For gay stars of banned condom ad, no let-up in Poland’s LGBT rights clampdown
For gay stars of banned condom ad, no let-up in Poland’s LGBT rights clampdown
Leave a reply
Two decisions by German courts dealing with discrimination on the basis of gender identity (Verfassungsblog)
Two decisions by German courts dealing with discrimination on the basis of gender identity (Verfassungsblog)
Two decisions by German courts dealing with discrimination on the basis of gender identity have attracted attention this week. The Federal Constitutional Court has declared inadmissible a constitutional complaint of a woman who fought against being addressed as Kunde (a male customer) in her bank’s printed forms. However, the court’s more recent case law indicates that the court does not in principle rule out the recognition of a claim to gender-adequate language and could decide in this sense in cases to come, writes ISABEL LISCHEWSKI.
LEONIE STEINL presents a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne which found that hate speech against women can be a criminal act of incitement to hatred (Volksverhetzung). To take seriously gender-related dimensions of hate speech, particularly on the internet, has been long overdue and is an important signal in the criminal law debate regarding the topic, she says.
Montenegro: Parliament legalizes same-sex civil partnerships
Montenegro: Parliament legalizes same-sex civil partnerships
Montenegro is the first European country outside of Western Europe and the EU to legally recognize same-sex couples. President Milo Djukanovic said it was a confirmation that Montenegrin society “is maturing.”
Read more: https://www.dw.com/en/montenegro-parliament-legalizes-same-sex-civil-partnerships/a-54020034
Russian voters back referendum banning same-sex marriage
Russian voters back referendum banning same-sex marriage
The referendum, which included over 200 constitutional amendments, also paves the way for Russian President Vladimir Putin to stay in power until 2036.
A demonstrator holds up a picture depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin with make-up during a protest by the gay community in Amsterdam on April 8, 2013.Cris Toala Olivares / Reuters file
New Book: LES DISCRIMINATIONS FONDÉES SUR LE SEXE, L’ORIENTATION SEXUELLE ET L’IDENTITÉ DE GENRE (sous la direction de Daniel Borrillo et Félicien Lemaire), Collection : Logiques Juridiques
New Book: LES DISCRIMINATIONS FONDÉES SUR LE SEXE, L’ORIENTATION SEXUELLE ET L’IDENTITÉ DE GENRE (sous la direction de Daniel Borrillo et Félicien Lemaire), Collection : Logiques Juridiques
Webinars on LGBTI-phobia and Covid-19, 9 and 15 July 2020
Webinars on LGBTI-phobia and Covid-19, 9 and 15 July 2020
BCU Centre for Security and Extremism in partnership with the International Network for Hate Studies is organising two webinars on LGBTI-phobia and Covid-19, including impact on violence and support services. The first event (9 July) looks at the problem more globally and the second one (15 July) focuses on the UK and the EU. Speakers include experts from (I)NGOs, international organisations, UK Government and academia.
Register for the webinar on 9 July.
Register for the webinar on 15 July.
Kazakhstan made minimum age 21 for trans specific healthcare
Kazakhstan made minimum age 21 for trans specific healthcare
| On 17 June, the Parliament of Kazakhstan adopted a new Code on Health of the Nation and Healthcare System introducing a discriminatory norm for transgender people. The Code restricts the minimum age to be 21 to start transition and be able to access trans specific healthcare. The article 156 of the Code also includes non-sensitive language and contradicts the recommendations of the World Health Organisation under ICD-11. After having seized all national advocacy efforts, the trans initiative group Alma-TQ approached the international community to call upon Kazakhstan to correct the discriminatory norm in the Code. ILGA-Europe, TGEU and IGLYO issued a joint statement condemning the decision of the Parliament of Kazakhstan and continue communicating with UN and other international partners to support the trans community in Kazakhstan. Read the joint statement. |
Intersex Good Practice Map
‘Intersex rights still under attack in Europe, but there are good examples’
On 15 June, OII Europe launched their second Intersex Good Practice Map, which features eight examples of good practice from the areas of resolution, data collection, research, legal protection, campaigning, awareness raising, employment, and funding. “2019 has been a special year”, says Dan Christian Ghattas, Executive Director of OII Europe. “With the landmark European Parliament Resolution on the Rights of Intersex People the European Parliament has shown a clear awareness about the ongoing lack of protection of intersex people in Europe.” Read more and download your copy of the Intersex Map.Want to know more? Watch back ILGA-Europe and OII Europe’s Instagram live chat from 17 June.
