Home / Contact / Stories, News & Reports / Photos
Worldwide Gay Life,
Sites and Insights International Gay News & Reports 2007-08 Also see: 1 Gaininig the Right to Speak in Our Name at The UN 1/07 2 "Yogyakarta Principles" Experts Set Out Global Standards for Sexual Rights and Gender Equality 3/07 3 Discriminatory trend continues at UN 5/07 4 Sexual Orientation in International Law--What role has the law played in the LGBT movement? 5/07 5 MSM and HIV/AIDS Risk in Asia: What Is Fueling the Epidemic Among MSM? 8/06 (repeat from 2006) 6 Gaining the right to speak at the UN 6/07 7 LGBT groups get UN recognition 7/07 8 Gay Rights Gain Ground Around Globe, even in the land of machismo 9/07 9 United Nations hosts LGBT rights panel 10/07 12 UN Commissioner backs LGBT rights 11/07 13 The Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice 11/07 14 Euro Court rules gay couples eligible to adopt 1/08 15 ILGA-Asia conference elects first regional board 2/08 16 ChiangMai, Thailand witnessed its first gay march 2/08 17 UN Committee refuses status to three LGBT groups 2/08 18 Tutu to accept award from LGBT rights group 2/08 19 Dutch stand up for gays at UN Human Rights council 3/08 20 Map of the world plots LGBT rights 4/08 21 New report claims 86 countries criminalise same-sex acts 5/08 22 France will argue for universal decriminalisation at UN 5/08 23 Outgoing U.N. rights chief slams treatment of women and gays 6/08 24 Homophobic governments block gays from UN AIDS conference 6/08 27 Going gay around the world 6/08 28 UNAIDS summit calls for end of travel restrictions for HIV sufferers 6/08 29 Report: Boy Victims of Commercial Sexual Exploiation 6/08 30 EU confirms sexual orientation will be included in discrimination directive 6/08 31 ILGA-ASIA regional conference: Jan 24-27, Chiang Mai 6/08 33 South African named as new UN human rights chief 7/08 34 Book review: How solutions lie in The Wisdom of Whores 7/08 35 AIDS Prevention Focus Returns to Gay Men at Mexico Conference 8/08 36 UN chief: End bias against gay men 8/08 38 11 out gay/bi athletes to watch at the Olympic Game 8/08 January 02, 2007 1 As a result of a vote, requested by the delegations of Egypt, Guinea, Pakistan, Qatar and the Sudan, on the application of Coalition gaie et lesbienne du Québec Six delegations -– Colombia, Israel, Peru, Romania, United Kingdom and the United States -– voted in support of the NGO; eight -– Burundi, China, Egypt, Guinea, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation and the Sudan –- voted against, while three -- Angola, India and Turkey -- abstained and Cuba and Dominica were not present. The representative of the United Kingdom, explaining his delegation’s position, said that every NGO meeting the criteria from ECOSOC resolution 1996/31 deserved to be granted consultative status, regardless of its nature. The resolution explicitly confirmed the need to take into account the full diversity of NGOs. The Coalition obviously had fulfilled the criteria, as much of its work covered the fields of health, gender and human rights. The NGO would add an important voice to the activities of the United Nations. The session had recommended over 100 NGOs for consultative status, some of them might espouse views that were not shared by all Governments. “We may disagree with them but that doesn’t mean we should exclude them,” he stated. The Coalition had provided frank and satisfactory responses to all questions. “No credible reason can therefore be presented for refusing them consultative status, except that of straightforward discrimination,” he said and announced that his delegation would continue to argue for the full inclusion and involvement of NGOs representing the gay and lesbian community. After the vote, the Observer of Canada expressed her dismay at the result and her concern at the Committee’s “pattern of discrimination” in its treatment of applications from organizations dealing with issues related to sexual orientation. Her Government was familiar with the organization and supported its application. A decision on the application of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights -- a national organization aiming to improve the situation for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people through working to end oppression and discrimination and by lobbying politicians and authorities to improve legislation –- was deferred until May’s session, as several delegates needed more time. Addressing questions and concerns from the representatives from the United States, Pakistan, Egypt, Romania, Guinea, United Kingdom and Burundi, the NGO’s representatives stressed that they condemned all forms of sexual violence and violence against children and were against paedophilia. They explained instances where members of the organization had been voted down on such subjects. They stressed that the NGO complied with all Swedish laws and, in instances of cooperation with foreign NGOs, followed the laws of the countries where the organizations concerned were based. When addressing students in secondary education, the NGO representatives talked about the fact that two people of the same sex could love one another, not on how to have sex. The organization’s position was that adults might seek sexual pleasure, but were not allowed to harm other people involved. It had no position on seeking pleasure by harming oneself. Expressing support for the NGO, the Observer of Sweden stressed that the organization had, since the early 1950s, advocated for the rights for all persons, regardless of sexual orientations. The Swedish Government held the organization in high regard and had regularly consulted it.
