Tag Archives: politics

UN expert urges Poland to address discrimination and violence against LGBT community

A group of UN experts urged Poland to address entrenched discrimination and violence against the LGBT community through swift legislative and social reforms on Friday. The expert’s statement follows a comprehensive country visit, between November 18 and 29, that revealed both promising progress and persistent challenges.

The UN expert’s report highlights the enduring effects of discriminatory practices, such as the symbolic but impactful “LGBT-ideology free zones” established by over 100 local councils between 2015 and 2023. Although these resolutions lacked legal status, their existence underscored systemic prejudice and exacerbated the mental health challenges faced by the LGBT community. Activism and international pressure eventually led to the abandonment of these zones, but residual effects linger.

Significant gaps remain in areas such as education, employment, and healthcare. Schools lack adequate anti-discrimination training, leaving teachers ill-equipped to combat homophobia and transphobia. In workplaces, fear of discrimination prompts many LGBT individuals to hide their identities, while transgender people face additional barriers in accessing housing and healthcare. Recent legislative proposals aim to address these issues, but implementation remains uneven.

The report also draws attention to the challenges faced by same-sex couples, whose unions are neither recognised nor protected in Poland. Two recent European Court of Human Rights rulings, Przybyszewska and others v. Poland and Formela and others v. Poland, have found a breach of the right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, underscoring the need for legal recognition of same-sex unions, further pressuring the Polish government to act.

The UN Human Rights Council has mandated the UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to offer advice to States on how to remedy violence and discrimination since 2016. The visit was prompted by Poland’s recent steps to address human rights abuses, including a groundbreaking apology from the Ministry of Justice in December 2023 for the past harm caused to LGBT individuals by state actors and media. The apology marked a turning point, fostering improved access to government officials for civil society groups and signaling the possibility of legislative reform.

Encouragingly, a draft civil union bill and expanded hate crime protections are under consideration, signaling a shift toward a more inclusive legal framework. Municipal initiatives, such as Krakow’s growing Equality March, reflect changing societal attitudes, though officials acknowledge that political action has lagged behind public sentiment.

Despite these positive developments, Poland continues to rank last among European Union countries in LGBT legal protections, as highlighted in ILGA-Europe’s annual report. While amendments to the Polish Criminal Code now include sexual orientation in hate crime and speech provisions, gender identity remains excluded. Various cases of hate crime and speech, discrimination and isolation remain pertinent in Poland against the LGBT community.

As Poland grapples with its evolving role within the European Union, the UN expert emphasised the need for sustained commitment to human rights. “This moment represents an opportunity shaped by political circumstance,” the expert remarked, urging Poland to align its policies with EU standards and secure a more equitable future for all citizens.

The post UN expert urges Poland to address discrimination and violence against LGBT community appeared first on JURIST – News.

Ohio governor signs bill restricting transgender students’ access to school restrooms

Leave a reply

Ohio governor signs bill restricting transgender students’ access to school restrooms

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine on Wednesday signed a bill into law that restricts transgender students from using bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

Senate Bill (SB) 104 requires public school buildings and facilities to “designate each [communal] student restroom, locker room, changing room, or shower room” to be for “the exclusive use by students of the male biological sex only or by students of the female biological sex only.” Biological sex is defined in the bill to exclude an individual’s expression of gender identity other than what is on their official birth record. The bill also prevents schools from establishing gender-neutral restrooms.

The bathroom policy, known as the Protect All Students Act, was originally introduced as House Bill (HB) 183 before it was added to SB 104. HB 183 was sponsored by State Representatives Adam Bird and Beth Lear. Representative Bird explained that the “bottom line of this legislation is to protect students” and that he doesn’t “see that as a controversial issue.”

The ACLU of Ohio, however, “strongly urge[d] Governor DeWine to veto this bill and protect the rights of privacy of LGTBQ+ Ohioans statewide.” ACLU of Ohio Policy Director Jocelyn Rosnick commented that “SB 104 will create unsafe environments for trans and gender non-conforming individuals of all ages.”

Other states have moved to pass similar legislation. In October, for instance, the Odessa City Council in Texas approved a restriction for restroom use to biological sex. On Thursday, Speaker of the US House of Representatives Mike Johnson also restricted the use of gendered restrooms in the House to biological sex. The decision was based on HB Resolution 1579, which prohibits members and other employees of the House from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.”

In January 2023, the ACLU filed a motion as an intervener in a federal lawsuit concerning an Ohio school district’s allowance of transgender students to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments in late October, and the lawsuit is still ongoing.

The Senate passed SB 104 in mid-November by a 24-7 vote, sending the bill to the governor for approval. With his signature, the bill will now become law in 90 days.

The post Ohio governor signs bill restricting transgender students’ access to school restrooms appeared first on JURIST – News.

Hong Kong top court affirms same-sex couple rights in housing policies and inheritance law

Leave a reply

Hong Kong top court affirms same-sex couple rights in housing policies and inheritance law

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal ruled on Tuesday that the exclusion of homosexual couples in the current public housing policies and inheritance laws amounts to unlawful discrimination and is unconstitutional.

Regarding the right to apply for public housing as a family unit, the court held that the exclusive spousal eligibility for application for Public Rental Housing and transfer of ownership in the Home Ownership Scheme amounts to discrimination. The court rejected the government’s claim that Article 36 of the Basic Law grants exclusive rights to heterosexual couples under the contested public housing policies, based on the premise that such rights existed prior to the enactment of the Basic Law in 1997.

The court also reasoned that the government failed to adduce any evidence on how the housing policies can promote the formation of traditional families nor why prioritizing heterosexual couples’ applications while accepting those from homosexual couples, as a less intrusive means, is unable to achieve the same legitimate aim of promoting traditional family founded in opposite-sex marriages.

Accordingly, the court upheld the lower court’s ruling, concluding that the government failed to strike a balance between homosexual couples’ right to social welfare and the societal aim. The decision affirmed the right of homosexual couples to apply for PRH as an ordinary family. Homosexual couples will now benefit from the government’s exclusive commitment to allocate housing units to ordinary family applicants in three years.

Regarding the inheritance laws, the court found that the differential treatment between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex foreign marriages serves no legitimate aim. The government attempted to justify the differential treatment by asserting that the differential treatment is necessary to maintain a coherent definition of marriages across legislation. The court was not persuaded by this argument, stating that recognizing the status of a surviving same-sex spouse reflects the legislative purpose to “lay down a scheme for the distribution of the deceased’s residuary estate,” different from other matrimonial laws.

The court also upheld the lower court’s reasoning, which maintained that the “marital maintenance duties” imposed on opposite-sex spouses by the local law are irrelevant. It further clarified that inheritance is not based on any legal obligations to provide for maintenance as other classes of beneficiaries under the provisions, such as parents and siblings, do not owe any maintenance duties to the deceased.

Even though same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in Hong Kong, the decision affirmed that the surviving same-sex spouse of the deceased, whose marriage is celebrated in a foreign country, enjoys the right of inheritance under the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance and the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance, both require a “valid marriage” for the surviving spouse to assert their inheritance rights.

In September 2023, the court already affirmed the government’s duty to recognize same-sex marriage but allowed the government to distinguish between core and substantial marital rights. The government lodged its appeals in December 2023 and has yet to propose any framework.

The post Hong Kong top court affirms same-sex couple rights in housing policies and inheritance law appeared first on JURIST – News.

ECtHR: W.W. v Poland 11 July 2024 – Refusal to allow transgender person to continue hormone therapy in prison: violation of Art. 8 ECHR

Leave a reply

ECtHR: W.W. v Poland 11 July 2024 – Refusal to allow transgender person to continue hormone therapy in prison: violation of Art. 8 ECHR

Legal summary

July 2024

W.W. v. Poland – 31842/20

Judgment 11.7.2024 [Section I]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Refusal to allow transgender person to continue hormone therapy in prison: violation

Facts – The applicant is a transgender woman who at the time of lodging the application was legally recognised as a male. Her request for legal recognition was granted in 2023. Between 2013 and 2024 she served several terms of imprisonment in male prisons. In June 2018 the applicant was hospitalised after performing a bilateral orchiectomy on herself. Upon the request of the governor of the prison where she was then detained, she was examined by a medical expert who recommended that she pursue hormone replacement therapy associated with gender reassignment. The prison governor allowed the applicant to undergo such treatment.

In May 2020 the applicant was transferred to Siedlce Prison. Her request to that prison’s governor for permission to be sent the necessary medication to continue her treatment was left without examination pending a further opinion of an endocrinologist. The applicant submitted such an opinion which prescribed her hormone therapy. The applicant ran out of medication on 18 July 2020 and her hormone treatment was interrupted as of that date.

On 30 July 2020, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Court indicated to the respondent Government to “administer the applicant … with the hormones prescribed by her endocrinologist … in doses prescribed, at her own expense, until otherwise decided by an endocrinologist”.

The applicant received the medication on 31 July 2020.

Law – Article 8:

(a) Interference or positive obligation – The applicant had undergone hormone replacement therapy associated with gender reassignment for nearly one and half years in two previous prisons and had been refused such therapy only when she had been transferred to Siedlce Prison. Thus, she had not complained of inaction on the part of the domestic authorities, but rather of the fact that the Siedlce Prison authorities had prevented her from continuing the treatment which she had initially been allowed to undergo. Therefore, the Court approached the case as one involving an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life.

(b) Compliance with Article 8 § 2 – The interference at issue had been “in accordance with the law” and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the applicant’s health. The remaining question was thus whether it had been “necessary in a democratic society”.

The prison authorities’ decision, which had concerned access to hormone treatment, had touched upon the applicant’s freedom to define her gender identity, one of the most basic essentials of self-determination. In that regard, the Court also noted the impact of that decision on the applicant’s right to sexual self-determination; it had repeatedly held that given the numerous and painful interventions involved in gender reassignment and the level of commitment and conviction required to achieve a change in social gender role, it could not be suggested that there was anything arbitrary or capricious in the decision taken by a person to undergo such a procedure.

The applicant had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria after she had performed genital self‑mutilation and had been prescribed hormone replacement treatment, which, according to the medical reports, had had beneficial effects on her physical and mental health. The doctors who had prescribed the hormone replacement therapy had considered it to be necessary.

Therefore, the domestic authorities had had strong elements before them indicating that hormone therapy had been an appropriate medical treatment for the applicant’s state of health. That therapy had been provided to her in previous prisons and had had a beneficial effect on her. At Sieldlce Prison the treatment had been interrupted before she could be consulted. The burden that had been placed on the applicant to prove the necessity of the prescribed medical treatment by undergoing an additional consultation with an endocrinologist appeared disproportionate in the circumstances. In any event, the endocrinologist’s opinion she had submitted to the prison authorities confirming the necessity of the hormonal therapy had not resulted in her request being granted.

The Government had not referred to any detrimental effects which the therapy might have had on the applicant’s physical and mental health, nor had they maintained that allowing her to continue the therapy would have caused any technical and financial difficulties for the prison authorities. Indeed, the applicant had borne the cost of the medications herself, thus imposing no additional costs on the State. Although her hormone treatment had been interrupted only for a relatively short period, between 18 July and 31 July 2020, the applicant had submitted that since the beginning of July 2020 she had been taking half of the prescribed dose of medication. Most importantly, she had eventually received the medication, not because of a sudden change of approach on the authorities’ part, but as a consequence of the Court’s indication of interim measures under Rule 39.

Accordingly, the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake, including the protection of the applicant’s health and her interest to continue the hormone therapy associated with gender reassignment. In so concluding, the Court bore in mind the applicant’s particular vulnerability as an imprisoned transgender person undergoing a gender reassignment procedure, which had required enhanced protection from the authorities. The Government’s preliminary objection relating to the applicant’s victim status, which had been joined to the merits, was therefore dismissed.

Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).

Taking into account that the applicant had received the necessary medical treatment since 31 July 2020, the Court decided, unanimously, to lift the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Article 41: EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-14358

Russia approves laws that ban transgender adoption and restrict LGBTQ+ visibility

Leave a reply

Russia approves laws that ban transgender adoption and restrict LGBTQ+ visibility

Russia’s upper house of parliament approved two laws on Wednesday that will prohibit the visibility of LGBTQ+ people in media and ban citizens of countries that allow gender transitioning from adopting Russian children.

The first law amends Article 6.21 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation to prohibit “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations and (or) preferences or gender reassignment.” While Article 29(1) of the Constitution of Russia guarantees freedom of speech and press, the law will amend Articles 10.6 and 15.1 of Federal Law No. 149, to prohibit the promotion of not having children on the internet, in media and advertising.

The law will impose fines of up to 400,000 rubles for individuals, fines of up to 800,000 rubles for officials and up to 5M rubles for legal entities on violators. Foreigners will face similar sanctions as Russian citizens but can be deported from Russia or arrested for up to 15 days.

The law on the adoption of Russian children will effectively restrict the adoption of Russian children to the roughly dozen countries that ban gender transitioning.

The approval of these laws marks continuing suppression of LGBTQ+ rights. Previously, the Russian Supreme Court ruled the LGBTQ+ movement was “extremist”. Russia also banned gender affirming surgery in 2023.

After its official publication, the laws will take effect in ten days.

Russia faces a low birth rate, aging population and a decline in population has been heightened by the invasion of Ukraine. The measures are intended to increase the country’s birth rate and restrict the cultural influence of the West.

The post Russia approves laws that ban transgender adoption and restrict LGBTQ+ visibility appeared first on JURIST – News.

US House of Speaker restricts use of bathrooms to biological sex

Leave a reply

US House of Speaker restricts use of bathrooms to biological sex

The Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, restricted the use of gendered bathrooms in the House to biological members of each sex on Wednesday. The measure has triggered anger among legislators and advocates and has once again brought the issues of transgender rights and their inclusion in society to the agenda of national discussion.

This decision is based on House Resolution 1579, which states that single-sex facilities such as toilets, cubicles, and changing rooms can be used only by people of the biological sex they were assigned at birth. The bill was sponsored by Nancy Mace and was endorsed by the House Rules Committee. Supporters have framed the speaker’s policy as a necessary measure to protect the safety and dignity of individuals in single-sex spaces, particularly women. House Resolution 1579 explicitly cites concerns that allowing individuals who are biologically male to use facilities designated for women could compromise the privacy and security of female House members, officers, and employees. Proponents argue that this policy provides clarity and consistency, ensuring facility use within the Capitol aligns with traditional norms and expectations.

The enforcement mechanism outlined in the resolution places the Sergeant-at-Arms in charge of implementing the policy, reflecting an effort to ensure accountability and uniform application. Supporters, including the resolution’s sponsor, Representative Nancy Mace, contend that the measure is a workplace consideration to foster a respectful environment within the Capitol. By addressing these concerns, policy advocates assert that it represents a practical response to broader societal debates over privacy and safety in public spaces.

This policy stands in stark contrast to the ongoing efforts to address the epidemic of violence against transgender individuals. It was announced on the same day as Transgender Day of Remembrance, a solemn occasion created to honour the lives of transgender individuals lost to violence, as highlighted in a resolution introduced by Representative Pramila Jayapal. The resolution emphasizes the alarming rates of violence and discrimination faced by transgender individuals, particularly transgender women of colour. It underscores the need for inclusive policies that protect their safety and dignity. By implementing restrictive measures on such a significant day, the policy appears to disregard the critical struggles and vulnerabilities of the transgender community, further marginalizing an already targeted population.

The policy will likely face public and potentially public scrutiny in court as lawmakers and advocacy groups weigh its implications. For now, the decision places the Capitol building at the center of a national conversation about civil rights, equity, and the balance between privacy and inclusion.

The contrast between this policy and Transgender Day of Remembrance highlights the ongoing challenges in the fight for transgender rights. It shows that achieving true inclusion in government spaces and beyond is still a work in progress, and there’s to go before we can say the struggle is over.

The post US House of Speaker restricts use of bathrooms to biological sex appeared first on JURIST – News.

Japan court reaffirms same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional

Leave a reply

Japan court reaffirms same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional

The Tokyo High Court declared Japan’s current policy against same-sex marriage as discriminatory and unconstitutional in a ruling on Wednesday.

The case involved a couple in Tokyo registered as same-sex partners who sought compensation from the government, arguing that laws failing to recognize same-sex marriage violated the Japanese constitution.

Presiding Judge Taniguchi Sonoe emphasized that establishing a legal relationship as spouses for same-sex individuals is fundamental for a fulfilling social life and deserving of equal respect as heterosexual unions. The court delved into the interpretation of “freedom of marriage” under Article 24 of the constitution, addressing the language referencing “both sexes” and “husband and wife.”

The court clarified that these terms do not exclude legal protection for same-sex couples, highlighting the importance of legal recognition for all individuals. By examining provisions in the Civil Code and related laws, the court concluded that denying same-sex marriage rights breached constitutional principles of equality under the law and essential gender equality.

This ruling aligns with a prior landmark decision in 2021, which deemed the government’s stance on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The Sapporo High Court in March 2024 affirmed the district court decision, being the first High Court in the country to declare the ban explicitly unconstitutional.

Advocacy groups in Japan like the “Freedom of Marriage for All” are now calling on the National Diet, the Japanese parliament, to enact legislation ensuring same-sex marriage rights without delay.

Amnesty International’s East Asia Researcher, Boram Jang, praised the Tokyo High Court’s decision, emphasizing the significance of this step towards marriage equality and the need for comprehensive national legislation to uphold equal rights for all couples in Japan.

The post Japan court reaffirms same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional appeared first on JURIST – News.

EU states must recognize gender changes obtained in other bloc countries, says top court

Leave a reply

European Union states must recognize gender changes obtained in other bloc countries, says top court

See: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/european-union/article/2024/10/04/eu-states-must-recognize-gender-changes-obtained-in-other-bloc-countries-says-top-court_6728196_156.html

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2024.
M.-A.A. v Direcţia de Evidenţă a Persoanelor Cluj and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Articles 20 and 21 TFEU – Articles 7 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Union citizen who has lawfully acquired, during the exercise of that right and his residence in another Member State, a change of his first name and gender identity – Obligation on the part of that Member State to recognise and enter in the birth certificate that change of first name and gender identity – National legislation which does not permit such recognition and entry, obliging the party concerned to bring new judicial proceedings for a change of gender identity in the Member State of origin – Effect of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union.
Case C-4/23.

Articles 20 and 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Articles 7 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that does not permit recognition and entry in the birth certificate of a national of that Member State of a change of first name and gender identity lawfully acquired in another Member State, when exercising the right to free movement and residence, with the consequence that that person is obliged to initiate, before a court, new proceedings for a change of gender identity in the first Member State, which disregard the change that was previously lawfully acquired in that other Member State.

See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0004

USA: Texas city approves transgender bathroom ban

Leave a reply

Texas city approves transgender bathroom ban

The city council of Odessa, Texas voted this week to approve a ban on transgender individuals’ use of bathrooms on city property that do not correspond with their sex assigned at birth.

Tuesday’s 5-2 vote amends a 1989 ordinance that made it “unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally enter any public restroom designated for the exclusive use of the sex opposite to his or her own…” The new amendments will expand the language to allow prosecution of transgender people for using bathrooms that align with their personal gender identification. Penalties include trespassing charges, fines, and liability for damages, including court costs and legal fees.

Restrooms in city libraries, parks, airports, and other government facilities are subject to the ban under the new language which includes, urinals, toilets, showers, and changing areas in the definition of restroom.

The Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union condemned the new ordinance, calling it “shameful” while a spokesperson from PFLAG, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, called the legislation “unnecessary” and “a complete waste of the city’s time, money, and resources.”

Texas Values president Jonathan Saenz who advocated for the bill insisted that the ordinance was needed align the language of the ordinance with “our current culture” while denouncing changes toward “long held beliefs” on gender and sex.

The bill includes exceptions for minors under the age of 12 accompanying an adult into a restroom for normal use, law enforcement, emergency medical aid, and custodial maintenance or repair.

Transgender rights have faced increasing restrictions in the Lone Star state with the Texas Supreme Court recently upholding a ban on gender affirming care for transgender youth. There are now fears that the Odessa bill could presage a statewide ban on the transgender people’s use of restrooms that align with their gender identity.

The post Texas city approves transgender bathroom ban appeared first on JURIST – News.

Georgia signs bill protecting family values, minors from LGBT and homosexual influences

Leave a reply

Georgia signs bill protecting family values, minors from LGBT and homosexual influences

Speaker of the Republic of Georgia’s parliament Shalva Papuashvili announced on Thursday that he signed into law a bill aimed at protecting family values and minors from LGBT and homosexual influences, according to local media.

The legislation stated that Georgia recognizes family values of the union of a man and a woman, which are strengthened by the constitutional agreement of the Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Georgia and the State of Georgia. While the legislation said that there are foreign legislations that recognize and allow the marriage of same-sex individuals, it stated that these practices ignore the best interests of minors and would be incompatible with the Code of Children’s Rights and several other legal acts aimed at defending children.

The law defined marriage as the union of one genetic man and woman and prohibited medical intervention in sex change operations. It also disallowed official documents from not stating the genetic sex of the identity holder and criminalized gatherings that aimed to promote homosexual marriage.

While the European Commission for Democracy through Law acknowledged that Georgia’s decision to limit marriage to a man and a woman was aligned with Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the commission said that there was no “justification for barring [] transsexuals from enjoying the right to marry under all circumstances.” The commission also noted that bans on sex change surgeries violate Article 8 of the ECHR, which allows for the right to respect for private and family life.

In September, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced visa restrictions on 60 Georgians after the Georgian Legislature approved the bill. The 60 Georgians include senior government figures who Blinken said were “responsible for, or complicit in, undermining democracy in Georgia.” Georgia’s Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze said that the country may revise its ties with the US if the US imposes more sanctions on Georgian officials.

The post Georgia signs bill protecting family values, minors from LGBT and homosexual influences appeared first on JURIST – News.