USA: Trump administration really doesn’t want the daughter of a gay couple born in Canada to be a US citizen
On 13 August the US State Department appealed a federal ruling that forced it to recognise the American citizenship of 18-month-old Kessem Kiviti, the daughter of Maryland couple Roee Kiviti and Adiel Kiviti.
Kessem’s parents are both naturalised US citizens who were born in Israel. They were legally married in California in 2013 and Adiel is Kessem’s biological father.
New cases against Russia communicated concerning sexual orientation discrimination
| Posted: 29 Aug 2020 08:51 AM PDT (C) http://echrso.blogspot.com/ The European Court of Human Rights has communicated the following complaints against Russia concerning sexual orientation discrimination. Gromadskaya and Bolonin v Russia The applications concern the allegedly ineffective investigation into an attack on the applicants, a transgender homosexual man and a transgender person of non-binary gender, which was committed by an unknown man in a bar in St Petersburg on 14 October 2017. According to the applicants, the perpetrator approached them having seen a rainbow bracelet (symbol of LGBTI pride and social movements) on their friend. Then he insulted them referring to their alleged homosexuality and beat them up, inflicting several contusions. The applicants reported the incident to the 10th police station in the Nevskiy District of St Petersburg (“the police”), which opened administrative proceedings into the incident under Article 6.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“Battery”). Alleging that the attack had been motivated by hatred against LGBTI people the applicants sought a criminal case to be opened by the police. Several times the police refused to initiate criminal proceedings into the incident. It held that the attack had not amounted to a criminal offence. After several complaints had been lodged by the applicants’ lawyer with various domestic authorities, including the Nevskiy District Court in St Petersburg, the police decisions not to open a criminal case were overruled by the deputy prosecutor in the Nevskiy District of St Petersburg for being premature and ill-founded. It appears that the criminal pre-investigation inquiry is still ongoing. R.Y. v Russia The application concerns the administrative removal of the applicant, an HIV-positive openly gay man, to Uzbekistan where he would allegedly face the real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the light of the criminal prohibition of consensual sexual intercourse between men in that country. |
Australia Capital Territory passes bill banning conversion therapy
The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Legislative Assembly passed the Sexuality and Gender Identity Conversion Practices Bill on Thursday, banning the practice of conversion therapy on LGBTQ persons. Sexuality or gender identity conversion practices are “treatment[s] or other practice[s] the purpose, or purported purpose, of which is to change a person’s sexuality or gender identity.” However, the bill specifically excludes practices like assisting a person undergoing or considering gender transition from the definition of conversion practice.
The bill provides for both criminal and civil remedies against people who practice conversion therapy. Practicing conversion therapy on protected individuals could result in up to a year in jail, up to $24,000 in criminal fines, or civil redress provided by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The bill was amended shortly before it was passed at the request of religious groups and ACT opposition leader Alistair Coe who feared the broad definition of conversion therapy would allow children to sue their parents.
The statute will go into effect in six months.
The post Australia Capital Territory passes bill banning conversion therapy appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
USA: Federal appeals court rules denying transgender student access to bathroom of choice was unlawful
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on Wednesday that it was unlawful for a Virginia school board to deny a transgender student access to the bathroom that corresponded with his gender identity. The court determined that preventing the student from accessing the bathroom of his choice was a form of sex discrimination.
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2015, arose when Gavin Grimm was denied use of the boys’ restroom at a local public high school in Richmond, Virginia. Grimm, now a college student, was born as a female, but identifies as male.
In the initial suit, Grimm argued the school board’s policy denying his access to the boys’ restroom violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and constituted discrimination on the basis of sex. His lawsuit was later amended to add the board’s refusal to amend his educational records to reflect his gender identity.
Judge Henry Franklin Floyd wrote the decision, citing the recent landmark Supreme Court case that extended protection against sexual discrimination to LGBTQ individuals. In his opinion, Floyd stated that due to the recent ruling by the Supreme Court, “[the court has] little difficulty in holding that a bathroom policy precluding Grimm from using the boys restrooms discriminated against him.”
The post Federal appeals court rules denying transgender student access to bathroom of choice was unlawful appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
USA: Amicus brief filed by Williams Institute with Supreme Court in same-sex parenting case
| On 20 August, the Williams Institute and 49 other scholars, researchers, and legal experts filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The case will ultimately determine whether states and localities must contract with child welfare agencies that discriminate against same-sex couples on the basis of religious beliefs. The Williams Institute’s brief explains that forcing states and localities to allow discrimination against same-sex parents will cause significant and long-lasting harm to same-sex couples and children in foster care. It would likely reduce the number of homes available for children in need and stigmatize LGB people, which has been shown to jeopardize health and well-being. Furthermore, it would send a message that the government sanctions and approves LGB discrimination, potentially emboldening other forms of discrimination against LGB people. The brief was prepared with the pro bono assistance of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP. |
Ugandans face summons over LGBT torture charges
A Ugandan town councilman and a Ugandan prisons officer have been summoned to face criminal charges of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment connected to the arrest of 20 men at an LGBT homeless shelter in March and their imprisonment for 50 days.