27 March 2007 2 Geneva - A groundbreaking set of principles on sexual orientation, gender identity, and international law is a landmark advance in the struggle for basic human rights as well as gender equality, Human Rights Watch and the Center for Women’s Global Leadership said today. The document, known as the Yogyakarta Principles after the city where it was adopted, was launched today in Geneva by a group of 29 international human rights experts. “These principles establish basic standards for how governments should treat people whose rights are too often denied and whose dignity is too often reviled,” said Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “Firmly grounded in law and precedent, they enshrine a simple idea: human rights do not admit exceptions.” The “Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Law in Relation to Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” were adopted by a meeting of experts in international law in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in November 2006. They confirm legal standards for how governments and other actors should end violence, abuse, and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and ensure full equality. The experts launching the principles include a former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as UN independent experts, members of UN treaty bodies, judges, activists, and academics. Human Rights Watch was part of a secretariat supporting the work of the experts who developed the principles. The Center for Women’s Global Leadership was a member of the advisory committee to the secretariat. “For more than three decades, lesbians have been among the millions of women’s rights activists pressing the international community to put gender equality at the heart of the human rights agenda,” said Charlotte Bunch, executive director of the Center for Women’s Global Leadership. “These sweeping principles are a bold and important step forward. Addressing civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rights, they show how sexual rights and gender equality are inextricably interwoven with the full scope of rights protections.” The Yogyakarta Principles were developed in response to well-documented patterns of abuse around the globe. These abuses, perpetrated because of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, have affected millions. The principles address: * rape and other forms of gender-based violence; The principles also map out a positive road to full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people around the world. Each principle is accompanied by detailed recommendations to states on how to end discrimination and abuse. The principles also call for action from the UN’s human rights system, national human rights institutions, the media, nongovernmental organizations, and others. The principles were launched today at the UN Human Rights Council’s session in Geneva, where last year 54 states called for the council to act against egregious violations of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. The full text of the Yogyakarta Principles, along with supporting materials, can be found online at www.yogyakartaprinciples.org . The experts who adopted the Yogyakarta Principles are: Philip Alston (Australia), UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, USA Maxim Anmeghichean (Moldova), European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association Mauro Cabral (Argentina), Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission Edwin Cameron (South Africa), Justice, Supreme Court of Appeal, Bloemfontein, South Africa Sonia Onufer Corrêa (Brazil), Research Associate at the Brazilian Interdisciplinary AIDS Association (ABIA) and co-chair of the International Working Group on Sexuality and Social Policy (Co-chair of the experts’ meeting) Yakin Ertürk (Turkey), UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, Professor, Department of Sociology, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey Elizabeth Evatt (Australia), Former member and chair of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, former member of the UN Human Rights Committee and Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists Paul Hunt (New Zealand), UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health and professor, Department of Law, University of Essex, United Kingdom Asma Jahangir (Pakistan), Chairperson, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Maina Kiai (Kenya), Chairperson, Kenya National Commission on Human Rights Miloon Kothari (India), UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing Judith Mesquita (United Kingdom), Senior Research Officer, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, United Kingdom Alice M. Miller (United States of America), Assistant Professor, School of Public Health, Co-director, Human Rights Program, Columbia University Sanji Mmasenono Monageng (Botswana), Judge of the High Court (The Republic of the Gambia), Commissioner of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Chairperson of the Follow Up Committee on the implementation of the Robben Island Guidelines on prohibition and prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights) Vitit Muntarbhorn (Thailand), UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and professor of Law at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand (Co-chair of the experts’ meeting) Lawrence Mute (Kenya), Commissioner, Kenya National Commission on Human Rights Manfred Nowak (Austria), Professor and co-director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, Austria and UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Ana Elena Obando Mendoza (Costa Rica), feminist attorney, women’s human rights activist, and international consultant Michael O’Flaherty (Ireland), Member of the UN Human Rights Committee and Professor of Applied Human Rights and Co-director of the Human Rights Law Centre at the University of Nottingham (Rapporteur for the development of the Yogyakarta Principles) Sunil Pant (Nepal), President of the Blue Diamond Society, Nepal Dimitrina Petrova (Bulgaria), Executive Director, The Equal Rights Trust Rudi Muhammad Rizki (Indonesia), UN Special Rapporteur on international solidarity and senior Lecturer and the Vice Dean for Academic Affairs of the Faculty of Law at the University of Padjadjaran, Indonesia Mary Robinson (Ireland), Founder of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, former President of Ireland and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Nevena Vuckovic Sahovic (Serbia and Montenegro), Member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and President of the Child Rights Centre, Belgrade, Serbia Montenegro Martin Scheinin (Finland), UN Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and professor of Constitutional and International Law, Director of the Institute for Human Rights Wan Yanhai (China), founder of the AIZHI Action Project and director of Beijing AIZHIXING Institute of Health Education Stephen Whittle (United Kingdom), Professor in Equalities Law at Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom Roman Wieruszewski (Poland), Member of the UN Human Rights Committee and head of Poznan Centre for Human Rights, Poland Robert Wintemute (United Kingdom), Professor of Human Rights Law, School of Law, King’s College London, United Kingdom For more information, please contact: 3 (Please note most articles are also available in French, Portuguese and Spanish directly on www.ilga.org) The United Nations Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) voted to recommend denial of ECOSOC status to Swedish LGBT federation RFSL and deferred consideration of two other LGBT national federations: FELGT from Spain and ABGLT from Brazil. More info In 2005 and 2006, ILGA initiated a campaign to have an increasing number of LGBT groups apply for ECOSOC status, in other words the right to enter the United Nations and speak in our own name. Read more about ILGA’s ECOSOC campaign And also: The Yogyakarta Principles, a milestone in the history of international law applied to sexual orientation and gender identity What role has international law played in the LGBT movement? In 2007, no less than 85 member states of the United Nations still criminalize consensual same sex acts among adults Download ILGA’s report Patricia Curzi and Stephen Barris Get involved! Make a donation to ILGA:
