USA: Transgender woman files second lawsuit against Georgia Department of Corrections for sexual assault

Five years after her initial lawsuit, which led to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) declaring that prison officials must treat gender dysphoria, Ashley Diamond, a transgender woman, brought suit against the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) Monday.

According to the complaint, Ashley “is once again trying to survive brutal and unrelenting abuse and mistreatment as a result of [the GDC’s] actions and omissions.” Her initial abuse ended after she was released from the GDC to parole in August 2015. However, a recent parole violation has led her to be sexually victimized in the custody of GDC once again. Defendants named in the suit include Georgia Statewide Mental Health Director Javel Jackson, Medical Director of the GDC Sharon Lewis, Prison Rape Elimination Act Coordinator Grace Atchison, and GDC Commissioner Timothy Ward.

Diamond sent seven letters and two emails regarding constitutional violations between May 1 and November 6, 2020, “repeatedly notif[ying] Defendants of the serial sexual assaults, abuses, and suffering Ms. Diamond was experiencing,” which did not lead to any meaningful intervention. Diamond has been sexually assaulted 14 times while in GDC custody, eight of these instances during her current housing arrangement. Additionally, the GDC refuses to house her in a women’s prison, and she cannot access any safe housing aside from solitary confinement. Diamond’s complaint argues that the sexual assault of transgender women in prison is foreseeable, and that the GDC failed to mitigate this risk, in spite of their knowledge of its existence.

In addition to failing to intervene in the sexual assaults, the GDC has refused Diamond treatment for her gender dysphoria, which has led to instances of attempted self-castration, suicide attempts, anxiety, and depression. Following the 2015 case, “[t]he abuse and neglect that Ms. Diamond has experienced are all the more egregious because Defendants have willfully ignored a prior judicial finding that the very same conduct Defendants repeat qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.”

Diamond’s placement in the men’s prison has separated her “from similarly situated cisgender women (i.e., non-transgender women) who are housed in women’s facilities and therefore shielded from sexual predation from incarcerated cisgender men.”

Diamond’s case will take place during a continued investigation by the DOJ into Georgia’s mistreatment of LGBTQ+ individuals in the prison system.

The post Transgender woman files second lawsuit against Georgia Department of Corrections for sexual assault appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.

2 December: Lecture: LGB Human Rights in Europe, Taiwan, and Hong Kong

Peter Allan Memorial Lecture:
LGB Human Rights in Europe, Taiwan, and Hong Kong

Prof. Robert Wintemute
Professor of Human Rights Law
School of Law, King’s College London

Wednesday, 2 December 2020, 17:30 – 19:00 (Hong Kong Time)

[10:30-12:00 CET]

This webinar is organized by the Centre for Comparative and Public Law at The University of Hong Kong and will be held via Zoom Meeting. Prior registration is required.

For Registration, please click HERE
For inquiries, please email Winnie Law at winniewm@hku.hk

Russia: Pussy Riot slapped with fines for hanging defiant rainbow flags around Moscow on Vladimir Putin’s birthday

Read: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/11/24/pussy-riot-moscow-rainbow-flags-vladimir-putin-birthday-maria-alyokhina-veronika-nikulshina/

Latvia: Constitutional Court recognizes right of same-sex couple to parental leave

Photo: Foto: George Frey, AFP

Constitutional Court recognizes right of same-sex couple to parental leave

november 12, 14:58 Society

Authors:eng.lsm.lv(Latvian Public Broadcasting)

The Constitutional Court has announced judgment on the right of a same-sex couple to a parental leave November 12.

Constitutional Court had received an appeal from a mother whose female partner was unable to receive the ten-day leave which, according to Labor Act, is to be granted to the child’s father. The applicant said that this was contrary to the best interests of the child, since it did not allow the person to provide physical and emotional support to his or her partner and her child.

According to the applicant, Article 110 of the Constitution is infringed, which stipulates that the legislator has an obligation to provide protection for all families. But the Saeima considered that the rule was in line with the Constitution.

