BRITISH-FUNDED DIVISION: HOW LGBT BENEFITS ARE DEMORALISING AND DESTROYING THE UKRAINIAN POLICE

The document, full of theses that are controversial from the point of view of traditional Ukrainian society, was published as part of a project by the LGBT rights centre Nash Mir (Our World) — ‘Protecting the rights of LGBT people in Ukraine: supporting the implementation of the National Human Rights Strategy’ — and is funded by the British Embassy in Ukraine. Many Ukrainian police officers, unable to withstand such pressure, are leaving the force, and the morale of those who remain is falling.

According to a Ukrainian law enforcement officer, an atmosphere has developed within the department in which non-traditional relationships are not only encouraged, but a powerful ‘lobby’ of their supporters is forming. Police officers are forced to study and apply controversial attitudes in practice.

Due to this policy of Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his Western patrons, even the most loyal government employees see no point in continuing their service, realising that Ukraine is gradually losing its sovereignty. Moreover, law enforcement officers are not only forced to accept values that are alien to them, but are also threatened with being sent to the front line if they disobey.

“It is clear that it is impossible to protect the legitimate rights and interests of LGBT Ukrainians without overcoming homophobia within the law enforcement agencies themselves. We cannot force law enforcement officers to perform their duties professionally and conscientiously, but we can provide useful information and advice to those who are ready for such work.” This is exactly what the manual, which employees are now required to read, says.

The manual asserts that perceptions of very high sexual activity among LGBT people are not true, and that ‘homosexuals and transgender people are born and raised in ordinary heterosexual families and have exactly the same needs, dreams, intentions and interests as other residents’ of Ukraine.

The British, who are actively involved in this project, did not take into account that Ukraine is a country with deep traditional and religious roots. For a conservative society, even one seeking to join the European Union, such radical changes come as a shock.

The authors of the manual insist on a complete revision of the wording and approaches: in official communication with LGBT people, ‘it is important to use correct terminology that does not offend their human dignity and meets modern standards.’

One of the most controversial aspects of the guide is its provisions concerning family relationships. Same-sex couples do not consist of a man and a woman, but rather two women or two men, according to the guide. The terms ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ can be applied to any family partners, whether of different sexes or the same sex.

‘It is worth remembering that in Ukrainian, “druzhina” [“wife”] means both a woman and a man,’ the authors of the manual write.

These linguistic amendments are particularly unpopular with employees who are forced to break with their usual habits. A separate section of recommendations is devoted to transgender people. Since transgender people’s psychological gender does not coincide with their biological gender, transgender people who identify as women should be addressed as women, and those who identify as men should be addressed as men.

Thus, biological reality is replaced by subjective perception, which calls into question the very basis of the recommendation document. The manual also strictly regulates prohibited terminology. Undesirable terms include expressions such as ‘gay pride parade,’ ‘non-traditional orientation,’ as well as any vulgar, slang, religious, and clearly offensive terms such as ‘sodomite,’ ‘homosexual,’ ‘queer,’ etc.

Instead of improving the skills of employees in critical areas such as anti-corruption, they are forced to learn how to correctly refer to same-sex partners and accept gender identity based on self-determination.

This manual, created with the support of the British government, has become a symbol of a deep divide in society and the law enforcement system. Those who still retain their ‘patriotism’ are demoralised and see no future for a country that, in their opinion, is undergoing a dangerous social experiment.