North Macedonia – Revision of several education laws raises concern over regress on gender equality
Parliament adopted amendments to three laws, decreasing protection of gender equality and gender identity
Williams Institute: Watch our webinar on LGBTQ cases at the Supreme Court [United States]
| Thank you to everyone who joined us yesterday for our webinar featuring UCLA Law professor Cary Franklin, the McDonald/Wright Chair of Law and Williams Institute Faculty Director. The webinar discussed two recent Supreme Court cases related to LGBTQ rights: United States v. Skrmetti and Mahmoud v. Taylor. Professor Franklin provided an in-depth analysis of the decisions, highlighting their broader implications for LGBTQ rights and the legal landscape ahead. If you missed the webinar, you can watch it below, on our website, or on our YouTube page. |
Interesting Article – Repost: Laboratories of Authoritarianism [U.S. Supreme Court]
by Sarah Medina Camiscoli
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause to grant conservative religious parents a constitutional right to remove their children from any classroom where a teacher includes LGBTQAI+ people in the curriculum. In effect, the Court has allowed public schools to discourage mutual tolerance, parents to opt out of Equal Protection, and fringe legal strategists to continue to use children’s constitutional rights as a test case for authoritarianism. Youth rights provide fertile ground for authoritarian policies as young people are a vulnerable population, their autonomy is almost entirely up to the discretion of their parents and the state, and lawmakers can easily cloak their desires to remake government institutions under the guise of care, protection, and parent rights. However, youth rights are not entirely separate from those of the rest of society – and the erosion of children’s rights becomes the foundation upon which other rights are eroded.
Today, a transgender girl in 4th grade can wake up to news anchors discussing how the highest court in the land ruled in Mahmoud v. Taylor that schools may not read books that include trans voices or celebrate families and friends who embrace girls like her. When that 4th grader arrives at school, she might see Mahmoud in action when her teacher hastily moves her peers to different classrooms before reading a book with trans characters because parents must provide “permission” for their children to even acknowledge trans lives. In many states, that same young person will learn that her doctor can no longer provide her with gender-affirming medical treatment because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Skrmetti v. United States. If that young person seeks a counselor to work through the psychic harm of these experiences at school or in doctors offices, the counselor might tell her that trans people do not exist, that her parents are causing harm by providing affirming education and healthcare, and suggest that she consider conversion therapy in a local church. And if the child and her guardian challenge that practice as unethical and harmful, that therapist might be able to assert that the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment to develop a constitutional right to do so in Chiles v. Salazar. Keep in mind that this child cannot vote, run for office, and make campaign contributions (but, ironically, she can work certain jobs and pay taxes). This child is not learning in a healthy democracy. She is living as the constitutional test subject of legal strategists.
Scholars of authoritarianism discuss two “soft guardrails” of democracy: 1) “mutual toleration” — a shared understanding that people and parties with different views and values must respect one another as legitimate to promote and uphold democratic institutions; and 2) “forbearance” — the understanding that government actors must demonstrate restraint in their roles to promote checks and balances on state power. These “norms of toleration and restraint” are what keep people with different politics, values, and lifestyles from trying to destroy one another; and the place where they are most often taught and learned are in public schools. But the Court has allowed fringe legal strategists to decay those norms and attack public education, in many cases using children’s rights to further polarize political parties, dismantle social welfare, and entangle courts in culture wars. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of these legal strategists to roll back a variety of children’s rights which in turn erode rights, resources, and liberties for everyone. Their success includes eroding bodily autonomy at the site of the constitutional rights of undocumented children (Azar v. Garza (2018)), attacking healthcare at the site of the constitutional rights of transgender children (United States v. Skrmetti (2025)), shrinking higher education at the site of constitutional rights of students of color (Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard (2023)), and now, decimating equal protection and public education at the site of constitutional rights of LGBTQAI+ elementary school students (Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025)). Legal strategists have realized that the rights of vulnerable children provide the perfect site to experiment with culture wars and unquestioned obedience to authorities. Given the success of these experiments, I have developed the term laboratories for authoritarianism to describe how children’s constitutional rights have become a vehicle for fringe legal strategists to craft jurisprudence that undermines democracy and promotes authoritarianism.
Mahmoud v. Taylor provided a particularly powerful vehicle for this project as it attacked constitutional rights within public schools. Public schools are a battleground for democracy, as they are the single institution where the most people spend the most time in the United States. They serve as “the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.” (Sotomayor, dissenting, at 1, Mahmoud v. Taylor). In eroding constitutional rights for such a vulnerable group in a stronghold of democracy, Mahmoud obstructs public schools from promoting mutual toleration or teaching an accurate understanding of the Constitution among some of our nation’s most vulnerable children.
The majority opinion first discourages public schools from promoting mutual toleration and understanding their constitutional rights by asserting the following message infringes on the religious liberty of parents: “Two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or opposite sex, so long as they “love each other.” (Mahmoud v. Taylor at 23). According to the majority, celebrating the constitutionally protected marriage between people of the opposite sex is acceptable, but celebrating the constitutionally protected marriage between two people enshrined in Obergefell v. Hodges may cause “destruction” for religious communities. While the dissent describes this reasoning as pure “absurdity,” the decision will discourage public schools from affirming the constitutionally protected right to marriage equality or promoting mutual toleration of marriage traditions and norms across religious and cultural identities. In enshrining this absurdity in the Constitution, the Court also undermines the intolerance against the children of LGBTQAI+ couples explicitly rejected in Windsor v. United States (2013). In effect, the Court encourages public schools to erode mutual tolerance and constitutional literacy by invisibilizing the constitutional rights of LGBTQAI+ families, “mak[ing] it even more difficult for [] children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and their daily lives.” Amicus Brief for Students Engaged in Advancing Texas at 29 (citing Windsor).
The majority further discourages public schools from promoting mutual toleration and accurate understandings of constitutional rights when recasting the following message as another unconstitutional burden on religious liberty: “Sex and gender are [not always] inseparable” (Mahmoud v. Taylor at 3). In terms of mutual toleration, the majority “fail[s] to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size.” (Sotomayor dissenting, at 21). By asserting that the Free Exercise clause “requires the government to alter its programs to insulate students from that “message,” the Court forecloses the possibility of schools teaching public school students, especially those who currently or may later identify as LGBTQAI+, about their constitutional rights to Equal Protection.
For example, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Court determined that it is impossible to discriminate against homosexual or transgender people without engaging in sex discrimination. See Brief for Students Engaged in Advancing Texas et al. as Amici Curiae 24. However, under Mahmoud, a school cannot affirm that gender and sex are separable, foreclosing the possibility of a public school student even conceptualizing the idea of LGBTQAI+ people existing with constitutional rights. To teach an accurate understanding of the Constitution and basic rights in this country, public schools would need to have the authority to explain that LGBTQAI+ people exist and that “the differential treatment by the state” as compared to heteronormative or cisgender should “amount[] to impermissible sex discrimination under Equal Protection.” Amicus brief for Students Engaged in Advancing Texas at 24. However, the Court instructs schools to neglect existing constitutional protections for isolated minorities like the LGBTQAI+ community and, in some ways, encourage students to further erode them. In doing so, the Court allows for the further decay of Equal Protection and mutual toleration — an indispensable guardrail for what remains of our democratic institutions.
While the majority emphasizes that the holding of Mahmoud v. Taylor applies specifically to the context of storytime with “impressionable children,” that is plainly untrue. The Court’s willingness to take up cases like Mahmoud, Skrmetti, and Chiles v. Salazar within a single year reveals a willingness to entertain experiments in democratic backsliding. More importantly, LGBTQAI+ families in and outside of public schools will continue to feel the impact of the constitutional rot of Equal Protection and mutual toleration for generations to come. In coming months, the Court will rule on whether to expand the Free Exercise Clause to therapy sessions. If it decides that it does, mental health counselors may hold a constitutional right to suggest conversion therapy to an LGBTQAI+ fourth grader in the same school where parents hold a constitutional right to facilitate a mass exodus when LGBTQAI+ lives are mentioned in the classroom. And if that is not enough, it is only a matter of time before one of the university complaints seeking relief from the Trump administration’s university funding freezes reaches the Court. Then, five justices will decide whether the government can also restrict college students from learning and celebrating topics too controversial for storytime in K-12 schools.
If the conservative fringe has focused on children’s constitutional rights as the site for its political-legal project, defenders of constitutional democracy must do the same.
The post Laboratories of Authoritarianism appeared first on Verfassungsblog.
Jeremiah Chin: Silencing Children’s Rights (Repost from Verfassungsblog) – United States
The U.S. Supreme Court decided Mahmoud v. Taylor on June 27, 2025. In doing so, it dramatically expanded parental rights over students and education without concern for the rights of children or consideration of pedagogy and curriculum. While the current era of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has repeatedly blurred lines dividing religious groups and state power under the First Amendment, Mahmoud rewrites the First Amendment for children entirely. The Court concluded that the government burdens the religious exercise of parents by failing to provide mandatory notice and opt-out policies when school materials include Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBTQ+) topics. Instead of addressing the plurality of views around sexual orientation and gender, the Court indirectly, but unsubtly, installs a traditional values framework that imposes norms of heterosexuality, religious fundamentalism and parental micromanagement of curriculum. This simultaneously threatens the expression, learning, and community built in schools for everyone.
Decided on June 27, 2025, Mahmoud v. Taylor represents a struggle between religious parents and secular public education over curriculum in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland. Maryland incorporated several suggested texts for instructors that would include LGBTQ+ characters to better reflect the diverse community of students and parents within the district. Several parents objected on religious grounds, requesting the school provide notice and offer an opt-out option when such materials are used in the classroom. At first, MCPS was willing to provide the option to parents but found the measures administratively unfeasible and potentially stigmatizing to students, concluding that no notice or opt-out was required because parents had access to book lists prior to every school year.
The different justices’ retellings of the case reveal their radically different framings of the facts. In the majority opinion of the Court, Justice Samuel Alito describes the origins of the conflict as rooting “in the years leading up to 2022”, when the MCPS “apparently ‘determined that the books used in its existing English and Language Arts curriculum were not representative of many students and families in Montgomery County’” because they did not include LGBTQ characters. According to Alito, this prompted the school district to include five storybooks for children between 5 and 11 years old. The pointed use of “apparently” and the lack of context make the MCPS decision appear abrupt and arbitrary rather than a good-faith effort by the school district to provide a more robust curriculum.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, in turn, reveals that the Court’s framing obfuscates a long effort by MCPS in reconciling the fact that “certain perspectives…were absent from its English language curriculum,” and only the latest in a broad effort to promote a “fully inclusive environment for all students’ by using instructional materials that reflect [the] diversity of the global community, including persons with disabilities, persons from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds, as well as persons of diverse gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.” Justice Sotomayor’s telling of the facts focuses on the MCPS Board, subject matter experts, and teachers building a diverse and inclusive curriculum. Justice Alito’s framing in turn assumes the position of the plaintiffs, a religiously diverse coalition of parents whose sincerely held religious beliefs’ most apparent common thread is anti-LGBTQ bias.
Though Justice Alito is rhetorically deeply concerned with impressionable “young children, like those of [the plaintiff parents],” he spends little time talking about the rights, experiences, or issues faced by children in the classroom. Instead, he accuses the dissent of trying to “divert attention from…children subject to the instruction” by emphasizing the texts, characters, and importance of the curriculum. According to Justice Alito, the dissent takes on a “deliberately blinkered view” and is “air-brushing the record” by arguing that the inclusion of books with LGBTQ characters is “just about exposure and kindness.” Justice Alito’s framing of the issues for the majority views the books as “impos[ing] upon children a set of values and beliefs that are ‘hostile’ to their parents’ religious beliefs.” In this light, the mere inclusion and existence of these five books with LGBTQ characters and themes and instructional guidance for teachers presents an existential threat to religion. These books only make up a small percentage of the curriculum – with guidance for classroom discussion that affirms that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and other people exist and have rights to exist.
The hyperbolic disaster-framing by Justice Alito, therefore, concludes that because “the storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender” and instructional materials “specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint” and discuss disagreements with students, the policy of inclusion, therefore, burdens the parents’ right to the free exercise of religion and is subject to strict scrutiny, which means that a government must demonstrate that its policy advances compelling government interests and is narrowly tailored to achieve those ends. The failure to permit an opt-out when including these LGBTQ storybooks thus unconstitutionally burdens the parents’ rights of control over their children. The Court disclaims that the Board’s proposed curriculum has any educational value. It simply states that it places an unconstitutional burden on the parent’s religious exercise if it is imposed without the chance for opt-outs. In doing so, it sidesteps any good-faith balancing of interests. Worse: It fails to recognize that including and discussing books from different perspectives in a school curriculum has value in an educational environment.
The Court’s broad reading of the parental rights to control the upbringing of their children paradoxically narrows the understanding of the First Amendment to be strictly a relationship between parents and the government. Fundamentally, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a restriction on the power of the state. It proclaims that Congress shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Later applied to State governments and municipalities, the amendment’s broad language reflects the importance the authors placed on resistance to state suppression of religious, expressive, and associational freedoms.
Theoretically, this freedom to believe, express, and associate should also apply broadly to a variety of perspectives. No single religion or type of speech is singled out, and the only subject of restriction is the state. That is, First Amendment rights should impose restrictions on the state, not compulsion for individuals to act, talk, believe, or associate in specific ways. But despite its expansive declaration of freedom that would prohibit governmental interference with expression or religion, the First Amendment has often faced limiting principles to facilitate the practical governance of a diverse, pluralistic society.
In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), the Court recognized that “neutral laws of general applicability” could be constitutionally imposed on religious conduct and beliefs. The decision prohibited members of the Native American Church from receiving unemployment benefits. The plaintiffs were Indigenous persons who practiced their faith by taking peyote as part of a traditional ceremony. Justice Scalia claimed that the policy in question, prohibiting persons taking drugs from receiving unemployment benefits, did not unconstitutionally burden the plaintiffs’ religious practice. The reason was that this practice was “unconnected” to other valid constitutional rights and to “any communicative activity, or parental right.” Neutral laws of general applicability are therefore presumed valid unless they compel expression or interfere with other constitutional rights, in which case they are subjected to closer scrutiny.
Even when neutrally worded and generally applicable, state laws that compel expression and conduct can be unconstitutional. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), for example, the Court struck down a state law requiring compulsory flag salutes and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance – practices that violated the beliefs of a Jehovah’s Witness student whose faith prohibits pledging allegiance to symbols like the flag. State laws that compel school attendance, on the other hand, are generally constitutional. Exceptions to this are state laws that restrict parents’ rights to choose private religious schools over public schools (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925) and laws compelling school attendance that directly contradict religious beliefs (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1971).
Critically, none of these cases, which articulate the free exercise of religion and parental rights, give parents total control over their children. Both Barnette and Pierce emphasize the importance of public education in preparing children to participate in society and sustain democratic governance. The answer in these cases was not to isolate children but to ensure the curriculum was inclusive of their religious practices. In Barnette, for example, the Court did not bar schools from including the pledge in their curriculum – it simply held that students could not be compelled to recite it.
In Justice Alito’s account in Mahmoud, students are exposed to a curriculum and instructions acknowledging the existence and rights of LGBTQ individuals – an exposure he suggests amounts to a violation of religious tenets. Yet even on his own terms, the burden on parents lies in the mere exposure to viewpoints that may conflict with their beliefs, not in any form of compelled activity. No assignment requires students to affirm a particular viewpoint, and the schools do not evaluate students based on what they say, think, or believe. The stories are readily available and read to the class, accompanied by instructions for teachers on how to engage with students in a way that validates both the story and the student.
The Court has often found that the answer to disfavored speech, or expression that might be contrary to the views of others, is still protected speech. As Justice Alito explained in Matal v. Tam: “giving offense is a viewpoint.” Freedom of speech and free exercise of religion under the constitution, therefore, must include even those ideas that some might find offensive, with limited exceptions for speech that imminently incites lawless activity (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969) or obscenity (though the Court struggles to find a solid definition of the concept). The requirement of neutral laws of general applicability guards against so-called content- or viewpoint-based regulations of speech.
Mahmoud v. Taylor launders viewpoint discrimination through parental rights, allowing the regulation of classroom content through parental opt-outs while completely ignoring the students as learners, participants, or even people with rights. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court built upon cases like Barnette and Pierce, highlighting the importance of children’s speech within schools and validating that students hold First Amendment rights in schools. It found the suspension of young persons for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War unconstitutional. Justice Abe Fortas explained for the majority that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.”