On the other hand, the Constitutional Court, in a judgment read on 1 November, acknowledged that the provision of the Labor Act, in so far as it does not provide protection and support for the mother’s partner due to the birth of the child, does not comply with the first sentence of Section 110 of the Constitution.

According to the Court judgment, it shall be deemed null and void as from 1 June 2022. The exception is the family who appealed the relevant provision of the Labor Act – regarding them, it is deemed to be invalid from the time of the infringement of their fundamental rights.

The judgment shall not be appealed.

The Court said that the Constitution sets the state’s obligation to protect the family of same-sex partners as well.

The Court stressed that, in the case of legal relations concerning a child, his or her interests and rights are priority. As far as possible, the country should ensure that the child is grown up in a family environment. And the legislation needs to make sure that regulation is in the best interests of children.

The Constitution requires the law to ensure the legal protection of every family, the Court pointed out. The Court acknowledged that a number of existing regulatory mechanisms could also be extended to same-sex partners. However, the right to exercise this option cannot be regarded as a legal framework for same-sex partnerships.

See: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/constitutional-court-recognizes-right-of-same-sex-couple-to-parental-leave.a381498/

Former Canadian Supreme Court Justice publishes report on RCMP’s toxic, misogynistic and homophobic culture

Former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache released a report on Thursday, detailing the toxic, misogynistic and homophobic culture of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

After conducting interviews with members of the RCMP, Bastarache noted that the RCMP environment was heavily sexualized. Many women were victims of degrading expressions, discriminatory comments and unwanted sexual touching. Similarly, women who identified as LGBTQ2S+ were ostracized and outed to other members without consent. As a result of such conduct, many women were diagnosed with physiological injuries such as Major Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

Bastarache noted that a number of factors contributed to the toxicity of the RCMP including training techniques, systemic barriers, maternity and parental leave and employment flexibility, the grievances and discipline process, leadership, and promotions. In the report, Bastarache offers suggested changes to these factors that he believes will help change the culture of the RCMP for the better. For example, an independent study should be conducted to identify all the systemic barriers preventing women from succeeding in the RCMP and specify how those barriers could be removed. Similarly, “rigorous blind process” should be used for promotions, excluding information about the candidates gender or race.

Bastarache further stated:

I have concluded, based on everything I was told over the past 3 years, that the culture of the RCMP  toxic and tolerates misogyny and homophobia at all ranks and in all provinces and territories. This culture does not reflect the stated values of the RCMP, and it is found throughout the organization. RCMP members and officers are forced to accept that they must function in the context of this culture to succeed. RCMP employees appear to blame the “bad apples” without recognizing the systemic and internal origins of this conduct.

Bastarache indicated that efforts to fix the negative culture of the RCMP “independent external pressure” must be applied. Attempts to fix the culture from within the RCMP has failed multiple times before and has resulted in “the cultural biases and prejudices that existed within the organization “ today. He further stated that, “it is my belie the time has come for the Government of Canada to ask some hard questions about the structure and governance of federal policing.”

The post Former Canadian Supreme Court Justice publishes report on RCMP’s toxic culture appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.

EU publishes “Sexual orientation discrimination law outside the labour market”

Download for free: https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5301-sexual-orientation

UK: The terrible history of Margaret Thatcher’s homophobic Section 28, 17 years since it was repealed in England and Wales

It is 17 years today since the controversial and homophobic legislation known as Section 28, introduced under Margaret Thatcher, was repealed.

The clause – an amendment to the Local Government Act 1988 – banned local authorities and schools from promoting homosexuality and was brought forward by Thatcher’s government.×

The legislation has been labelled “toxic and regressive” by deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey, who introduced the clause that led to its repeal, and told PinkNews that Section 28 left young people feeling “alone and vulnerable”.

“I am proud to have moved the clause that abolished Section 28 once and for all. But we still have so far to go,” Davey said.

“From trans rights, to tackling the persistent discrimination faced by the LGBT+ community: the fight is far from over.”

Section 28 was introduced by Margaret Thatcher amid renewed anti-gay sentiment following the rise of HIV/AIDS.

More than three decades have passed since Thatcher’s government introduced the anti-LGBT+ legislation, but its shadow still looms over schools and local authorities in the UK today.

The legislation meant that councils were prohibited from funding of books, plays, leaflets, films, or other materials showing same-sex relationships, while teachers weren’t allowed to teach about gay relationships in schools.

This clause was the Conservative government’s vitriolic and traditionalist response to calls for equality from lesbian and gay rights activists in the late 1980s.

Thatcher captured these venomous anti-gay views in her infamous speech at the 1987 Conservative Party conference, which was met with rapturous applause.

“Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay,” she said. “All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life. Yes, cheated.”

LGBT+ activists railed against the legislation – but the government didn’t listen.

On the day the clause was passed in the House of Lords, a group of lesbians abseiled into the House of Lords in protest, making national news broadcasts.

The legislation – so loathed, so reviled by supporters of LGBT+ equality – caused 20,000 Mancunians to take to their city’s streets to march against it. It also prompted Sir Ian McKellen to come out publicly as gay.

Section 28 was introduced following a difficult period for the LGBT+ community in the UK. There had been some progress, but the outbreak of HIV/AIDS led to the widespread demonisation of gay and bisexual men in the 1980s.

The Conservative Party capitalised on this anti-gay sentiment. In the run-up to the 1987 general election, they issued posters claiming that the Labour Party wanted LGBT+ friendly books like Young, Gay and Proud and The Milkman’s on His Way to be read in schools.

Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay. All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life. Yes, cheated.

In 1987, a British Social Attitudes Survey found that three-quarters of the population thought homosexuality was “always or mostly wrong”. Just 11 per cent said it was “never wrong”.

Just before the general election of 1987, the Earl of Halsbury introduced theLocal Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill, also known as an act to refrain local authorities from promoting homosexuality.

This bill was successfully passed through the House of Lords, and even passed the first stage on the way to becoming law in the commons, but it went no further. Section 28 was not dissimilar to the legislation that the Earl of Halsbury tried to introduce.

More from PinkNews

Stars you didn’t know are LGBT+ Celebs you didn’t know have an LGBT sibling

The anti-LGBT+ legislation left teachers afraid to broach LGBT+ issues in schools.

Soon after the Tories were re-elected, Tory MP David Wilshire put forward an amendment to the new Local Government Bill – known first as Clause 27, and later as the notorious Clause 28 – based on the Earl of Halsbury’s Bill, which was subsequently passed through Parliament.

The night before Section 28 became law, a group of lesbians famously stormed the BBC’s Six O’Clock News in protest.

The effects of Section 28 soon became apparent, with some schools and councils shutting down LGBTQ+ youth support groups – and many teachers too afraid to teach about same-sex relationships.

The legislation was ultimately repealed in 2003, and David Cameron issued an apology for the harm it had done in 2009 – but despite this, its implications are still felt far and wide and teaching around LGBT+ issues still remains a taboo topic in many schools.

This year, Thatcher was portrayed by queer icon Gillian Anderson in the most recent series of The Crown. However, proving that Section 28’s horrific history can be all too easily forgotten, the show skipped over the issue entirely. 

(c): https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/11/18/section-28-margaret-thatcher-anniversary-homophobia-repeal-england-wales/

ECHR Sexual Orientation Blog: European Court of Human Rights communicates case concerning “homosexual propaganda” law in Russia

