Germany: Higher Regional Court (Braunschweig) strengthens rights of lesbian life partner
After a relationship broke up, a woman did not want to allow her ex to have access to her children. The biological mother of the child lost in court.
Read: https://www.queer.de/detail.php?article_id=37512&pk_campaign=Nwsl
European Union: A new LGBTI+ equality strategy
Read: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12410-LGBTI-equality
Norway bans hate speech against bisexual and transgender people
Hungary drafts legislation to ban adoption for same-sex couples
The Hungarian government on Tuesday introduced legislation that would ban adoption for same-sex couples.
Under the new legislation, adoption will only be legal for same-sex couples if one partner applies as a single person. The legislation will only recognize families between married partners where the mother is a female, and the father is male.
Justice Minister Judit Varga submitted the amendment to parliament. Her party also submitted an amendment requiring children to be raised with a Christian interpretation of gender roles.
The new amendment follows Hungary’s March amendment to ban legal recognition of transgender and intersex citizens, only recognizing a person’s gender as the gender assigned at birth.
Hungary has increased its anti-LBGT sentiment during the pandemic, claiming the new laws protect children’s rights.
Human rights groups expressed their outrage, urging the government to repeal these new amendments.
“International human rights treaties that Hungary is party to clearly prohibit any forms of discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender orientation and sexual identity,” Amnesty International said in their statement. “Politicians, including the Speaker of the Parliament, and certain public figures have increasingly targeted LGBTI people with homophobic and discriminatory comments.”
The post Hungary drafts legislation to ban adoption for same-sex couples appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
USA: Kansas Supreme Court rules to protect parental rights of same-sex couples
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled in two decisions on Friday that Kansas state law will recognize same-sex couples as parents when they have a child together. The court held that under the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA), a woman may establish parental rights by acknowledging maternity at the time of the child’s birth.
The cases, In re M.F. and In re W.L., were both filed by women whose same-sex partners had conceived through artificial insemination. The women sought to establish parentage after their relationships with their former partners had fallen apart. In both cases, the women had not married, and they did not have written or oral co-parenting agreements. Lower courts ruled in both cases that the women had no parental rights. Both women appealed the lower courts’ decisions to the Kansas Supreme Court.
In reversing the lower courts’ decisions, the state Supreme Court held that a woman seeking to establish parenthood “need not show the existence of a written or oral coparenting agreement between her and the birth mother.” Instead, “[s]he need only show she has notoriously recognized maternity and the rights and duties attendant to it at the time of the child’s birth.” The court also stated that there must be evidence that “the birth mother, at the time of the child’s birth, consented to share her due process right to decision-making about her child’s care, custody, and control with the woman who is claiming parentage.”
The court recognized in its ruling that the KPA supports the idea that a non-biological parent may be treated in law as the biological parent. The court noted that “[s]hifting parenthood based on actual biology alone could be detrimental to the emotional and physical wellbeing of any child.” The court emphasized that it is at the moment of birth when state law deems a child to have either one parent or two. Therefore, the court said, “a demand that each individual have made up her mind as of the time of the baby’s arrival incentivizes stability for that child.”
Judge Caleb Stegall dissented from the opinions, writing that the majority’s ruling suggests that a woman’s legal status as a parent can be established by “mere declaration” and a “showing of implicit proof by circumstantial evidence.”
The post Kansas Supreme Court rules to protect parental rights of same-sex couples appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
The ECHR is 70 years old, and the struggle for LGBT rights continues
Posted: 04 Nov 2020 07:02 AM PST by Paul Johnson
The European Convention on Human Rights is 70 years old today. It came into existence on the 4th November 1950, on the day that it was opened to signatories, and came into force three years later.
On the 70th birthday of the Convention, I was honoured to participate in an event organised by Professor Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos (Head of the Department of Law, at Goldsmiths, University of London), and speak about the struggle for LGBT rights under the Convention.
In the short talk I gave today, I celebrated the existence of the Convention, noted the immeasurable contribution it has made to LGBT human rights, and emphasised the struggle that LGBT people have engaged in to establish our human rights under the Convention.
On this significant birthday of the Convention, I would urge everyone to cherish this vital instrument, which protects our human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to participate in the ongoing struggle to develop rights and freedoms under it.
The ECHR belongs to everyone, because the rights and freedoms it enshrines belong to everyone.
My short talk (approx 7 minute) is available here.
Verwaltungsgericht ZH: Polizei hat Dunkelhäutigen zu Unrecht kontrolliert (Profiling)
Beschwerde eines Hochschulangestellten wird gutgeheissen – Frage, ob Diskriminierung vorliegt, bleibt offen
Alois Feusi
Mehr als ein halbes Jahrzehnt hat sich ein heute 46-jähriger Hochschulangestellter gegen eine Busse wegen Nichtbefolgens polizeilicher Anordnungen gewehrt. Nun hat er vor dem Verwaltungsgericht des Kantons Zürich recht bekommen.
Langer Weg durch Instanzen
Der Grund für das fünfjährige juristische Hin und Her: Ein Angehöriger einer dreiköpfigen Patrouille der Zürcher Stadtpolizei hatte den dunkelhäutigen Schweizer an einem Donnerstagmorgen im Februar 2015 kurz nach 7 Uhr in der Halle des Hauptbahnhofs Zürich angehalten und seine Ausweispapiere verlangt. Der Mann wehrte sich gegen die Identitätskontrolle, weil deren Grund seiner Ansicht nach einzig seine Hautfarbe gewesen sei – eine Behandlung, die ihm regelmässig widerfahre, obwohl er Schweizer Bürger sei.
Im Anschluss an jene Kontrolle erliess der Stadtrichter einen Strafbefehl mit einer Busse von 100 Franken wegen Nichtbefolgens polizeilicher Anordnungen. Der Beschuldigte erhob Einsprache beim Stadtrichteramt und begrĂĽndete diese mit der Widerrechtlichkeit der Personenkontrolle.
Nach Abschluss des Beweisverfahrens mit der Anhörung des Beschuldigten und der Befragung jenes Polizisten, der den Rapport ausgefüllt hatte, bestätigte das Bezirksgericht Zürich die Strafe, ebenso wie später das Obergericht. Via Bundesgericht war der Fall schliesslich beim Verwaltungsgericht des Kantons Zürich gelandet, das den Entscheid nun korrigierte.
Der rapportierende Polizist hatte bei seiner Befragung ausgesagt, dass der Mann den Eindruck gemacht habe, als ob er beim Vorbeigehen im morgendlichen Pendlerstrom um die drei etwas auseinander stehenden Uniformierten einen Bogen habe machen wollen. In seinem Rapport hatte der Beamte zudem festgehalten, dass der BeschwerdefĂĽhrer seinen Blick abgewendet habe. Aufgrund dieses Verhaltens des Mannes habe er vermutet, dass er vielleicht etwas zu verbergen habe. Das sei fĂĽr ihn ausschlaggebend fĂĽr eine Kontrolle gewesen.
Dies genügte dem Verwaltungsgericht nicht als Rechtfertigung. Auch unter der Berücksichtigung der Tatsache, dass der Hauptbahnhof ein Ort sei, wo vermehrt mit Straftaten zu rechnen sei, reiche das blosse Abwenden des Blicks – ungeachtet der Hautfarbe – nicht, um eine Identitätskontrolle auszulösen.
Ein alter Vorwurf
Dass Dunkelhäutige schneller als Verdächtige gälten und nach dem Prinzip des «racial profiling» überdurchschnittlich oft kontrolliert würden, ist ein Vorwurf, dem sich die Stadtpolizei immer wieder ausgesetzt sieht. Der damalige Sicherheitsvorstand, Richard Wolff, liess deshalb 2017 die Arbeit der Stadtpolizei vom Schweizerischen Kompetenzzentrum für Menschenrechte untersuchen. Dieses kam zum Schluss, dass es in Zürich keine systematischen rassistischen Kontrollen gebe, wie Wolff im November jenes Jahres an einer Medienkonferenz erklärte.
Um faire Kontrollen zu garantieren, definierte die Stadtpolizei trotzdem neue Kriterien für Kontrollen. So müssen die Polizisten den Kontrollierten die Gründe für die Überprüfung nennen. Ausserdem wurde im Februar 2018 eine Web-Applikation eingeführt, welche die statistische Auswertung von Personenkontrollen ermöglicht.
Die Frage, ob die Kontrolle des heute 46-jährigen Schweizers aufgrund seiner Hautfarbe eine Diskriminierung und damit ein Fall von «racial profiling» gewesen sei, lässt das Urteil des Verwaltungsgerichts allerdings offen. Die Beschwerde, mit der die Feststellung der Rechtswidrigkeit des polizeilichen Vorgehens verlangt worden sei, sei ohnehin vollumfänglich gutzuheissen. Es müsse deshalb nicht mehr geprüft werden, ob eine Diskriminierung aufgrund der Hautfarbe vorliege.
Urteil VB2020.00014 vom 1. 10. 2020; noch nicht rechtsgĂĽltig.
Aus dem NZZ-E-Paper vom 05.11.2020
Italy lower house approves bill protecting LGBTQ+ community, women and disabled people from violence
Italy’s lower house of parliament passed a bill Wednesday that extends anti-discrimination protection to women, disabled people and members of the LGBTQ+ community, making violence against these groups a hate crime. Existing hate crime legislation only protects people from racial, religious and ethnic discrimination.