May 25, 2007 4 Professor
Sanders is a Canadian citizen and resides in Bangkok, Thailand. He
is a professor of law at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver
and Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. When Professor Sanders addressed
the United Nations on behalf of ILGA in 1992, he made history by becoming
the first openly gay individual to address the UN and giving the first
speech to address LGBT issues at the UN. For the complete article go to: http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?FileCategory=7&ZoneID=7&FileID=1078
High Risk Behaviors Leading to High HIV/AIDS Prevalence Ignorance about the extent of male-male sex results in a relative lack of MSM programming, which in turn leads to high levels of risk behaviors. In the past, HIV/AIDS prevention programming in Asia has often concentrated on heterosexual sex or injection drug users (IDUs).Therefore, many men see sex with women as being an HIV/AIDS risk and male-male sex as a safer option. MSM often show much higher condom use when having sex with women than with men. The prevalence of consistent condom use among MSM is as low as 12%, and up to half of all MSM in some regions have never used a condom.Yet a majority of these men believe that they are at low risk. In several countries less than 20% have been tested for HIV. Finally, up to half or more of these MSM also have sex with women—the result of a combination of situational sex and the social pressure to marry—and can thus serve as a bridge population for HIV/AIDS infection. The unsurprising outcome of a situation characterized by lack of programming, lack of knowledge, and high prevalence of unsafe sex is rising rates of HIV infection. Even in countries with low overall HIV/AIDS prevalence, cases among MSM contribute disproportionately to the total. Other
sexually transmitted
infections (STIs) are both a marker of unsafe sex and a
contributing factor to the transmission of HIV. In some areas more
than
half of all MSM have an STI. Few doctors in the region have the
knowledge
or cultural sensitivity needed to diagnose the many cases
of rectal STIs.
May 25, 2007 6 Discriminatory trend continues at UN as Committee on NGOs fails to recomend consultive status with ECOSOC to three national federations defending the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people. May 18, 2007 – New York, U.S.A. The United Nations Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) voted to recommend denial of ECOSOC status to Swedish LGBT federation RFSL and deferred consideration of two other LGBT national federations: FELGT from Spain and ABGLT from Brazil. The three organizations had applied for ECOSOC status at the UN, an observatory status which allows an NGO to participate in certain UN Sessions. Since 1992 when the first speech on sexual minorities was given in its name at the UN, ILGA has pressed to have human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity addressed by this international forum. In 2005, ILGA began its “ECOSOC Campaign”, an initiative aimed at increasing the number of LGBT groups applying for ECOSOC status in order to allow LGBT human rights defenders to address the UN in their own name. ILGA has also been facilitating the presence of LGBT activists at the United Nations Human Rights Council since 2003. In December 2006, after a year-long and harsh consideration by the ECOSOC, consultive status was granted to three LGBT organizations: ILGA-Europe, the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association, and the Danish and German national LGBT associations, LBL and LSVD. This allowed ILGA to invite a number of activists to the Human Rights Council (HRC) in the name of its European region and to address the floor of the HRC plenary on two occasions. Egypt and Sudan led the opposition to granting status to RFSL, FELGT and ABGLT. Egypt first attempted to close RFSL’s application, an unprecedented procedural move usually reserved for NGOs which fail to respond to questions from the Committee. When that effort failed, the Committee decided to recommend denial of the ECOSOC status to RFSL by a vote of 8 to 6. A final decision will be made in July 2007 when the ECOSOC Committee meets in Geneva. The various national federations had sent representatives to the session in order to respond to questions raised by the committee members. Beto de Jesus and Toni Reis from ABGLT, a federation which gathers some 200 groups in Brazil recall: “It soon became clear that the whole exercize was an attempt to prove our work was about promoting homosexuality. There was no doubt the questions, which seems to be as pointless as infinite, were part of a strategy not to say directly that they would deny in any possible way ECOSOC status to gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transvestites, and transexuals groups.” Questions revolved around the age of consent, sexual education programs, the associations’position in regard to paedophilia and to voluntary and involuntary sexual violence. Egypt’s representative asked David Montero from FELGT about the Spanish Federation’ sex education programmes, its affiliation with the International Lesbian and Gay Association and its views on paedophilia. The activist responded by saying FELGT had received financing from the Spanish Government for projects carried out in partnership with the International Lesbian and Gay Association. “FELGT does have programmes to end homophobia in public schools. Our federation upholds Spanish law, which prohibits sex with people younger than 18 years of age.” David Montero concluded that “Promoting sex education for students under 18 -- which was part of the ethics, health, values and sex curricula taught in public schools - was not the same as condoning paedophilia.” Although the NGO Committee had processed applications from FELGT and ABGLT and questioned the organizations extensively, it decided to defer their applications until the next session in January 2008. “We are not disheartened by the intolerance and hatred behind the decision but will continue to actively advocate for the issues towards the Ecosoc committee” comments Sören Andersson, president of RFSL. The decision today proves that issues regarding homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people have a place at the UN and so do the organizations advocating for the issues.” Despite this setback, ILGA encourages these organizations in their efforts and will continue working on creating the conditions of an international dialogue on sexual orientation and gender identity to take place at the United Nations.