---

Posted: 20 Nov 2020 02:17 PM PST (c) Paul Johnson, http://echrso.blogspot.com/ The Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights has communicated the case of Yuliya Vladimirovna Tsvetkova v Russia. The case concerns administrative offence proceedings against Ms Tsvetkova, who was fined for publishing several posts on VKontakte (a Russian online social media and social networking service similar to Facebook) which were found to amount to “promotion of homosexuality among minors”.No details have been provided by the Court regarding the nature of the online content. However, Ms Tsvetkova is a well known artist and activist in Russia and has been subject to several proceedings under Russia’s “homosexual propaganda” laws. An article in the Moscow Times provides details of the proceedings, and information is provided by Amnesty International. Russian lawThe principal provision in Russian federal law is Article 6.21 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (“Promotion of non-traditional sexual relations among minors”) which specifies:“1. The promoting of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors, expressed in the dissemination of information aimed at creating in minors a non-traditional sexual orientation, promoting the attractiveness of non-traditional sexual relationships, creating a distorted image of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships, or imposing information about non-traditional sexual relationships, arousing interest in such relationships, if these activities do not contain acts punishable under criminal law,- shall be subject to the imposition of an administrative fine, ranging from 4,000 to 5,000 roubles for citizens; from 40,000 to 50,000 roubles for officials; and, for legal entities, a fine ranging from 800,000 to 1,000,000 roubles or an administrative suspension of their activities for up to 90 days.”Questions to the partiesThe Court has asked the parties the following questions:1.  Did the applicant’s conviction of an administrative offence for “promotion of homosexuality among minors” violate her right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see Bayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 67667/09 and 2 others, 20 June 2017)2.  Did the applicant suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10 (see Bayev and Others v. Russia, cited above)?3.  Did the Federal Security Service’s request for user data related to the applicant’s VKontakte account and the VKontakte community administered by her from VKontakte company violate the applicant’s right to respect for her private life? The parties are requested to submit a copy of VKontakte company’s reply of 7 June 2019.4.  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular,- Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016)?- Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against her – in particular officers of the Federal Security Service and expert witnesses – , as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the ConventionComment The Court has communicated this case very quickly, given that it was lodged on 22 August 2020.Whilst it is difficult to say with certainty what the outcome will be without knowing details of the online content, it seems highly likely that the Court will find a violation of Article 10 (either alone and/or in conjunction with Article 14) of the Convention. The Court has previously made clear that it regards legislation regulating the “promotion of homosexuality” to “reinforce stigma and prejudice and encourage homophobia, which is incompatible with the notions of equality, pluralism and tolerance inherent in a democratic society” required by Article 10 of the Convention, and to embody “a predisposed bias on the part of the heterosexual majority against the homosexual minority” in violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention (Bayev and Others v Russia, §§ 83 and 91).The outcome regarding complaints about the lack of a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Convention will provide an important reflection on how the Russian domestic courts are dealing with cases brought under this legislation.

USA: US appeals court rules Florida conversion therapy bans violate First Amendment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled Friday that bans on conversion therapy violate the First Amendment. Plaintiff-appellants Robert Otto and Julie Hamilton provided what they call “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) through talk therapy until Palm Beach County and the City of Boca Raton banned conversion therapy in 2017. The bans prohibit any counselor licensed by the state of Florida, with the exception of clergy, from providing treatment “with the goal of changing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” The laws provide an exception for therapists assisting a client through gender transition.

The appeals court determined the bans to be “content-based restrictions of speech” because they prohibited therapists from expressing a particular message to clients. The court also found that because the ordinances allow for discussion of gender transition, the government effectively codified the viewpoint that sexual orientation is fixed and gender identity is changeable.

Based on these determinations, the court subjected the bans to strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, restrictions to free speech are justifiable only if they address a compelling interest in the least restrictive way possible. The court found current medical evidence of conversion therapy’s danger insufficient to establish a compelling interest, and ruled that the laws violate the First Amendment.

In dissent, Judge Beverly Martin argued that gathering further evidence of the harms of conversion therapy would be unethical because major organizations like the American Psychological Association have already determined the process to be detrimental. The APA cautioned that few, if any, reputable organizations would condone further studies. This inability to collect evidence creates a paradox: “one implication of the majority holding is that because SOCE is too dangerous to study, children can continue to be subjected to it.”

The majority decision calls into question similar bans in 20 states and nearly 100 cities around the US.

The post US appeals court rules Florida conversion therapy bans violate First Amendment appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.