Under this law, people convicted of hate crimes against these newly protected groups could face up to four years in prison. The bill also proposes an awareness campaign in schools and provides increased funding for anti-discrimination organizations.
Recent instances of violence against queer and trans Italians spurred the legislation. In June, a 25-year-old student was hospitalized after being assaulted by seven people while holding hands with his partner. In September, 22-year-old Maria Paola Gaglione was killed by her brother Michele Antonio who disapproved of her relationship with Ciro Migliore, a trans man.
Far-right and religious groups oppose the bill, claiming that it would limit freedom of expression. They argue that the law already does enough to protect people from “violent or intolerant behavior.”
Italy has been resistant to pro-LGBTQ+ policies. It approved same-sex civil unions in 2016, but same-sex marriage is still prohibited.
The bill must now be approved by the upper house. It is expected to pass with support from the center-left majority coalition.
The post Italy lower house approves bill protecting LGBTQ+ community, women and disabled people from violence appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
USA: California voters reject ballot measure to restore affirmative action
Unofficial totals following Tuesday’s election indicate that California voters have rejected a statewide ballot measure that would have amended the California Constitution to allow the state to reinstate affirmative action programs.
Proposition 16, titled “Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions,” would have permitted government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to address diversity. If passed, the ballot measure would have repealed Proposition 209, which passed in 1996, from the California Constitution.
Proposition 209, the “Affirmative Action Initiative,” made affirmative action illegal in California when it was added to the California Consitution’s Declaration of Rights. It barred discrimination or preferential treatment involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California. Proposition 209 passed with 55% of the vote.
By eliminating the highly-controversial Proposition 209, Proposition 16 sought to allow the state government, local governments, public universities, and other political subdivisions to develop and use affirmative action programs to grant preference based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin as permitted by federal law. Notable individuals and organizations supported the ballton measure, including several labor unions, the University of California Board of Regents, the Anti-Defamation League, Facebook, and Wells Fargo.
Chiefly against Proposition 16 was Ward Connerly, former chairperson of the campaign behind Proposition 209. After passing Proposition 209 in 1996, Connerly founded the American Civil Rights Institute, which supported ballot measures modeled after Proposition 209 in Washington, Michigan, Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, and Oklahoma.
With the failure of Proposition 16, California will maintain its ban on using affirmative action in hiring and admissions decisions.
The post California voters reject ballot measure to restore affirmative action appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
USA: Supreme Court considers whether religious groups can discriminate based on sexual orientation
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the case of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The court heard the argument by telephone with live-streamed audio.
Fulton concerns whether Petitioner, a Roman Catholic adoption agency in Philadelphia, is entitled to discriminate against potential foster parents on the basis of sexual orientation.
The city of Philadelphia has custody of about 5,000 abused and neglected children, and contracts with 30 private agencies to provide foster care in group homes and for the certification, placement, and care of children in individual private foster care homes. The city stopped referring children to Petitioner for placement after it learned that Petitioner was refusing to consider placing the children with same-sex couples. A Philadelphia provision prohibits discrimination against LGBT couples in the screening of foster parents.
Petitioner filed suit claiming the city violated their free exercise of religion and free speech.
While religious expression is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, the city of Philadelphia stressed that this could be the exception that swallows the rule.
“It seems if you have a free exercise right to opt out of a government contract requirement because it doesn’t match your religious beliefs, [it could then apply to] any contract requirements. So, for example, here taking the child welfare context that this case arose in, if there are family reunification services that agencies provide, that would mean an agency could say, I’m not going to provide family reunification services for that child because I have a religious objection to their family of origin. And we can’t even really cabin it to the child welfare system. If there is an entitlement under the free exercise clause to dictate the terms of a government contract if you’re a faith-based organization, that would seem that there’d be no line to draw to limit that to the circumstances of this case.”
The case was the first major dispute to come before Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed to the court late last month. Barrett’s views on LGBT rights and religion came under heavy scrutiny during her Senate confirmation process. This case follows many others concerning religious expression picked up by the court in the last few years, with some legal scholars noting a trend toward conservatives justifying discrimination based on freedom of religion.
According to NPR, seven of the court’s nine justices were raised as Catholics, including Barrett, and in the past five of them have pushed for an expansion of religious rights under the constitution’s guarantee to the free exercise of religion.
During oral arguments, Justices Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch seemed overtly hostile to the city’s position, stressing the “good work” that the Petitioner does for needy children.
Meanwhile, Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor stressed the city’s ban on contracting with groups that discriminate based on race, ethnicity, religion and gender. When asked if an agency wanted to discriminate based on those characteristics, Justice Barrett suggested that, in her view, race is different than all other categories.
The post Supreme Court considers whether religious groups can discriminate based on sexual orientation appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 