Justice Alito in Mahmoud extends this to parents. As he notes, the parent’s “right to free exercise, like other First Amendment rights, is not ‘shed . . . at the schoolhouse gate.’” This paraphrase of Tinker excludes the fact that students and teachers possess the same rights of free exercise, expression, and association in schools as well in not-so-subtle ways. A constitutionally mandated parental opt-out that the Court provides in Mahmoud defies the reasoning of West Virginia v. Barnette, which Justice Alito relies on as the foundation of his analysis of parental rights. In Barnette, Justice Robert Jackson explained, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Yet Justice Alito’s decision in Mahmoud allows parents to compel teachers and school officials to ensure their prescribed orthodoxy, meaning students no longer may discuss, express, or associate with LGBTQ storybooks as part of the official curriculum.
The Court’s opinion in Mahmoud v. Taylor sacrifices student’s First Amendment rights in the name of parental control. This enables parents to compel the speech and beliefs of students rather than let students develop their own thoughts, views, and beliefs – free to conform or disagree with the beliefs of their parents and classmates. This type of compelled speech would otherwise be prohibited. Mahmoud allows parents to compel the state to engage in viewpoint discrimination – something neither the parents nor the state could achieve alone, whether as a matter of constitutional law or practical enforcement.
Mahmoud decides on a vision of the future that is very much rooted in the past, severely restricting students from engaging with views that they may or may not share. Elsewhere, I have discussed how the history and traditional uses of originalism by the current Supreme Court bind us to narrow historical reasoning rather than an expansive historical understanding of the future – proposing Constitutional Futurism as a remedy to the originalism that has overturned reproductive rights, gun control, and now even children’s right to inclusive education and expression in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Justice Alito’s majority opinion endorses robust parental control over students, teachers and schools, when those parents already have curriculum oversight through ordinary democratic processes. The Court fails to recognize students – and children generally – as persons with rights, thoughts, and opinions that also deserve consideration. Rather than relying on tradition and compulsion, instruction can provide students with a way of questioning that can interrogate or even affirm their beliefs. This failure to recognize the personhood of children misses the expansive potential of future generations, all in the name of history and tradition.
The post Silencing Children’s Rights appeared first on Verfassungsblog.
UK: Football Assocation requires trans men to say they are ‘biologically female’
The Football Association’s updated requirements for transgender men who want to play in male sport requires players to agree they are a “biological female” and “have a greater risk of injury when playing against adult biological males”.
The FA changed its rules on trans people’s participation in English football earlier this year following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling on 16 April that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
While transgender women have been banned from female football in FA-affiliated competitions since 1 June, trans men are still allowed to play in men’s matches.
However they must fill out a statement, available from the FA since June following the policy coming into place, declaring they are transgender and more liable to be injured than other players.
More: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cvg89449lv7o
Ukraine: Kyiv court sets precedent by recognizing marriage rights for queer couple, challenges Foreign Ministry stance
A Kyiv court has officially recognized the same-sex partnership of a Ukrainian diplomat and his longtime partner as a family, the news outlet Bukvy posted on Instagram on July 3.
The Desnianskyi District Court ruled in June 2025 that the men, who married in the U.S. in 2021 and have lived together since 2013, meet the legal definition of a family under Ukrainian and European human rights law.
ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II issues arrest warrants on gender grounds against girls, women and other persons non-conforming with the Taliban’s policy on gender, gender identity or expression
Today, 8 July 2025, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “the Court”) has issued, in the context of the Situation of Afghanistan, warrants of arrest for Mr Haibatullah Akhundzada, Supreme Leader of the Taliban, and Mr Abdul Hakim Haqqani, Chief Justice of the Taliban, who have exercised de facto authority in Afghanistan at least from 15 August 2021.
The Chamber has found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Haibatullah Akhundzada and Mr Abdul Hakim Haqqani have committed by ordering, inducing or soliciting the crime against humanity of persecution, under article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute, on gender grounds against girls, women and other persons non-conforming with the Taliban’s policy on gender, gender identity or expression; and on political grounds against persons perceived as “allies of girls and women”. These crimes are believed to have been committed on the territory of Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power on 15 August 2021, and have continued until at least 20 January 2025.
Pre-Trial Chamber II considered that the Taliban have implemented a governmental policy that resulted in severe violations of fundamental rights and freedoms of the civilian population of Afghanistan, in connection with conducts of murder, imprisonment, torture, rape and enforced disappearance. While the Taliban have imposed certain rules and prohibitions on the population as a whole, they have specifically targeted girls and women by reason of their gender, depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms. Specifically, the Taliban severely deprived, through decrees and edicts, girls and women of the rights to education, privacy and family life and the freedoms of movement, expression, thought, conscience and religion. In addition, other persons were targeted because certain expressions of sexuality and/or gender identity were regarded as inconsistent with the Taliban’s policy on gender.
In assessing the evidence before it, the Chamber has taken into account the object and purpose of Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute. This provision reflects the Statute’s broader aim to protect civilian populations from serious and systemic violations of fundamental rights, particularly those targeting vulnerable groups. In this context, the Chamber considered that the protection of victims of such crimes – especially women and girls who are often disproportionately affected by gender-based persecution – is central to the provision’s purpose. The Chamber found that gender persecution encompasses not only direct acts of violence, but also systemic and institutionalised forms of harm, including the imposition of discriminatory societal norms.
Furthermore, the Chamber found that individuals perceived as opposing these policies, even passively or through omission, were also targeted by the Taliban. This included those described as “allies of girls and women”, who were viewed as political opponents.
The Chamber has decided that the warrants will remain under seal at this stage, in order to protect victims and witnesses and safeguard the proceedings. Nevertheless, the Chamber considered that the conduct addressed is ongoing and that public awareness of the warrants may contribute to the prevention of the further commission of these crimes. Accordingly, the Chamber found that it is in the interests of justice to publicly disclose the existence of these warrants.
For further information, please contact Fadi El Abdallah, Spokesperson and Head of Public Affairs Unit, International Criminal Court, by telephone at: +31 (0)70 515-9152 or +31 (0)6 46448938 or by e-mail at: fadi.el-abdallah@icc-cpi.int
You can also follow the Court’s activities on Twitter/X, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Flickr
| The Brief – How Germany went from Pride to shaming diversity |
 |
| Germany has become a less hospitable place for minorities, even if its conservative-leaning society was never the liberal paradise that swathes of Anglo millennials mistook it for after popping a pill at a smoke-filled Berlin nightclub. And its former leader, Angela Merkel – who voted against same-sex marriage – was never the liberal icon that international media mistook her for after the devout Christian opened the borders to thousands of refugees as a humanitarian gesture. But where the pragmatist Merkel merely slowed Germany’s social liberalisation, the accession of Friedrich Merz to the chancellery has seen it switch from first into reverse gear. When it comes to social and diversity politics, the staunchly conservative chancellor and his centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have wasted no time in office marking their political territory. Much of the controversy has centred around Berlin’s annual Pride parade, which the German parliament has marked since 2022 by flying the rainbow flag. Not this year: The new conservative president of the Bundestag, Julia Klöckner, a Merz ally, has halted the practice, citing concerns about political neutrality. Shortly after, she prohibited the participation of the parliament’s queer staff network in the parade. In the latest upset, the Bundestag’s administration has ordered MPs to remove Pride flags from their window, with police sent out to enforce a mostly unenforced house rule, as revealed by Euractiv. And it’s not just Klöckner: Merz himself has argued that Pride flags turn the Bundestag into a “circus tent” – somewhat unsurprisingly, after he had once answered a question on his stance on homosexuality with the words that it was a private matter “as long as it doesn’t affect children”. Merz’s education minister reportedly banned gender-inclusive language from her ministry’s communications. His interior minister has trained his crosshairs on liberalised naturalisation laws for foreigners. This crackdown is certainly nowhere near Hungarian proportions, where officials have moved to outlaw Pride parades and queer freedom of expression. Participants in Berlin’s edition can still attend a typically raunchy public party, largely unbothered, followed by an equally raunchy after-party at (in some cases) publicly subsidised clubs. But the CDU has signalled where its political priorities lie – and it’s at the expense of minorities. It’s not difficult to find voices in the government who fear that this is not just a conservative pushback but a sinister political calculus. |
| Read more. |
Hong Kong to introduce same-sex partnerships bill
Hong Kong is set to introduce a bill that will recognise same-sex partnerships, in what would mark a major step forward for LGBTQ+ people in the special administrative region of China.
In 2023, Hong Kong’s top court ordered the government to legally recognise same-sex relationships and gave them two years to enact legislation. However, an appeal with regard to bringing forward full marriage equality and recognition of same-sex marriages performed abroad was unanimously dismissed.
While the government has shown little appetite for championing LGBTQ+ rights, homosexuality was decriminalised in 1991, and legal challenges have pushed the authorities to make improvements in terms of rights for LGBTQ+ people in general.
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has upheld a 2023 decision that Switzerland violated the rights of South African athlete Caster Semenya. +Get the most important news from Switzerland in your inbox The judges found that the hyperandrogenic athlete’s right to a fair trial had been violated by Switzerland. As a result, the Federal Court’s review of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s decision on appeal did not achieve the required level of attention. Two years ago, in a chamber decision, the ECHR upheld Semenya’s complaint on several points. In particular, it found that the World Athletics (WA) rules, upheld by the Swiss courts, violated the athlete’s right to privacy. The rules at issue require women with excess male hormones (hyperandrogens) to take female hormones in order to take part in competitions recognised by WA. Switzerland appealed the 2023 decision to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR. Translated from French by DeepL/mga How we work We select …
More: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/various/switzerland-condemned-in-the-semenya-case/89659791
______________________________________
Judgment: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_Toc201842496
_______________________________________
Caster Semenya’s ECHR win lauded as landmark case for athletes’ rights
Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Tuesday commended the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)’s decision in the case of South African runner, Caster Semenya, who challenged regulations imposed by World Athletics, the global track and field governing body that imposed discriminatory guidelines prohibiting women with Differences of Sex Development (DSD) from competing in the female category unless they underwent medical intervention to lower their natural testosterone levels.
Minky Worden, director of global initiatives at HRW, said:
Caster Semenya’s victory is a victory for all women and all athletes because the European Court found that the Court of Arbitration for Sport and Swiss Federal Tribunal had failed to uphold human rights norms despite credible claims of discrimination.
Semenya had previously taken her discrimination case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, which is the mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction for disputes in the sports arena, in line with World Athletics’ rules. However, her case was unsuccessful in arbitration, which led to her appealing the decision to Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court, which later rejected her appeal on narrow grounds. In coming to their decision, the Grand Chamber found that the arbitrary set of regulations imposed a severe interference with the athletes’ privacy rights, had never undergone the proper assessment on whether they are necessary or proportionate under international human rights laws, as a result of the prior tribunals which oversaw her case not carrying out a comprehensive review.
The Grand Chamber found that Semenya’s fundamental right to a fair trial, enshrined under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (convention) had been violated and chided the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s disregard for the seriousness of the personal rights at stake, namely the impact of the DSD Regulations on her bodily and psychological integrity and identity, right to self-determination and right to exercise her professional activity as “inconceivable.” Judge Šimáčková aptly summed up Semenya’s circumstances, stating that:
In conclusion, I should like to emphasise that the applicant was at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), not only as a professional athlete, for the reasons set out in the present judgment, but also because she is a woman, she is black, and she is from the Global South.
Her remarks are particularly important as they underscore the evolving understanding in international human rights law that true equality requires acknowledging how overlapping forms of discrimination, such as race, gender, and geography, compound disadvantage within institutional frameworks. The dismissal of medical evidence adduced by experts in the first two trials as to the invasiveness and degrading nature of sex testing regulations is alarming, as it reinforces the archaic stereotype of there being only one metric for femininity and that individuals who do not conform to this standard are less of a woman. Other than not having a legitimate scientific basis, gender verification testing has also led to cases of misidentifying individuals with genetic variations as ineligible for competition, leading to a public smear campaign.
The post Caster Semenya’s ECHR win lauded as landmark case for athletes’ rights appeared first on JURIST – News.
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 