Category Archives: Allgemein

Danish government launches historic legislation promises

Leave a reply

Danish government launches historic legislation promises

On 22 August, the Danish government released a package of LGBTI legislative promises that, if adopted, will be a leap forward in the protection of the rights of LGBTI people in Denmark. These include removal of the waiting limit and age restrictions on legal gender recognition, hate crimes protections on the bases of gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics, recognition of trans parents, and access to an X marker on passports. (Photo credit: Komiteen LGBT)
Read more.

World Rugby criticised by dozens of academics for trans women ban

Leave a reply

World Rugby criticised by dozens of academics for trans women ban

  • Campaigners say there is no scientific evidence for proposal
  • World Rugby defends research that led to decision
World Rugby has proposed banning trans women from playing women’s rugby.

Read: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/sep/01/world-rugby-criticised-by-dozens-of-academics-for-trans-women-ban

Children’s book restricted in Lithuania for showing gay relationships in positive light goes to European Court of Human Rights

Leave a reply
Children’s book restricted in Lithuania for showing gay relationships in positive light goes to European Court of Human Rights

Posted: 29 Aug 2020 10:24 AM PDT on ECHR Sexual Orientation Blog

The Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights has communicated the case of MacatÄ— v Lithuania. The case concerns restrictions placed upon the distribution of a book for children by Neringa DangvydÄ— MacatÄ— on the grounds that, since it depicted same-sex couples who got married and lived happily, it was detrimental to minors.
The facts

Ms Macatė was a writer and specialist in children’s literature, and was openly gay.

In 2013 the Lithuanian University of Education published Ms MacatÄ—’s book “Amber Heart”, a collection of original fairy tales. They were based on traditional fairy tale motifs and aimed at fostering social inclusion of various marginalised groups, including ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities. Out of the six fairy tales, two depicted love between people of the same sex.

In 2014 the university stopped the distribution of the book, on the grounds that it might have a negative effect on minors because of its depiction of same-sex family relationships. In 2015 it renewed the distribution, but the book was marked with a warning that it “might have a negative effect on persons below the age of fourteen”.

Ms MacatÄ— instituted civil proceedings against the university, stating that it had restricted her freedom of expression on discriminatory grounds, but her claim was dismissed. The courts held that, as provided under Lithuanian law and as understood by the majority of the Lithuanian society, a family was created by marriage of persons of different sexes, and the law considered information which promoted different concepts of marriage and family to be harmful to minors.

Ms MacatÄ— complains under Article 10 of the Convention, taken alone and together with Article 14, that the publication and distribution of her book was restricted because of its positive depiction of same-sex relationships.

Questions to the Parties

The Court has asked the Parties the following questions:

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?

2. Did the restrictions on the publication and distribution of the applicant’s book amount to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10?

Brief comment

This application has a high chance of success, in light of the Court’s recent case law on the suppression of public discussion of same-sex relationships to “protect” minors.

In Alekseyev v Russia the Court held that “[t]here is no scientific evidence or sociological data at the Court’s disposal suggesting that the mere mention of homosexuality, or open public debate about sexual minorities’ social status, would adversely affect children or ‘vulnerable adults’. On the contrary, it is only through fair and public debate that society may address such complex issues…” (2010, § 86).

Moreover, in Bayev v Russia the Court held that exposing minors to “ideas of diversity, equality and tolerance” regarding sexual orientation, and “the adoption of these views”, could “only be conducive to social cohesion”. The Court also recognized that “the protection of children from homophobia gives practical expression to the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation Rec(2010)5 which encourages ‘safeguarding the right of children and youth to education in safe environment, free from violence, bullying, social exclusion or other forms of discriminatory and degrading treatment related to sexual orientation or gender identity’ […] as well as ‘providing objective information with respect to sexual orientation and gender identity, for instance in school curricula and educational materials'” (2017, § 82).  

Whilst it is the case that, on the subject of same-sex marriage, the Court’s position remains that “the question whether or not to allow same-sex marriage is left to regulation by the national law of the Contracting State” (Schalk and Kopf v Austria, 2010, § 61) it has also been clear that “conferring substantive rights on homosexual persons is fundamentally different from recognising their right to campaign for such rights” (Alekseyev v Russia, 2010, § 84).

Given the Court’s recent case law it seems likely that the regulation of “Amber Heart” will be held to be an interference with the right to freedom of expression of its author that, even if lawful, is unnecessary in a democratic society and, as a such, a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (and Article 14 of the Convention since the unnecessary interference was based on sexual orientation). 
However, since the application was lodged, the applicant, Ms Macatė, has sadly died. Whether the Court continues to examine the application will depend upon a number of factors, not least whether there is a next of kin or close family member expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court or, in the absence of this, the Court finds that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention requires a continuation of the examination of the case (see, for example, Karner v Austria, 2003, §§ 20-28). Neringa Dangvydė Macatė

Ms Macatė died on 21 March 2020 after a long and serious illness. 
Her application to the Court was lodged on 22 November 2019. 
More information about and a full copy of “Amber Heart” is available here.

ECtHR: The Government of Liechtenstein lodged an inter-State application against the Czech Republic concerning breaches of the rights of its citizens in property cases

Leave a reply

ECtHR: The Government of Liechtenstein lodged an inter-State application against the Czech Republic concerning breaches of the rights of its citizens in property cases

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre-press#%22itemid%22:%5B%22003-6769236-9041940%22%5D

USA: Trump administration really doesn’t want the daughter of a gay couple born in Canada to be a US citizen

Leave a reply

USA: Trump administration really doesn’t want the daughter of a gay couple born in Canada to be a US citizen

Roee and Adiel Kiviti are suing the Trump administration to secure citizenship for baby daughter Kessem

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.

Read: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/08/20/trump-gay-canada-surrogate-daughter-citizenship-roee-adiel-kessem-kiviti/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PNnewsletter

New cases against Russia communicated concerning sexual orientation discrimination

Leave a reply

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

Leave a reply

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

Leave a reply

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

Leave a reply

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.
Read the Brief

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu