This is a blog is related to my academic work in the International Academic Forum on SOGIESC Law but meant to serve anyone who wants to contribute to improve the protection of human rights worldwide. It is intended to keep interested readers informed about legal developments relating to sexual orientation, gender expression and identity and sex characteristics (SOGIESC). Hopefully, it will make it easier to find correct legal information about the developments in all regions of the world and, in particular, with regard to international law.
Singapore high court dismisses appeal to decriminalise gay sex
The Singapore Court of Appeal Monday dismissed an appeal against Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men. The court held that since there wasn’t any credible threat of prosecution under the section, the applicants lacked the requisite standing to challenge its constitutionality.
In October of 2007, the Parliament debated whether Section 377A should be repealed, but the Prime Minister retained the law on the condition that it would not be enforced proactively. The Attorney General at the time, Mr. Kucie Wong SC, had stated in his capacity as the public prosecutor that where sex occured between two consenting adult men in a private place and in the absence of other factors, prosecution under Section 377A was not in the public interest.
The court in its decision emphasised the importance of political compromise at the time when the parliament decided to retain the provision. It recognised that the Attorney General and Prime Minister’s stances were legally significant. The court held that the provision’s constitutionality must be considered in light of these stances.
The aim of this litigation was to overturn the law on the basis that it violates individual rights and is discriminatory. Section 377A enables the executive to punish individuals with up to two years imprisonment. The court below refused to decriminalise consensual sex between men holding that Section 377A did not violate Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution.
The high court’s decision has failed to assuage the fears of the gay community and ensure that they are able to enjoy certain basic liberties. Pink Dot SG, a non-profit for the LGBTQ community of Singapore, stated that it was profoundly disappointed with the court’s decision: “[A]cknowledgment that Section 377A is unenforceable only in the prosecutorial sense is cold comfort. Section 377A’s real impact lies in how it perpetuates discrimination across every aspect of life: at home, in schools, in the workplace, in our media and even access to vital services like healthcare”.
USA: Texas governor directs agencies to investigate treatment of trans youth as ‘child abuse’
Texas Governor Greg Abbott directed state health agencies Tuesday to investigate medical treatment of transgender youth as “child abuse.”
Abbott’s directive follows a Friday opinion by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, which found that “each of the ‘sex change’ procedures and treatments enumerated above, when performed on children, can legally constitute child abuse under several provisions of chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code.”
Paxton wrote:
Beyond the obvious harm of permanently sterilizing a child, these procedures and treatments can cause side effects and harms beyond permanent infertility, including serious mental health effects, venous thrombosis/thromboembolism, increased risk of cardiovascular disease, weight gain, decreased libido, hypertriglyceridemia, elevated blood pressure, decreased glucose tolerance, gallbladder disease, benign pituitary prolactinoma, lowered and elevated triglycerides, increased homocysteine levels, hepatotoxicity, polycythemia, sleep apnea, insulin resistance, chronic pelvic pain, and increased cancer and stroke risk.
In his letter, Abbott wrote, “Texas law imposes reporting requirements upon all licensed professionals who have direct contact with children who may be subject to such abuse, including doctors, nurses, and teachers, and provides criminal penalties for failure to report such child abuse.”
Abbott’s letter comes amid a wave of state attempts to criminalize medical care for transgender youth. Arkansas lawmakers overcame the governor’s veto to pass a bill last April banning the provision of gender-affirming care to transgender minors. That law was temporarily blocked by a federal judge in July. Similar bills have been introduced in Texas and several other states but have not yet been passed. Numerous experts have stressed that gender-affirming care is essential to the health and wellbeing of gender-diverse youth and can even save lives.
USA: Alabama House approves transgender bathroom ban in schools
Alabama House lawmakers on Tuesday approved legislation that would prohibit transgender students from using gender-segregated facilities, such as restrooms and locker rooms, that align with their gender identity.
The bill was approved with a vote of 74-24 after two hours of debate. Under the bill, K-12 schools would require students to use gender-segregated facilities that match the sex on the student’s original birth certificate.
Republican Rep. Scott Stadthagen explained that the bill is focused on privacy, safety, and preventing sexual predators from accessing school bathrooms. “I am trying to prevent any males who were born males from going into female bathrooms,” Stadthagen told the committee. “It’s a safety issue. I for one, as a father, do not want a male, who is born male, in my daughter’s bathroom.”
Stadthagen described sexual assaults that have happened in school bathrooms when urging committee support for the bill. When a committee member asked if the attacker was transgender, Stadthagen replied that he did not know.
Opponents of the bill argue that the bill discriminates against transgender youth. “This is basically a safety privilege transfer. If someone in K-12 is going to identify as gender-expansive, this bill is putting them in harm’s way of being attacked and bullied, as well as sexual assault,” said Carmarion D. Anderson, the director for Human Rights Campaign Alabama.
Democratic state Rep. Neil Rafferty, opposing the bill, asserted that schools in his Birmingham district have handled accommodations for transgender students “without targeting vulnerable youth that are already having issues with suicide, mental illness, bullying.” Rafferty argued that the bill is “demonizing an already vulnerable population. It’s all under the guise of protecting children just to win cheap political points.”
The bill now moves to the Alabama Senate, where more than 45 Republicans in the 105-member House have signed on co-sponsors.
USA: Florida House passes bill to bar LGBTQ discussions in schools
The Florida House of Representatives on Thursday passed the Parental Rights in Education bill, which would prohibit classroom discussion regarding sexual orientation or gender identity in Florida’s primary schools. The legislation passed by a 69-47 vote.
The bill prohibits instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. In other grade levels, the bill bars discussion that is not “age or developmentally appropriate.” Under the legislation, parents are permitted to sue school districts that do not follow the law.
