I enjoy watching RT News, however you are very inconsistant. If police in a Western city had acted like this you would have reported their brutality and heavy handedness. Just like your coverage of news from Georgia, what is repression there you would describe as firm leadership in Russia.

It seems that many people don't know the reasons and consequences of accepting to these kind of minorites, Why?
1) From phycological's point of view are people that has many     dangerous mental disorder s. . 2) From the social's point of view they are only a minority If the majority    (democracy) don't like this kind of persons it must be respected. In my   country we say that one swallow doesn't make summer or if we put a    putrid ap ple near health apples they will end contaminated,  3) From political's point of view They could be supported by ONGs     agencies that like we know are, in almost all cases a domestic     (opportunistics and/or political enemies and/or drug traffickers) and/or      foreign groups (to destabilize and get control over any region).4) From biological's point of view they must adapt by themselves to     the environment of the majority not viceversa.
CONSEQ UENCES:  Prostitution centers, Drug trafficking, The adoption of children (inocents without the rigtH to decide like occurS  in some countries) by these individuals,danger to acquire SIDA&nb sp;in hospitals, healthy centers for mention some. at great s cale.
As you can see it has nothing to do with any kind of Moral (If exist). It's only a matter of health and survival.Greetings from Mexico,

@ passing by. The Articles in the Convention For the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, are in fact guidelines. When someone invokes any of the Articles,be that a private citizen or a State Authority, it has to be understood that there has to be a legal argument for its invocation. In this instance the Moscow City Authorities may well have used it to pertain to "Morals". What is the moral argument against a group of citizens who decide to demonstrate their universal right peacefully and what is the moral right for a group of people to commit violence against them, in this situation?
It can be argued, an individual from the age of four and a half begins to have realization of their gender and through progressive years to puberty from 12 onwards realization of their sexual orientation. A small percent will be male to male, female to female and a majority male to female and female to male. In each of these instances they are brought about naturally from natures decisions at conception and birth. Human decisions and interference in this come later and cannot be said to have a natural cause due to nature.
Morals are a human decision and not a natural cause due to nature. Therefore if a majority of straight people are against homosexuality and base their decisions on a hypothesis that a group of gay people demonstrating are undermining the morals of their children, their hypothesis will in no way protect their children from the child,s own decisions later in life to which direction they will go.
Homosexuality is a reality in life and therefore should be accepted just as that small groups right to demonstrate should be accepted. The Convention of Human Rights is about peoples basic rights against either State Tyranny or the tyranny of groups of people defended by the State.