Category Archives: Allgemein

Joint Statement on behalf of 22 Embassies [including Switzerland] on recent legislation restricting the right of peaceful assembly and the freedom of expression [in Hungary]

Joint Statement on behalf of 22 Embassies [including Switzerland] on recent legislation restricting the right of peaceful assembly and the freedom of expression [in Hungary]

We, the undersigned Embassies, are deeply concerned about the legislation passed on 18.03.2025 in Hungary that results in restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly and the freedom of expression. These human rights are enshrined in Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are committed to respecting, protecting and fulfilling the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, and to combating discrimination based on those grounds.

Signed by the following Embassies:

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The United Kingdom.

When 27.03.2025

Source: https://ungarn.um.dk/en/news/days-closed

UK: University of Sussex fined £585,000 for failing to uphold freedom of speech relating to gender/sex controversy

UK: University of Sussex fined £585,000 for failing to uphold freedom of speech relating to gender/sex controversy

Regulator accused of ‘perpetuating culture wars’ after case of Kathleen Stock, who faced protests for views on gender

England’s university regulator has been accused of “perpetuating the culture wars” after fining the University of Sussex a record £585,000 at the conclusion of an investigation into freedom of speech on campus.

It marks the end of a three-and-a-half year investigation into the university’s handling of the case of Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor who resigned after being targeted by protests over her views on gender identification and transgender rights.

In a ruling that prompted a furious reaction from the University of Sussex and has implications for the wider sector, the Office for Students (OfS) found the institution’s governing documents “failed to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom”. It also identified failings in the university’s management and governance processes.

The OfS criticism was directed at the university’s trans and non-binary equality policy statement, which required course materials to “positively represent trans people” and said “transphobic propaganda … will not be tolerated”. The regulator said it had “a chilling effect”, which could result in staff and students self-censoring.

“An example of this chilling effect materialising in practice is the experience of Prof Stock while at the university. Prof Stock said that she became more cautious in her expression of gender critical views as a result of the policy,” the OfS said.

“There were some views she did not feel able to express, and therefore teach, despite those views being lawful. Other staff and students may have felt similarly unable to express these, or other, lawful views, and not speak about or express lawful views.”

Sussex complained the fine was more than 15 times bigger than any other sanction the OfS had previously imposed and promised to challenge the ruling in the courts. “The way the OfS has conducted this investigation has been completely unacceptable, its findings are egregious and concocted, and the fine that is being imposed on Sussex is wholly disproportionate,” said the university’s vice-chancellor, Prof Sasha Roseneil.

“After three and a half years of trawling thousands of pages of paperwork, whilst never interviewing anyone employed by the university, the behaviour of the OfS sets a dangerous precedent and constitutes serious regulatory overreach in service of a politically motivated inquiry.”

Stock resigned from the university in 2021 over what she called “a medieval experience” of campus ostracism and protests, but she praised the university leadership’s approach latterly as “admirable and decent”.

Sussex said the OfS’s findings meant it was now all but impossible for universities to prevent abuse, harassment or bullying on campuses.

“Universities must be able to have policies and expectations of behaviour that support respectful communication and enable us to manage cultural tensions on campus,” said Roseneil. “It cannot be that we are only able to expect people to obey the law and that poor behaviour can only be challenged in the courts.

“Under this ruling, we believe that universities would not be permitted to expect their staff and students to treat each other with civility and respect. The OfS is effectively decreeing libertarian free speech absolutism as the fundamental principle for UK universities. In our view, the OfS is perpetuating the culture wars.”

Arif Ahmed, the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the OfS, said: “These are significant and serious breaches of the OfS’s requirements. Substantial monetary penalties are appropriate for the scale of wrongdoing we have found. However, we have significantly discounted the monetary penalties we initially calculated on this occasion to reflect that this is the first case of its type we have dealt with.

“We hope that publishing our findings in this case is helpful to all universities and colleges as they consider their own compliance with their freedom of speech duties, and ensure they have proper decision-making processes in place.”

The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, said: “Free speech and academic freedom are non-negotiables in our universities, and I have been clear that where those principles are not upheld, robust action will be taken.

“If you go to university you must be prepared to have your views challenged, hear contrary opinions and be exposed to uncomfortable truths. We are giving the OfS stronger powers on freedom of speech so students and academics are not muzzled by the chilling effect demonstrated in this case.”

More: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/26/university-of-sussex-fined-freedom-of-speech-investigation-kathleen-stock

Activist takes case over Trinidad’s homophobic laws to UK’s privy council

Activist takes case over Trinidad’s homophobic laws to UK’s privy council

Legislation was repealed in 2018 but Caribbean country’s supreme court last week recriminalised the act after appeal

Joshua SurteesFri 4 Apr 2025 06.00 CESTShare

The privy council in London will soon be called upon to make the final decision on a court case to remove homophobic laws in Trinidad and Tobago.

The laws were repealed in 2018 in a high court judgment that struck from the statute book the “buggery law” that had criminalised consensual anal sex since an act passed in 1925 under British rule. However, last week Trinidad’s supreme court upheld a government appeal against the ruling and recriminalised the act, dealing a hammer blow to LGBTQ+ rights in the Caribbean country and prompting the UK Foreign Office to update its advice for LGBTQ+ travellers.

The 2018 case was brought by Jason Jones, an LGBTQ+ activist. This week he said he would continue the fight before the privy council – Trinidad’s final court of appeal. Central to his argument will be the controversial “savings clause”, which former British empire jurisdictions such as Trinidad can revert to whenever a challenge is made to their constitution.

More: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/04/case-trinidad-homophobic-laws-uk-privy-council

Two LGBTQ+ women in ‘grave danger’ after being arrested by Taliban in Afghanistan

Two LGBTQ+ women in ‘grave danger’ after being arrested by Taliban in Afghanistan

Two LGBTQ+ women are said to be in “grave danger” after they were arrested by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Maryam Ravish, 19, and Maeve Alcina Pieescu, 23, reportedly had plans to leave Kabul on a Mahan Airlines flight to Iran, with Maryam’s girlfriend Parwen Hussaini. 

The bookings had been arranged with the help of Roshaniya, an Afghan LGBTQ+ network. But before they had the chance to escape, Ravish and Pieescu were arrested by Taliban authorities.

More: Two LGBTQ+ women in ‘grave danger’ after being arrested by Taliban in Afghanistan

Greece moves to ban surrogacy for gay male couples and single men

Greece moves to ban surrogacy for gay male couples and single men

The Minister of Justice of Greece, Giorgos Floridis.

The Minister of Justice of Greece, Giorgos Floridis. (NurPhoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Greece has moved to ban surrogacy for gay male couples and single men, despite legalising same-sex marriage and adoption last year.

In February last year, Greece’s parliament approved a bill that saw it become the first country with a Christian Orthodox majority to legalise same-sex marriage and adoption.

The significant victory was, however, overshadowed by the fact same-sex couples would still be prohibited from seeking medically assisted reproduction through a surrogate, meaning they can only adopt or arrange surrogacy outside their homeland.   

On Tuesday (1 April), Minister of Justice of Greece, Giorgos Floridis, announced the plan to ban gay couples and single men from having children via surrogacy. 

He noted that proposed changes are part of the broader civil code reforms in Greece, aiming to clarify the legal definition of “inability to carry a pregnancy”. 

Floridis told reporters: “We are now clarifying unequivocally that the concept of inability to carry a pregnancy does not refer to an inability arising from one’s gender. 

“In other words, a woman may be unable to carry a pregnancy whether she is in a male-female couple, a female same-sex couple or on her own.”

Supporters of the LGBTQ community wrapped in LGBTQ+ pride flags gather outside the Greek Parliament.
Greece’s Parliament legalised same-sex marriage and adoption on Thursday, 15 February, 2024. (ARIS MESSINIS/AFP/Getty Images)

The passing of same-sex marriage and adoption in Greece last year wasn’t without opposition. 

Its main opposition was The highly influential Orthodox Church and its followers claimed that children were being treated as “accessories” and “companion pets” for gay couples.

The Church – which views homosexuality as a sin – also argued that the law will “confuse parental roles” and “weaken the traditional family”. But prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said the move would “boldly abolish a serious inequality”.

The landmark change follows Greece allowing civil partnership for same-sex couples in 2015, and two years later giving legal recognition to gender identity.

Source : https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/02/greece-moves-to-ban-surrogacy-for-gay-male-couples-and-single-men

USA: Georgia new legislation requires transgender athletes to compete in their biological sex

USA: Georgia new legislation requires transgender athletes to compete in their biological sex

US Georgia Senate passed the Riley Gaines Act of 2025, formerly the Fair and Safe Athletic Opportunities Act, on Monday.

The legislation requires the designation of “sex-specific athletic teams,” barring males from competing in women’s sports and women from competing in men’s sports unless the team’s designation is “coed.” The legislation also replaces the term “gender,” with “sex,” and defines sex as “a student’s biological sex based exclusively on the student’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” The legislation intends to safeguard the safety and fairness of sports.

Riley Gaines, a women’s rights advocate, and former collegiate athlete, gained national recognition after she and others were compelled to share a locker room with and compete against a biological male. The incident—along with many others similarly situated—unearthed a series of Title IX Civil Rights Act claims and calls for legislative, and regulatory changes around the US.

Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones spoke about the bill after it passed on Monday—issuing a celebratory statement about the protection of women’s sports.

I want to thank all of the brave women and girls who shared their personal stories and helped shape this legislation. Their courage is commendable and ensures that the rights of female athletes are preserved and protected by law. I look forward to standing with Governor Brian Kemp, Speaker Jon Burns, and female athletes with their families around the state when the “Riley Gaines Act of 2025” is signed into law.

Notably, an earlier intervention, HB1084 was passed in 2022 by Georgia lawmakers, creating an executive oversight committee to investigate and determine the necessity of barring males from participating in women’s high school athletics. Governor Kemp, in his remarks on HB1084, said, “We put students and parents first by putting woke politics out the classroom and off the ball field.” Turning to the present bill, Governor Kemp is expected to sign the Riley Gaines Act into law.

Relatedly, President Trump issued an executive order rescinding funds for educational programs that “deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities,” by allowing males to compete in women’s sports. Meanwhile, the executive order is facing legal challenges in New Hampshire, where two transgender litigants contended that the order violates the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The post Georgia new legislation requires transgender athletes to compete in their biological sex appeared first on JURIST – News.

European Union: Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood – discussions continue

European Union: Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood – discussions continue

See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0695

Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission – 26.3.2025: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2024-002599-ASW_EN.html

The Commission remains committed to upholding children’s and women’s rights within the framework of its competences. Substantive family law, such as rules on the definition of family and on surrogacy, falls within the competence of the Member States. Each Member State therefore decides its position as regards surrogacy.

EU law already requires Member States to recognise the parenthood of children as established in another Member State for the purposes of children’s rights derived from EU law, such as the rights to enter or reside in another Member State[1].

Based on Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission adopted a proposal[2] on the recognition of parenthood between Member States to protect all children’s rights, including children’s rights derived from national law, such as the rights to inheritance and maintenance. Negotiations in the Council on the proposed legislation — which requires adoption by unanimity — are ongoing.

Given that, under international[3] and EU law[4], all children have the same rights, the Commission proposal covers the recognition of parenthood established in a Member State irrespective of how the child was conceived or born, and irrespective of the child’s type of family.

The proposal thus includes the recognition of the parenthood of children born abroad through surrogacy, provided the parenthood has been established in a Member State.

The exploitation of surrogacy, among others, is included as a form of exploitation in the Anti-Trafficking Directive, modified by Directive (EU) 2024/1712 of 13 June 2024[5].

It targets those who coerce or deceive women into acting as surrogate mothers, without prejudice to the national rules on surrogacy, including criminal law or family law.

  • [1] This was confirmed, including as regards children with same-sex parents, by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 14 December 2021 in the VMA case (C-490/20).
  • [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0695, 7 December 2022, COM(2022) 695.
  • [3] In particular the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children (UNCRC) and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
  • [4] Including the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
  • [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1712/oj