Rep. Joe Harding introduced the bill and stated that the legislation would not prohibit students from discussing about their LGBTQ families or prohibit classroom discussions about LGBTQ history, such as the 2016 attack on the Pulse nightclub. He explained that the legislation is about “empowering parents” and improving the quality of life for Florida children. He said: “Creating boundaries at an early age of what is appropriate in our schools, when we are funding our schools, is not hate. It’s actually providing boundaries, and it’s fair to our teachers and our school districts to know what we expect.”
Supporters of the bill argue that discussions of sexuality may have a negative impact on students’ mental and physical health and well-being. The bill and its sponsors state the bill’s goal is to “reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children.”
Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith asserted that the LGBTQ community in Florida is “in distress because this bill is yet another attack on [the LGBTQ] community. This bill goes way beyond the text on its page. It sends a terrible message to our youth that there is something so wrong, so inappropriate, so dangerous about this topic that we have to censor it from classroom instruction.”
Other critics argue that the bill may harm LGBTQ youths in Florida, as the Trevor Project found that LGBTQ youths who reported having at least one LGBTQ-affirming space had lower rates of attempting suicide.
President Joe Biden said in a statement regarding the bill: “I want every member of the LGBTQI+ community—especially the kids who will be impacted by this hateful bill—to know that you are loved and accepted just as you are. I have your back, and my Administration will continue to fight for the protections and safety you deserve.”
The legislation will go to Florida’s Republican-held Senate. Governor Ron DeSantis has previously signaled support for the legislation. If passed, the legislation will go into effect for the 2022-2023 school year.
U.S. claims Russia has list of Ukrainians ‘to be killed or sent to camps’ following a military occupation, including “vulnerable populations such as religious and ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+ persons”
Two women relaxing on a rock in the 1920s. (Getty)
Lesbianism was almost made illegal in 1920s Britain, but the reason lawmakers decided against a ban may surprise you.
In August 1921, the First World War had recently ended with rationing still being phased out, and Irish War of Independence ceasefire talks were ongoing. Unemployment was skyrocketing, women were demanding equal voting rights, and the year even saw a 100-day drought.
But what were MPs concentrating on? Trying to criminalise lesbianism, obviously.
In 1885, section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act had made “gross indecency” between men illegal, punishable with at least two years in prison, with or without hard labour.
The Offences against the Person Act 1861 had also already criminalised “buggery” with no less than 10 years in prison, but the Criminal Law Amendment Act was vague, as “gross indecency” could be interpreted in a myriad of ways and applied to any act of intimacy. The law was used to convict both Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing, among many other men.
But by 1921, the government had realised there were quite a number of queer people they weren’t able to put in prison, and MPs introduced a bill which would have punished “gross indecency” between women.
Houses of Parliament and Big Ben in 1920s London. (Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty)
They suggested adding another clause to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, titled “acts of indecency by females”.
It read: “Any act of gross indecency between female persons shall be a misdemeanour, and punishable in the same manner as any such act committed by male persons under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885.”
The Lords believed that if they made lesbianism illegal, they would simply create more lesbians, as feeble-minded women caught on to what, understandably, seemed like a great idea.
House of Lords inadvertently saved lesbians in 1921. (Getty/ Reinhold Thiele)
James Harris, the fifth Earl of Malmesbury, began the debate by apologising for a “discussion upon what must be, to all of us, a most disgusting and polluting subject”.
But, he insisted that however “disgusting” the subject matter was, “in passing a clause of this sort you are going to do a great deal more harm than good”.
He explained that criminalising lesbians would increase instances of blackmail against women, who he said liked to share beds as friends “for reasons of fear or nervousness, and the desire for mutual protection”.
At the same time, he added, it would also increase the number of lesbians.
“We all know that vice has been increasing partly owing to the nervous conditions following on the war, but I believe that these cases are best left to their own determination,” he told the House of Lords.
“I believe that all these unfortunate specimens of humanity exterminate themselves by the usual process, which we know has taken place in every nation through all the ages. The more you advertise vice by prohibiting it the more you will increase it.”
Only one in a thousand women knew about being gay, according to the House of Lords. (Getty)
Hamilton John Agmondesham Cuffe, the Earl of Desart, agreed.
He said: “I am strongly of opinion that the mere discussion of subjects of this sort tends, in the minds of unbalanced people, of whom there are many, to create the idea of an offence of which the enormous majority of them have never even heard.
Cuffe admitted that lesbians really did exist – I was going to say… I suppose I must not… that I know this does happen” – but continued that if a lesbian were to be prosecuted, “it would be made public to thousands of people that there was this offence; that there was such a horror”.
Alerting “hysterical” women, he said, to the existence of lesbianism would be a “great public danger” and “a very great mischief”.
Frederick Edwin Smith, Lord Chancellor and first Earl of Birkenhead, echoed Cuffe’s sentiment.
“The overwhelming majority of the women of this country have never heard of this thing at all, he said.
“I would be bold enough to say that of every 1,000 women, taken as a whole, 999 have never even heard a whisper of these practices.”
The Lords threw out the bill, and by avoiding the “great public danger” of more lesbians, accidentally ensured that generations of queer women could get on with the “disgusting and polluting” business of loving each other in relative peace.
The draft programme for the 2022 edition is already online. It includes expert speakers (from many countries, universities and organisations) who will discuss global and regional human rights, international criminal law, international economic law, international refugee law, and more. Some sessions will focus on intersex issues, on gender identity, on sexual orientation, or on intersectionality.
Leiden University’s Grotius Centre has been offering this unique summer school since 2016. Each year participants have included lawyers, researchers, activists, officials and students from all over the world. Academic coordinator is Kees Waaldijk, professor of comparative sexual orientation law at Leiden Law School.
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 