23rd July 2007 7 by PinkNews.co.uk writer In 2006 the German lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender federation and the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) were refused observer status at the United Nations. Friday's decision on the Quebecois and Swedish gay groups had been preceded by forceful lobbying campaigns from countries such as Egypt that do not consider LGBT persons to have legal rights. Canada and other countries argued that LGBT people should be heard at the UN. Sören Juvas, the president of RFSL, called the decision extremely gratifying. "The work that was necessary to reach it has shown the need for a clear voice in favour of LGBT persons' rights in the United Nations," he said. ILGA and Amnesty International estimate that there are currently 90 countries in the world where homosexual contacts are illegal. In several countries, homosexuals risk the death penalty purely on the grounds of their sexual orientation. "RFSL now has the possibility to, together with others, affect and improve the situation for the world's LGBT persons," Mr Juvas added. "We will do everything we can to ensure that everyone has the same opportunities, rights and obligations, regardless of sexual orientation, gender affiliation or expression of gender.
September 17, 2007 8 by Joseph Contreras, Newsweek International The sea change spreads beyond Mexico City, a cosmopolitan capital that is home to a thriving community of artists and intellectuals.The growing maturity of the gay-rights movement in the West is having a marked effect on the developing world. In the United States, the Republican Party is in trouble in part because it has made a fetish of its opposition to gay marriage. At least some gays in big cities like New York question why they are still holding "pride" parades, as if they were still a closeted minority and not part of the Manhattan mainstream. Since 2001, Western European countries like Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain have gone even farther than the United States, placing gay and lesbian partners on the same legal footing as their heterosexual counterparts. And now, the major developing powers of Asia, Latin America and Africa are following the liberal road—sometimes imitating Western models, sometimes not—but in all cases setting precedents that could spread to the remaining outposts of official homophobia. In Mexico, the declining clout and prestige of the Roman Catholic Church have emboldened gay-rights activists and their allies in state legislatures
and city councils to pass new laws legalizing same-sex civil unions, starting with Mexico City in November. The rising influence of tolerant
Western pop culture has encouraged gay men and lesbians to proclaim their sexuality in gay-pride marches like the one in the Brazilian city of São
Paulo in June, which drew 3 million participants, according the event's organizers. It was the largest ever in Brazil. Western models also helped inspire South Africa to legalize civil unions in November 2006, thus becoming the first country in the developing
world to do so. In China, the trend goes back to the climate of economic reform that took hold in the 1980s, ending the persecution of the era of
Mao Zedong, who considered homosexuals products of the "moldering lifestyle of capitalism." Among left-wing movements in many developing countries, globalization is a favorite scapegoat for all of the planet's assorted ills. But even those
who resist the West's basically conservative free-market economic orthodoxy are quick to acknowledge the social liberalism—including respect for the rights of women and minorities of all kinds—that is the West's main cultural and legal export. "I think it helped that Spain and other parts of Europe had passed similar laws," says longtime Mexican gay-rights activist Alejandro Brito. "These types of laws are becoming more about human rights than gay issues." Key people have hastened the trend in some countries. Some activists single out a few political celebrities for de-stigmatizing their cause, including Nelson Mandela, who readily embraced British actor Sir Ian McKellen's suggestion that he support a ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual preference in South Africa's first post-apartheid constitution, and former prime minister Tony Blair, whose government was the first to recognize civil partnerships between same-sex couples. They also point to activist judges in Brazil, South Africa and the European Court of Human Rights, who have handed down landmark rulings that unilaterally granted gay, lesbian and transgender communities new rights. These include a judicial order that gays be admitted into the armed forces of European Union member states. The biggest and perhaps most surprising change is in Latin America, the original home of machismo. In 2002, the Buenos Aires City Council approved Latin America's first-ever gay-civil-union ordinance, and same-gender unions are the law of the land in four Brazilian states today. Last year an openly homosexual fashion designer was elected to Brazil's National Congress with nearly a half a million votes. In August a federal-court judge in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul broke new legal ground when he ordered the national-health-care system to subsidize the cost of sex-change operations in public hospitals, thereby putting sexual "reassignment" on par with heart surgery, organ transplants and AIDS treatment as medical procedures worthy of taxpayer support. By the year-end, Colombia could become the first country in Latin America to grant gay and lesbian couples full rights to health insurance, inheritance and social-security benefits. A bill containing those reforms is working its way through the National Congress at present. And even Cuba has turned a corner. In the 1960s and early 1970s homosexuals in Cuba were blacklisted or even banished to forced-labor camps along with Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholic priests and other so-called social misfits. HIV patients were locked away in sanitariums as recently as 1993. Several Cuban cities now host gay and lesbian film festivals. The hit TV program on the island's state-run airwaves last year was "The Hidden Side of the Moon," a soap opera about a married man who falls in love with a man and later tests positive for HIV. The push for "more modern ways of thinking" about minorities, feminists and homosexuals has roots that go back to the political ferment that shook the region in the late 1960s and 1970s, says Braulio Peralta, author of a 2006 book on gay rights in Mexico, "The Names of Rainbow." But it has gained in recent years, due in part to troubles in the Roman Catholic Church, which includes eight out of 10 Mexicans and long stood opposed to any attempt to redefine marriage laws. Last November, the Mexico City Legislature took up the civil-union law just as the country's top cardinal, Norberto Rivera Carrera, was facing charges that he had sheltered a Mexican priest accused of sexually abusing children in California. The prelate chose to stay under the radar as the vote loomed. "The Catholic Church was facing a credibility crisis," says longtime Mexico City-based gay-rights activist Brito. "So many of its leaders including Rivera knew that if they fiercely opposed the gay-union law, the news media would eat them alive." The change in attitudes is most vivid in the sparsely populated border state of Coahuila, an unlikely setting for blazing trails on gay rights. The left-wing political party that rules the national capital has made few inroads here. Yet soon after the state's young governor, Humberto Moreira Valdés, was elected in 2006, he backed a civil-union bill modeled on France's pacts of civil solidarity, and in the state capital of Saltillo the progressive Catholic bishop added his support. The 62-year-old prelate, Raul Vera, says he was comfortable doing so in part because the bill stopped short of calling for same-sex marriage. "As the church I said we could not assume the position of homophobes," he says. "We cannot marginalize gays and lesbians. We cannot leave them unprotected." That seems to be the prevailing consensus in South Africa's ruling party. The constitution adopted by South Africa after the African National Congress (ANC) took power in 1994 was the world's first political charter to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In November 2006, the national Parliament overwhelmingly approved a civil-union bill after the country's constitutional court called for amendments to a 44-year-old marriage law that denied gay and lesbian couples the legal right to wed. In pushing for approval of the Civil Union Act, the ruling ANC shrugged off both conservative opposition parties and religious leaders, some of whom accused the government of imposing the morality of a "radical homosexual minority" on South Africans. President Thabo Mbeki had been blasted by gay rights activists in the past for trying to downplay his country's raging HIV/AIDS epidemic, but on the issue of same-sex civil unions his government stood firm. The sweeping terms of the 2006 Civil Union Act placed South Africa in a select club of nations that have enacted similar laws and that, until last year, included only Canada, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands. But there are glimmers of change in other nations. China decriminalized sodomy a decade ago and removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 2001. Police broke up a gay and lesbian festival in Beijing in 2005 but took no action last February against an unauthorized rally in support of legalizing gay marriage. The Chinese Communist Party has established gay task forces in all provincial capitals to promote HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention. And in April a Web site launched a weekly hour-long online program called Connecting Homosexuals with an openly gay host. It is the first show in China to focus entirely on gay issues. Tolerance, however, by no means spans the globe. Homosexuality remains taboo throughout the greater Middle East. In most of the Far East, laws permitting gay and lesbian civil unions are many years if not decades away. In Latin America, universal acceptance of homosexuality is a long way off. Jamaica is a hotbed of homophobia. Even in Mexico, the first couple to take advantage of Coahuila's new civil-union statute were fired from their jobs as sales clerks after their boss realized they were lesbians. The new Mexico City law grants same-gender civil unions property and inheritance rights, but not the right to adopt children. Even Mexican gays who still struggle against daily bias see signs of improvement, however. In 2003 José Luis Ramírez landed work as a buyer at the Mexico City headquarters of a leading department-store chain, and things were going swimmingly until he brought his boyfriend to a company-hosted dinner with clients. "My boss's face just dropped," recalls Ramírez. Ramírez was subsequently denied promotions and left the company last year. But sexuality "isn't an issue" with his current employer, a new household-furnishings retailer. Tolerance is now the majority, at least among the young. A 2005 poll by the Mitofsky market-research firm found that 50 percent of all Mexicans between the ages of 18 and 29 supported proposals to allow gay marriage. Karla Lopez met Karina Almaguer on the assembly line of a Matamoros auto-stereo factory. The two became the first Mexican couple to marry under the civil-union bill; Lopez, now 30, is a mother of three. She urges more gays and lesbians to follow her example and come out publicly. "I felt strange at first because people would judge us and look at us from head to toe," she says. "But I now feel more secure and at ease." If more political leaders, clergymen and judges act to legitimize folks like Karla Lopez, the new mood of tolerance will surely proliferate across the planet in her lifetime. With Monica Campbell in Mexico City, Mac Margolis in Porto Alegre, Karen MacGregor in Durban, Quindlen Krovatin in Beijing and Anna Nemtsova in Moscow
7th October 2007 9 by Tony Grew The event, held in parallel with the session of the third committee of the UN General Assembly, will discuss the the Yogyakarta Principles. Named after the Indonesian city where they were adopted, the principles were introduced by 29 international human rights experts at a UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva in March 2007. They refer to the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity and address issues such as rape and gender-based violence, extra-judicial executions, torture and medical abuses, repressions of free speech and discrimination in the public services. The Yogyakarta Principles call for action from the UN human rights system, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organisations, and others. Last year 54 states called for the UN Human Rights Council to act against egregious violations of the rights of LGBT people. Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Programme at Human Rights Watch, one of the event's organisers, welcomed the strategy: "These principles establish basic standards for how governments should treat people whose rights are too often denied and whose dignity is too often reviled," he said. "Firmly grounded in law and precedent, they enshrine a simple idea: human rights do not admit exceptions."
November 7, 2007 10 by Douglas Sanders Singapore was our first try at inclusion. Would we be banned in Singapore in 2003? No! Why not? Who cares what is said by boring academics to other boring academics in an event hosted by the very respectable National University of Singapore? The same proved true in Shanghai and Kuala Lumpur (where the support staff was 90 percent women in Muslim headscarves from the host Universiti Kebangsaan). Headscarves and new fiction The high point of the KL conference for me was a session on Aug 3 titled Mapping Malay Sexuality in Malay/Malaysian Texts. The four academics making presentations were all Muslim women, three in plain long dresses and white headscarves. The chair, also a Muslim woman, had no headscarf. (She’s of Arab descent, I was told.) One panelist commented that when she was an undergraduate she was told that the only graphic description of sex that was permissible was something like: “I embraced her and she became a mother.” But, we were told, there had been a boom in popular commercial fiction in the 1960s, depicting very graphic sex. The books are remembered as “dime novels.” The stories were heterosexual and usually had some return to religion at the end. This literature was part of the “swinging sixties.” Authorities closed it down in the 1970s and 1980s. It restarted around 1999. Now there is a literature in English that is seen as quality writing, with significant sexual content. The first paper dealt with a novel by Shahnon Ahmad, a “Malay laureate”, a leading author. According to the author it is a “novel of ideas.” Or is it just a story of bedhopping? The heroine at 27, with bravado, goes about having sex with 19 men. In the end she asks herself whether she has done the right thing. Some remorse or at least some self-questioning restores a moral sense at the end. Another paper dealt with Malaysian Women bloggers. Two-thirds of bloggers in Malaysia are women, compared to 56 percent worldwide. Currently there is a “war on bloggers” and two individuals have been charged. So far all the sexual references had been hetero. Then Washima Che Dan, Lecturer, Department of English Language, Universiti Putra Malaysia, presented a paper “Language, Gender and Sexuality in Dina Zaman and Karim Raslan’s Works.” She focused on the story “Neighbours” in Karim Raslan’s collection of short stories entitled Heroes. A middle-aged, middle class, overweight, bored housewife is charmed by the handsome husband who is moving into the house next door with his wife. She spies on the neighbours from the upstairs balcony where she takes her morning coffee. Oooops. She discovers that the neighbour’s wife, under the Muslim dress, is a male. And the wife is the active partner in sex. The housewife is not so much shocked by what she has learned as filled with guilt over her intrusion. Her improper behaviour has led to her discovering what she did not want to know and had no right to know. The shock of it all is her fault, not that of the neighbours. She has disrupted the public façade of normality that the neighbours have carefully maintained. One of the Muslim academics gave me her copy of Karim Raslan’s book. It has another story of gay sexual repression by a Malay Muslim playing a colonial role in Sabah in Eastern Malaysia. The stories are beautifully written. It seems you can get away with more in Malaysia if you write in English, not Malay. The conference panel was seen by the women academics as a bold venture. One, after reading a passage from a novel, said almost reflexively: “I actually read that out – and on a Friday!” (Mosques hold a congregational prayer weekly on Fridays and is considered to be obligatory for men.) Malay, Chinese, Indian At the conference, the Malaysian government stated and restated its basic national line: Malaysia is multi-ethnic, stable and peaceful. It is a successful example of “unity in diversity.” It can teach other countries about how to live together in peace and harmony. None of the Malaysian academics, off the record, took the governments line seriously. They all know of the race riots of 1969 and the long controversies over the affirmative action programs designed to boost the economic status of Malays (in relation to that of the Chinese). For Malaysians at the conference, their sense was that the races were drifting further apart, each becoming more insular. Separate religious and educational systems had much to do with this. The legal system is part of the problem, with rigid rules against conversion and intermarriage enforced on Muslims. Shortly after the conference there was a national controversy over whether Malaysia was a Muslim state or not. Prime Minister Badawi had to intervene to kill the debate, declaring that the country was neither Muslim nor secular. Sex in Malaysia There are a few gay bars in Kuala Lumpur and a number of gay saunas. But there is no public discussion of sexual diversity, no discussion of the criminal law still in place (good old 377). The New Straits Times, Wed, Aug 8, 2007, had an expose on prostitution entitled “The dark side of sex in the city.” It told the tragic story of three female prostitutes, sick or diseased, working in the Chow Kit area of Kuala Lumpur. There was no mention of the transsexual prostitutes working in the same area, much less of any male prostitution. On a “crisis” in the spread of HIV, the article quoted “Pink Triangle chairman Hisham Hussein,” without noting that the organisation is a gay focused group that works on HIV prevention with transgender prostitutes. Prostitution was depicted as sordid and apparently exclusively heterosexual. There were a few sensual images on public view – on the posters outside a mainstream video store – and on the cover of the Malaysian edition of FHM, an internationally printed men’s magazine with mostly Caucasian models and stories. In August, 2007, the Thai gay film Me… Myself was playing in KL. It is a pleasant romantic comedy, which treats the causes of homosexuality as inborn (for the lesbian character) and the result of being raised by kathoeys (for the male hero). Neither find their fate a happy one, which presumably made the film suitable for Malaysian eyes. In the trendy Life&Times section of the New Straits Times on Aug 10, 2007, we got images of “an interior designer’s home.” Thirty-nine-year-old Jason Mah’s home had an eclectic mix – Asian and western, antique and contemporary. “His home doubles up as an interior design office for him and his partner Bernie Lee.” Both are seen smiling and casually dressed in the lead photograph. A nice couple, I thought. Perhaps conscious of the lack of reference to female companions in the pictures or the story, the last paragraph has Jason Mah referring to his home as a “bachelor pad.” As in the sex novels, some sense of propriety is inserted at the end of the article. Doug Sanders is a retired Canadian law professor living in Bangkok. He can be contacted at sanders_gwb@yahoo.ca.
Undated The Yogyakarta Principles address a broad range of human rights standards and their application to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity
12th November 2007 12 by PinkNews.co.uk staff writer Ms Arbour said in a statement: "Next year we will celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – an occasion that provides an ideal opportunity to recall the core human rights principles of equality, universality and non-discrimination. Human rights principles, by definition, apply to all of us, simply by virtue of having been born human. Just as it would be unthinkable to exclude some from their protection on the basis of race, religion, or social status, so too must we reject any attempt to do so on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Yogyakarta Principles are a timely reminder of these basic tenets. Excluding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons from equal protection violates international human rights law as well as the common standards of humanity that define us all "And, in my view, respect for cultural diversity is insufficient to justify the existence of laws that violate the fundamental right to life, security and privacy by criminalizing harmless private relations between consenting adults. As such, I wish to reiterate the firm commitment of my Office to promote and protect the human rights of all people regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity." Last week's event brought together non-governmental organisations, UN representatives and state delegates, and was an initiative co-sponsored by Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. The Yogyakarta Principles call for action from the UN human rights system, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organisations, and others. Last year 54 states called for the UN Human Rights Council to act against egregious violations of the rights of LGBT people.
November 16, 2007 13 Today, Astraea is the largest lesbian organization in the world. They raise funds and issue grants based on the belief that all women can participate in the philanthropic process-from giving to grantmaking. In the face of scant resources and at times, physical danger, Astraea grantees are fueling the movement for social change in villages, cities and towns around the world. A miniscule 0.3% of all foundation dollars is directed toward lesbian and gay issues. Astraea exists to fund these issues. *Application Deadline:* *February 1, 2008* *Notification of Decision**:* June 30, 2008 For LGBTI social change and movement-building organizations based in Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia, the Pacific Islands, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Republics, the Middle East, or Africa. Download Guidelines & Application English <http://www.astraea. org/Pdf/2007/ 0809IFSMC2. Download Microsoft Word versions of the Cover Sheet & Sample Budget Form English <http://www.astraea. org/Pdf/2007/ 0809IFSMCBC2. doc> (word 128kb) Español <http://www.astraea. org/Pdf/2007/ 0809IFSMCBC2sp. doc> (word 120kb) http://www.astraea. org/PHP/Grants/ DeadlinesAllGrants.php4
22nd January 2008 14 by Gemma Pritchard Ms. E.B. is a lesbian nursery school teacher who has been living with another woman since 1990. She applied for approval as a possible adoptive parent in February 1998, but her application was rejected. In June 2002, the highest administrative court in France upheld the rejection of her application. ILGA-Europe (the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association), FIDH (Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme), APGL (Association des Parents et futurs Parents Gays et Lesbiens) and the BAAF (British Association for Adoption and Fostering) were granted permission to take part in the proceedings as third parties. Patricia Prendiville, Executive Director of ILGA-Europe, told PinkNews.co.uk: "We welcome today's judgement of the European Court of Human Rights. This is a significant change in the Court's approach towards and interpretation of the rights of LGBT people under the European Convention on Human Rights. Today the Court firmly established a principle that administrative officials cannot discriminate against an individual on the basis of her/his sexual orientation in the process of applying to adopt a child. This builds on the Court's judgments in Smith & Grady v United Kingdom (1999), that LGBT people must be allowed to serve in the armed forces, and Mouta v Portugal (1999), that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant when determining who should have custody of a child." Until today France permitted administrative officials to exclude openly lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals from applying to adopt children. The European Court of Human Rights has decided that such a practice is discriminatory and violates the European Convention on Human Rights. An ILGA-Europe spokesperson added: "No one has an automatic right to adopt a child. But what the European Court of Human Rights said today is that European countries can no longer justify exclusion of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals from applying for a child adoption. The Court has established the principle that ILGA-Europe has long fought for– each individual should be treated equally on the basis of their individual merits as a potential parent when applying to adopt a child. The sexual orientation of the applicant is irrelevant and cannot be used to exclude them from the possibility of adopting a child. It is in the best interest of children in Europe and outside Europe that no potential adoptive parent be excluded from consideration for an irrelevant and discriminatory reason." The press statement released by the registrar of the European Court of Human Rights states: "The Court held by ten votes to seven that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court by eleven votes to six awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (£7,553) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 14,528 (£10,973) for costs and expenses." In the UK gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals and couples are legally entitled to be considered as adoptive parents under the Sexual Orientation Regulations which came into force last year. Roman Catholic-run adoption agencies have until the end of this year to comply with the new rules or shut down. Full Judgement Press release issued by the Registrar Grand Chamber Judgement The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case of E.B. v. France (application no. 43546/02). The Court held by ten votes to seven that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court by eleven votes to six awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 14,528 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English and French.) 