FIFA Celebrates Pride Month: Thank you Justin! – The Justin Fashanu Foundation & Football v Homophobia use his legacy to fight discrimination
FIFA FIFA Celebrates Pride Month: Thank you Justin! – The Justin Fashanu Foundation & Football v Homophobia use his legacy to fight discrimination
Paul Johnson: European Court of Human Rights communicates case against Lithuania concerning anti-gay hate speech
Paul Johnson: European Court of Human Rights communicates case against Lithuania concerning anti-gay hate speech
| European Court of Human Rights communicates case against Lithuania concerning anti-gay hate speech Posted: 03 Jul 2020 02:47 PM PDT The Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights has communicated the case of Jonas Valaitis v Lithuania. The case concerns a journalist, Mr Valaitis, who published an article about “homosexual people” on the Internet portal of a major daily newspaper. The facts Mr Valaitis’ publication received numerous comments by different persons. Twenty two comments, written by twenty persons, were particularly negative towards persons of homosexual orientation. A couple of those comments were directly targeted against Mr Valaitis, as the author of the article. He was called “a degenerate”, “a faggot” and “a shitty asshole”, it was suggested that he should be “peed on”, he was urged “not to advertise faggots”, it was also suggested that he “should be prosecuted for propaganda that defended perverts”, and that he “kept his shitty opinion to himself” and “did not offend normal persons”. The comments towards homosexual persons were even harsher, including a suggestion that they should be “let through the chimney in Auschwitz”. Mr Valaitis asked the authorities to start a criminal investigation for incitement of hatred and discrimination, under Article 170 § 2 of the Criminal Code, which provides: A person who publicly ridicules, expresses contempt for, urges hatred of or incites discrimination against a group of persons or a person belonging thereto on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, race, nationality, language, descent, social status, religion, convictions or views shall be punished by a fine or by restriction of liberty or by arrest or by imprisonment for a term of up to two years.Initially, the authorities refused the request. Afterwards, the criminal investigation was opened and Mr Valaitis was granted the status of a victim. Eventually, the criminal investigation was discontinued by courts on the ground that the statements in the comments constituted their authors’ opinion and had been improper, but had not reached the level of severity to justify prosecution. It had also been impossible to prove the guilt of the author of one of those comments. Complaint to the Court Under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Valaitis complains that the Lithuanian authorities did not take positive measures to protect persons of homosexual orientation, as well as himself, from hate speech. Article 13, which guarantees the right to an effective remedy, states: Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. Questions to the Parties The Court has asked the Parties the following questions:Is Article 13 of the Convention applicable to the applicant’s case (see, mutatis mutandis, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018, and Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, § 150, 14 January 2020)?Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to effective remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?The Court refers to the applicant’s grievance that the State authorities had not taken measures to protect him against hate speech linked to his writing about persons of homosexual orientation (see Beizaras and Levickas, cited above, §§ 131-56; on the issue of discrimination by association, see also, mutatis mutandis, Guberina v. Croatia, no. 23682/13, § 64 in limine, 22 March 2016, and Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, § 81, 19 December 2018).Comment Following the recent decision in Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl v Iceland, it would seem almost certain that the Court will consider the impugned comments in Mr Valaitis’ case to constitute “hate speech”. In approaching the issue under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court will probably reiterate its recent finding in Beizaras and Levickas v Lithuania that the Criminal Code itself provides an effective remedy but question whether it can be “considered not to have operated effectively … due to discriminatory attitudes negatively affecting the application of national law” (§ 151). The key issue to be argued, therefore, is whether Mr Valaitis was denied his right to an effective remedy by virtue of the Lithuanian authorities having decided that the anti-gay comments had “been improper, but had not reached the level of severity to justify prosecution” – in other words, that the comments did not reach the threshold of “hate speech” under the Criminal Code. If the Court follows its judgment in Beizaras and Levickas it could find that Article 13 has been violated because the attitudes of the authorities had negatively affected the application of domestic law. The key question, therefore, is whether the domestic authorities did enough in their application of the Criminal Code to satisfy the Court that they had provided Mr Valaitis with an effective remedy or, by contrast, whether the Court considers, as it has before, that the domestic authorities did not adopt “a strict approach” to prejudice-motivated crimes and the “resultant indifference” is “tantamount to official acquiescence or even connivance in hate crimes” (Identoba and Others v Georgia § 77). My own view is that, in light of the Court’s recent jurisprudence, Mr Valaitis has a very strong case against Lithuania. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from ECHR Sexual Orientation Blog. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States |
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 