From the African Human Rights Media Network: https://76crimes.com/2020/08/19/ugandans-face-summons-over-lgbt-torture-charges/
Lesbian couples should no longer have to adopt their own children in Germany
Da die Schweizer gerne deutsches Recht kopieren, kommt dieser Vorschlag vielleicht gerade zur rechten Zeit: Lesbische Paare sollen in Deutschland eigene Kinder nicht mehr adoptieren müssen Zwar habe auch das Bundesamt für Justiz und angesehene Schweizer Juristen sich so verlauten lassen, aber Politiker und Presse interessiert das wenig. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/sorgerecht-kinder-lesbische-paare-1.5005245 ustizministerin Lambrecht plant eine Reform des […]
Da die Schweizer gerne deutsches Recht kopieren, kommt dieser Vorschlag vielleicht gerade zur rechten Zeit: Lesbische Paare sollen in Deutschland eigene Kinder nicht mehr adoptieren müssen — LGBTI Recht in der Schweiz – Droit LGBTI en Suisse
Justizministerin Lambrecht plant eine Reform des Sorgerechts für lesbische Paare. Der Entwurf greift an mancher Stelle allerdings zu kurz – und macht es vor allem den Vätern schwer (https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/sorgerecht-kinder-lesbische-paare-1.5005245).
Neue Paragrafen sind oftmals sperrig, aber diese Vorschrift kommt schlank daher: “Mutter eines Kindes ist die Frau, die es geboren hat”, heißt es seit jeher im Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Nun aber bekommt Paragraf 1591 einen zweiten Absatz: “Mutter eines Kindes ist neben der Mutter nach Absatz 1 auch die Frau, die zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt mit der Mutter nach Absatz eins verheiratet ist oder die die Mutterschaft anerkannt hat.” Mehr braucht es nicht, um einen grundstürzenden Wandel in Worte zu fassen.
Nach der Zulassung der Stiefkindadoption im Jahr 2013 und der Ehe für alle 2017 folgt also der nächste Schritt. Kinder können fortan zwei Mütter haben, und zwar ohne Adoption. Das gilt für Ehen wie auch für unverheiratete lesbische Paare. So sieht es ein Gesetzentwurf des Bundesjustizministeriums vor, der nun in der Regierung abgestimmt wird; er liegt der Süddeutschen Zeitung vor. Danach sollen beide Frauen Mutter heißen, wie das etwa in den Niederlanden (“moeder”) oder in Finnland (“äiti”) der Fall ist. Der Entwurf verzichtet auf den holprigen Begriff “Mit-Mutterschaft”, wie man ihn in Belgien (“meemoeder”), Dänemark und Norwegen (“medmor”) kennt – übrigens alles Länder, in denen die gemeinsame Elternschaft lesbischer Paare, die Deutschland nun etwas verspätet einführt, bereits Gesetz ist. Ein Adoptionsverfahren durchlaufen zu müssen, auch wenn es ein Wunschkind sei, “das wird von lesbischen Paaren zu Recht als diskriminierend empfunden”, sagt Bundesjustizministerin Christine Lambrecht, “eine Mutter sollte ihr Kind nicht adoptieren müssen.”
Dass Kinder lesbischer Paare fortan zwei rechtliche Elternteile haben, und zwar, wie bei heterosexuellen Paaren, von Beginn an, dient dem Entwurf zufolge vor allem ihrer Sicherheit. Denn damit sind Ansprüche verbunden, vor allem auf Unterhalt. Zugleich schreibt der Entwurf fest, dass es nur zwei Elternteile geben kann. Der männliche Erzeuger, etwa ein Samenspender, den nach der Geburt plötzlich Vatergefühle überkommen, kann sich nicht als dritter Elternteil hineindrängen. Außerdem sieht die Reform keine Co-Vater-Regelung für homosexuelle Männer vor, die bei der Familiengründung oft auf die problematische und in Deutschland verbotene Leihmutterschaft angewiesen sind.
Weniger beherzt ist der zweite Teil der Reform ausgefallen. Zwar soll unverheirateten Paaren der Weg zum gemeinsamen Sorgerecht für ihre Kinder erleichtert werden, also die Entscheidung über Schule, Namen oder Wohnort. Eine gemeinsame Erklärung ist nicht mehr nötig, fortan soll die Anerkennung der Vaterschaft genügen, für die freilich die Zustimmung der Mutter nötig ist. Wird um die Vaterschaft dagegen vor Gericht gestritten – das dann per DNA-Test die Verhältnisse klärt -, bekommt der gerichtlich festgestellte Vater das Sorgerecht aber nicht automatisch. Dann bleibt es bei der gemeinsamen Erklärung. Gegen die Mutter geht also nichts: Ihre Vetoposition soll Konflikten über Kinder entgegenwirken, die durch Samenspender oder in One-Night-Stands gezeugt wurden. Damit bleibt der Entwurf hinter den Regeln vieler anderer Länder zurück, in denen die Eltern automatisch das Sorgerecht bekommen. Das hatte auch eine vom Ministerium eingesetzte Arbeitsgruppe vorgeschlagen.
Neu sind zudem erweiterte Ansprüche zur Klärung der genetischen Abstammung. Bisher können nur Vater, Mutter und Kind einen Gentest verlangen. Wer sich dagegen für den leiblichen Vater hält, dem bleibt nur der brachiale Weg, die Vaterschaft des anderen Mannes anzufechten. Der Entwurf räumt nun auch dem mutmaßlichen Vater eine vereinfachte Möglichkeit ein, allein die genetische Verwandtschaft klären zu lassen, ohne gleich mit einer Klage die fremde Familie zu sprengen. Dasselbe gilt übrigens auch für die “mutmaßliche Mutter”: In Zeiten der Eizellenspende ist nicht immer gewiss, wer die genetische Mutter ist.© SZ vom 21.08.2020/bix
USA: Federal judge blocks Trump administration rule allowing healthcare providers to discriminate against transgender individuals
A judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York has blocked a new rule by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that would allow healthcare providers to discriminate against transgender individuals. The ruling was issued on Monday, one day before the rule was set to take effect.
In 2015, HHS proposed a new set of rules that defined discrimination “on the basis of sex” in Title IX to include discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, childbirth or related medical conditions, sex stereotyping, or gender identity.” These rules took effect on July 18, 2016.
In 2019, HHS proposed a new set of rules that repealed the 2016 definition of discrimination “on the basis of sex,” determining that “[t]he plain meaning of ‘sex’ under Title IX encompasses neither sexual orientation nor gender identity.” The new rules were to take effect on Tuesday.
On June 26, two transgender women filed suit, both of whom experienced discrimination because of their transgender status. They asked for the court to stay the rules’ effective date and to preliminarily enjoin HHS from enforcing them.
On Monday, Judge Frederic Block concluded that the rules were contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. In the Bostock opinion, the Supreme Court held that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” The district court also found that the HHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
The plaintiffs established that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm because monetary damages “could hardly compensate plaintiffs for the detrimental effect of discrimination on their health and, perhaps, their lives.” When balancing equities and public interest, Block reached a similar conclusion.
The judge also found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. HHS acted because of a “fundamental disagreement” with the 2016 rules, and its position was “effectively rejected” by the Supreme Court through the Bostock ruling. The HHS had an opportunity to reevaluate its proposed rule after the case was decided. Because of this, the court found that it was likely that the plaintiffs will succeed on their claim.
Block granted a stay and a preliminary injunction to preclude the rules from becoming operative.
The post Federal judge blocks Trump administration rule allowing healthcare providers to discriminate against transgender individuals appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
USA: Judge finally blocks Donald Trump from rolling back transgender healthcare protections at the 11th hour
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Donald Trump administration’s plans to roll back existing healthcare protections for trans patients
USA: Federal judge temporarily blocks Idaho law targeting transgender athletes
Chief Judge David Nye of the US District Court District of Idaho on Monday temporarily blocked the first state law passed to ban transgender women from competing in women’s sports.
The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Idaho in April on behalf of Lindsay Hecox and three other students who are challenging the constitutionality of HB 500, which excludes transgender athletes from competing in school sports and places requirements on schools to “verify the student’s biological sex” in the event any athlete’s gender is “disputed.” The new law was one of a pair of transgender restrictions recently passed in Idaho. The other, HB 509, sought to prohibit transgender individuals from changing their biological sex on their birth certificates. Both laws are currently facing legal challenges and have been blocked by preliminary injunctions.
Nye granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, after recognizing the decision to be controversial among many citizens in Idaho, stated “the Constitution must always prevail.”
Additionally, in considering whether Hecox is likely to prevail, a critical component of the legal standard for issuing an injunction, Nye considered the recent Supreme Court decision in Bostock, which held that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being … transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
In June, 60 prominent civil rights organizations and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations called for the complete ban of all NCAA sponsored sporting events in Idaho in response to Idaho’s “dangerous anti-transgender legislation” because the law is contrary to the NCAA inclusion policies for transgender student-athletes.
The post Federal judge temporarily blocks Idaho law targeting transgender athletes appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 
