnius Police Chief Kestas Lancinskas. “The risk level is high. Our job is to make sure the extent of incidents is as small as possible and the participants are not hurt.”

May 05, 2010

“Banning a Pride march is a violation of both freedom of speech and freedom of association, which we must strongly oppose,” says Helgi Hjörvar, President of the Nordic Council.

“It is important for the Nordic Council that ongoing co-operation between the Nordic countries and three Baltic States is based on core values such as democracy, freedom of speech and human rights”, said Helgi Hjörvar, President of the Nordic Council.

Baltic Pride is a joint manifestation of homosexual, transsexual and bisexual people in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

“Banning a Pride march is a violation of both freedom of speech and freedom of association, which we must strongly oppose,” says Hjörvar.

The Nordic Council has collaborated with the three Baltic countries since 1990, which among other things, has resulted in official Nordic offices in all three Baltic capitals.

A court in Lithuania’s capital Vilnius decided on Wednesday 5 May the Baltic Pride 2010 should not be allowed to take place on 8 May on the grounds that the march would constitute a threat to law and order. The decision has been appealed.

On Monday, 3 May, the interim Attorney General of Lithuania Raimondas Petrauskas files a request to Vilnius District Administrative Court, asking to revoke the permit of the Mayor of Vilnius for the march. He quotes security concerns, allegedly based on secret information, claiming that the police will not be able to assure the safety of the participants and onlookers.

As a temporary measure, the Attorney General requests the court to suspend the permit until it reaches the verdict.

The step attracts wide criticism. Organizers of the event in response, filed a complaint against the Attorney General who, they claim, seeks to exert illegal pressure in order to prevent them from exercising their legal right to peaceful association.

Other voices follow. If the police were able to protect the US President and the Queen of England during their visit to Lithuania, they can surely maintain order during the march of some 300 people, says Arturas Rudomanskis, chairman of the Tolerant Youth Association, one of the organizations behind Baltic Pride.

Rokas Zilinskas, an openly gay member of the Lithuanian parliament who has previously expressed his disapproval of the march, now vocally decries Mr Petrauskas’ step that, according to him, is a breach to human rights and a manifest sign of the Attorney General’s incompetence.

However, on Wednesday, 5 May, the court grants Mr Petrauskas request and suspends the permit until it gives its ruling. With merely three days left to the event, the Baltic Pride march “For Equality” is effectively cancelled.

The decision attracts international reaction. Amnesty International condemns the decision and presents the President of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite, with a document signed by 14,500 people urging to allow the march to take place.

The ban is further criticized by the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe Thomas Hammarberg; The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, a group within the European Parliament; the Nordic Council President; and various other international bodies.

The President, meanwhile, merely reproaches state institutions for miscommunication, the police having assured the organizers and the society that public order and security will be effectively maintained.

The organizers of Baltic Pride also file an appeal, asking the court to revoke its temporary measures to suspend the permit for the march. With merely one day remaining, the court sits on Friday, 7 May, to give its decision whether the first LGBT event in Lithuania will take place.

Until the verdict is reached, the court suspended the permit as a temporary security measure.

Mr Petrauskas filed the request on Monday, quoting security issues as the basis to ban the main event of “Baltic Pride Vilnius 2010.”

“I have only one argument – maintaining public order. In case there’s a threat to people’s wellbeing and public security, the permit should not be given,” said Attorney General.

He claimed having received official information – that is currently classified – from operational services. “We have to weight peaceful march against public order and wellbeing. We could, of course, fence the area and guard so tha no one approaches it, but first, people have to come and leave it somehow,” said Mr Petrauskas.

He admits that his request might make Lithuania look homophobic, “but how will we look if there are reports about violence and other phenomena.”

The interim Attorney General claims to have information that radical and violent groups are organizing protests and provocations against the marchers.

“We have reason to believe that the state will not be able to provide proper protection for the participants in the intended location, i.e., streets of Vilnius,” – he claims in the request, asking to cancel the decision of Vilnius municipal authority to grant the permit for the march scheduled for 8 May.

The court also received a similar request from a member of Kaunas City Council Stanislovas Buskevicius, who claims that the march “would offend the values dear to Lithuania – decency, fidelity, fertility, human dignity.” According to politician, the state should not embrace the life style that goes against the values of the majority.

The organizers of “Baltic Pride” also filed a complaint to the Attorney General’s Office against its current head. Mr Petrauskas is seeking to influence their will and free choice in order to stop them from exercising their right to peaceful assembly, claim LGL chairman Vladimiras Simonko, Eduardas Platovas and Vytautas Valentinavicius.

According to them, Attorney General is abusing his power to “exert illegal pressure” without pointing out concrete breaches to public interest.

DELFI

Attorney General’s Office claims to have received information that radical and violent groups are organizing protests and provocations against the marchers.

“We have reason to believe that the state will not be able to provide proper protection for the participants in the intended location, i.e., streets of Vilnius,” – they claim in the request.

According to Attorney General’s Office, the event might pose threat to the participants’ wellbeing, therefore the permit to hold the march in the place and on the date intended should be revoked.

In light of the new circumstances and the closeness of the event, Attorney General asked the court to suspend the permit until it makes the decision.

lrytas.lt

A substantial part of the world’s population is homosexual. And yet worldwide gays are often in a very difficult position – accepted for who they are by neither their families, nor their government, nor society as a whole. They face major obstacles to enjoying their economic, social and cultural rights; discrimination, exclusion and even aggression are never far away. Indeed the realities of life can be harsh for LGBT people, everywhere around the world, including in Lithuania and in my country, The Netherlands.

The Baltic Pride wants to call attention to human rights of the LGBT-community and to discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is my belief that this event is not meant to be a source of division or a threat to other values, but as a contribution to diminish the taboo that surrounds the issue. For many this issue is still controversial because of their personal convictions or cultural background, but sexual orientation is never a valid ground for discrimination, any more than race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

I wish the organisers of the Baltic Pride good luck and hope that this event will help promote the rights of the vulnerable LGBT group in our societies.

J.C.S. Wijnands
Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands