Category Archives: Allgemein

2026 WorldPride Human Rights Conference (Amsterdam, 5-7 August): Call for speakers (deadline: 21 March 2026)

Leave a reply

2026 WorldPride Human Rights Conference (Amsterdam, 5-7 August): Call for speakers (deadline: 21 March 2026)

2026 WorldPride Human Rights Conference (Amsterdam, 5-7 August). Registration for this conference starts next month, but the “Call for speakers” is already open, with a 21 March deadline.  If you, or anyone you know, would like to present at the WorldPride conference, please have a look at: https://pride.amsterdam/en/event/human-rights-conference/. 

Some quotes from the Call:
“Each session will generally have 75 minutes available. The format is flexible. The aim is to make every session as diverse, inspiring, and interactive as possible. So collaborate, present, inspire, demonstrate, organize a panel, divide the session into segments, in short: create impact with an unforgettable experience for participants.”
“The conference program is being developed with input from activists and Pride organizers around the world and is overseen by our advisory board and international sounding board. The advisory board will make an initial selection and, where necessary, connect parties to ensure impactful sessions.”
“Interested in participating as speaker, performer, session organiser, or panelist? You can register via this page and share your ideas (max 3 per account) with us. The deadline to submit a proposal is March 21!”

‘Presuming parentage in lesbian – as in heterosexual – couples?

Leave a reply

‘Presuming parentage in lesbian – as in heterosexual – couples?

New Article: Nikos Koumoutzis, ‘Presuming parentage in lesbian – as in heterosexual – couples? Equal treatment claims before the European Court of Human Rights: Boeckel and Gessner-Boeckel v Germany, and R.F. and Others v Germany’, The International Journal of Human Rights (2026):

‘It is increasingly common in married or registered lesbian couples to conceive children through assisted reproduction with donor sperm. In these families, parentage is automatically attributed to the woman giving birth, while the birth mother’s spouse or partner – sometimes even the egg provider – must typically undergo adoption to be recognised as the other parent. This starkly contrasts with heterosexual couples in which the birth mother’s spouse is the other parent by virtue of the presumption of legitimacy, without further steps, sparing stakeholders from legal uncertainty, costs, and emotional strain. This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights responds to claims of alleged discrimination caused by this disparity, with particular attention to Boeckel and Gessner-Boeckel v Germany and R.F. and Others v Germany. It argues that ‘biological differences’ between the couples are insufficient to explain the unequal treatment. At the same time, it considers whether such unequal treatment can be justified on grounds of collective interests, drawing on broader case law under the European Convention on Human Rights, where it provides necessary contextual background for specific points of the analysis. It concludes that, in certain circumstances, States retain discretion to refuse a gender-neutral extension of the presumption of legitimacy and thereby perpetuate the systemic imbalance in their family laws.’

US Supreme Court grants emergency relief in California gender identity case

Leave a reply

US Supreme Court grants emergency relief in California gender identity case

The Supreme Court on Monday granted emergency relief to parents challenging California school policies on student gender identity, allowing a district court injunction to take effect while litigation continues in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In an unsigned per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit’s stay of the injunction was not justified under the governing four-factor test. It found that the parents, particularly those seeking religious exemptions, are likely to succeed on the merits “of their Free Exercise Clause claim.” It further noted that the nondisclosure rules are likely trigger strict scrutiny because they substantially interfere with “the right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.” The Court concluded that parents asserting due process claims are likely to prevail, citing longstanding precedent recognizing parental authority over children’s upbringing and education.

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the Court intervened prematurely while the case is still developing in the lower courts: “If nothing else, this Court owes it to a sovereign State to avoid throwing over its policies in a slapdash way, if the Court can provide normal procedures.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, indicated that she would have granted relief to the teacher plaintiffs.

The split decision follows a legal battle between religious parents and educators in California. Two sets of Catholic parents, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged state school policies which prevent schools from disclosing students’ gender identities to their families, arguing that they violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs stated that these policies misled them and secretly facilitated the children’s social transition. In contrast, California argued that students have the right to privacy regarding their gender expression, particularly if they fear rejection from their families. The state asserted that its school policies and state law are designed to strike a balance between parents’ rights and the students’ need for privacy.

The case will return to the Ninth Circuit while the district court’s injunction remains in effect for the parent class.

The post US Supreme Court grants emergency relief in California gender identity case appeared first on JURIST – News.

EU forces Ukraine to legalize same-sex couples as condition for accession

Leave a reply

EU forces Ukraine to legalize same-sex couples as condition for accession

The European Commission has made it clear that Ukraine must introduce legal recognition of same-sex couples if it wishes to advance toward full European Union membership. According to Ukrainian media reports published on February 20, 2026, Brussels raised the issue during discussions on Ukraine’s Rule of Law Roadmap, explicitly linking it to the country’s obligations under the “Fundamentals” negotiation cluster, particularly Chapter 23 on the judiciary and fundamental rights.

More: https://ifamnews.com/en/eu-forces-ukraine-to-legalize-same-sex-couples-as-condition-for-accession

UN experts call on the UK to ensure equal rights for women, girls, and transgender individuals

Leave a reply

UN experts call on the UK to ensure equal rights for women, girls, and transgender individuals

A group of UN experts on Friday called for the United Kingdom to guarantee that the current reviews of statutory guidance under the Equality Act 2010 align with international human rights standards and provide the equal enjoyment of rights for women and girls, including the transgender community.

The group of experts expressed appreciation of the government’s assurances that the legislative review would be conducted in a non-discriminatory manner, commenting, “The present review represents an important opportunity for the United Kingdom to reaffirm its long-standing commitment to equality, dignity and the rule of law, and to ensure that the human rights of all are upheld in practice.”

This new development comes amid a changing legal horizon characterized by years of intense litigation, a polarized social climate, and conflicting guidance from equality organizations regarding the intersection of gender identity and biological sex. In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers that references to “sex,” “man,” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to an individual’s biological sex. This means that the legal sex of transgender individuals, which is determined by their possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), is no longer considered their “sex” for the purposes of the Equality Act, rendering the marginalized community more vulnerable to exclusion from single-sex services and affecting their ability to challenge sex-based discrimination.

Following the 2025 ruling, organizations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the official regulator of the Equality Act 2010, began updating its guidelines to clarify that service providers were legally entitled to restrict access to single-sex spaces such as bathrooms based on biological sex. The interim guidance provided by the EHRC was challenged by the Good Law Project, which stated that it was legally flawed, a harmful interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling, and produced only nine days after the publication of the Supreme Court’s judgment, with minimal consultation on the issue sought.

The High Court dismissed the case on February 13, 2026, as it found that the Supreme Court’s ruling was properly applied and that the Good Law Project lacked the proper standing to bring the case, since it did not suffer direct harm as a result of the decision. In light of this, the group of UN experts pushed for the United Kingdom to ensure that the review process was inclusive and complied with international human rights frameworks such as Article 2(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity.

The post UN experts call on the UK to ensure equal rights for women, girls, and transgender individuals appeared first on JURIST – News.

US State Department resumes HIV prevention program excluding LGBT+

Leave a reply

US State Department resumes HIV prevention program excluding LGBT+

The US Department of State has resumed HIV prevention services under the president’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) after a temporary suspension of US foreign assistance, according to reports Thursday. The resumption comes with a restriction: pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) will only be available to pregnant and breastfeeding women (PBFW), excluding LGBT+ individuals who are at high risk of HIV infection.

The February 10 PEPFAR Limited Waiver Approved Activities document states that: “People other than PBFW who may be at high risk of HIV infection or were previously initiated on a PrEP option cannot be offered PEPFAR-funded PrEP during this pause of U.S. Foreign Assistance or until further notice.” The restriction disproportionately impacts men who have sex with men and transgender individuals, populations that have historically faced higher rates of HIV transmission.

Human Rights Watch stated that even a temporary pause on PEPFAR programs could devastate vulnerable populations. Legal challenges have emerged in response to the freeze. On February 10, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) and Journalism Development Network, Inc. sued Trump, alleging the freeze was illegal and unconstitutional. The next day, USAID contractors and non-governmental organizations filed a separate lawsuit, arguing that the freeze had already caused irreparable harm. A separate lawsuit, brought by a group of USAID employees, led a federal judge to issue an injunction on February 7, blocking the furloughing of USAID workers.

The post US State Department resumes HIV prevention program excluding LGBT+ appeared first on JURIST – News.

New SOGIESC publication: ‘Queering Courts’

Leave a reply

New SOGIESC publication: ‘Queering Courts’

 The monograph ‘Queering Courts’ is now also available outside of the Low Countries through Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Queering-Courts-Analysing-marriage-European/dp/B0GK94TXKJ/ref=sr_1_1.

New SOGIESC publication: ‘Queering Courts’

With the use of queer legal theory, ‘Queering Courts’ analyses how courts such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the United States Supreme Court interpret and apply the notions of ‘sex’, ‘gender’, ‘sexuality’ and ‘sexual orientation’ in their equal marriage rights case law.

The research reveals that courts interpret the notions as binary constructs with the dominance in the hierarchies commonly anchored on certain heteronormative beliefs. This results in the discrimination, non-inclusivity and ‘othering’ of all that do not fall within the dominant part of the hierarchies, making them thus ineligible to enjoy ‘full’ or ‘equal’ marriage rights. While the decision-making of the courts is influenced by factors such as history, culture, religion, politics, etc., judicial self-restraint is oftentimes exercised for credibility, legitimacy, and authority reasons. The research suggests that courts should ‘queer’ their approaches for more inclusive, diverse, and universal adjudication. Until then, the enjoyment of full equal marriage rights is only for the heterosexually privileged.

– Dr Alina Tryfonidou: “Queering Courts is an exceptional and timely contribution to the literature on the equal marriage rights of same-sex couples. Dr. Shahid offers a masterful and crystal-clear analysis of the jurisprudence of three major courts – the ECtHR, the CJEU and the US Supreme Court – engaging rigorously with their case law while illuminating, through the lens of queer legal theory, how these courts understand and deploy the concepts of sex, gender, sexuality and sexual orientation. Written in crisp, accessible language and grounded in original scholarly insight, this book provides a refreshing, innovative and genuinely enlightening perspective. A delight to read and a significant intervention in the field.”

Gay FIFA director reports internal support and criticises calls to boycott the World Cup and countries with anti-LGBT laws

Leave a reply

Gay FIFA director reports internal support and criticises calls to boycott the World Cup and countries with anti-LGBT laws

More: https://oglobo.globo.com/esportes/noticia/2026/02/19/diretor-gay-da-fifa-relata-apoio-interno-e-critica-pedidos-de-boicote-a-copa-e-a-paises-com-leis-anti-lgbt.ghtml