1. Principal facts E.B. is a French national aged 45. She is a nursery school teacher and has been living with another woman, R., who is a psychologist, since 1990. The application concerns the refusal by the French authorities to grant the applicant’s request to adopt a child, allegedly on account of her sexual orientation. In February 1998 the applicant applied to the Jura Social Services Department for authorisation to adopt a child. During the adoption procedure she mentioned her homosexuality and her stable relationship with R. On the basis of the reports drawn up by a social worker and a psychologist, the adoption board made a recommendation in November 1998 that the application be rejected. Shortly afterwards the president of the council for the département of the Jura gave a decision refusing authorisation. Following an appeal by the applicant, the president of the council for the département confirmed his refusal in March 1999. The reasons given for both decisions were the lack of “identificational points of reference” due to the absence of a paternal image or reference and the ambiguous nature of the applicant’s partner’s commitment to the adoption plan. The applicant lodged an application with Besançon Administrative Court, which set both decisions of the president of the council for the département aside on 24 February 2000. The département of the Jura appealed against the judgment. Nancy Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the Administrative Court’s judgment on 21 December 2000. It held that the refusal to grant the applicant authorisation had not been based on her choice of lifestyle and had not therefore given rise to a breach of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant appealed on points of law, arguing in particular that her application to adopt had been rejected on account of her sexual orientation. In a judgment of 5 June 2002, the Conseil d’Etat dismissed E.B.’s appeal on the ground, among other things, that the Administrative Court of Appeal had not based its decision on a position of principle regarding the applicant’s sexual orientation, but had had regard to the needs and interests of an adopted child. 2. Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 December 2002. The FIDH (Fédération Internationale des ligues des Droits de l’Homme), the ILGA-Europe (the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association), the APGL (Association des Parents et futurs Parents Gays et Lesbiens) and the BAAF (British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering) were given leave to take part in the proceedings before the Chamber as third party interveners under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention (third party intervention) and Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court. On 19 September 2006, under Article 30 of the Convention2, the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. A public hearing took place in the Human Rights building, Strasbourg, on 14 March 2007. Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows: Christos Rozakis (Greek), President, and also Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar. 3. Summary of the judgment3 Complaints Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, the applicant alleged that at every stage of her application for authorisation to adopt she had suffered discriminatory treatment that had been based on her sexual orientation and had interfered with her right to respect for her private life. Decision of the Court Admissibility The Court reiterated at the outset that whilst French law and Article 8 did not guarantee either the right to found a family or the right to adopt (which neither party contested), the concept of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 was a broad one which encompassed a certain number of rights. With regard to an allegation of discrimination on grounds of the applicant’s homosexuality, the Court also reiterated that Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) had no independent existence. The application of Article 14 did not necessarily presuppose the violation of Article 8. It was sufficient for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of that Article. This was the case here since French legislation expressly granted single persons the right to apply for authorisation to adopt and established a procedure to that end. Consequently, the Court considered that the State, which had gone beyond its obligations under Article 8 in creating such a right, could not then take discriminatory measures when it came to applying it. The applicant alleged that, in the exercise of her right under the domestic law, she had been discriminated against on the ground of her sexual orientation, which was a concept covered by Article 14. Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, was therefore applicable in the present case. Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 After drawing a parallel with a previous case, the Court pointed out that the domestic administrative authorities, and then the courts that heard the applicant’s appeal, had based their decision to reject her application for authorisation to adopt on two main grounds: the lack of a paternal referent in the applicant’s household, and the attitude of the applicant’s declared partner. The Court found that the attitude of the applicant’s partner was not without interest or relevance in assessing the application. In the Court’s view, it was legitimate for the authorities to ensure that all safeguards were in place before a child was taken into a family, particularly where not one but two adults were found to be living in the household. In the Court’s opinion, that ground had nothing to do with any consideration relating to the applicant’s sexual orientation. With regard to the ground relied on by the domestic authorities relating to the lack of a paternal referent in the household, the Court considered that this did not necessarily raise a problem in itself. However, in the present case it was permissible to question the merits of such a ground as the application had been made by a single person and not a couple. In the Court’s view, that ground might therefore have led to an arbitrary refusal and have served as a pretext for rejecting the applicant’s application on grounds of her homosexuality, and the Government had been unable to prove that use of that ground at domestic level had not been leading to discrimination. Regarding the systematic reference to the lack of a "paternal referent," the Court disputed not the desirability of addressing the issue, but the importance attached to it by the domestic authorities in the context of adoption by a single person. The fact that the applicant's homosexuality had featured to such an extent in the reasoning of the domestic authorities was significant despite the fact that the courts had considered that the refusal to grant her authorisation had not been based on that. Besides their considerations regarding the applicant's "lifestyle," they had above all confirmed the decision of the president of the council for the département recommending that the application for authorisation be refused and giving as reasons the two impugned grounds: the wording of certain opinions revealed that the applicant’s homosexuality or, at other times, her status as a single person had been a determining factor in refusing her authorisation whereas the law made express provision for the right of single persons to apply for authorisation to adopt. The Court considered that the reference to the applicant's homosexuality had been, if not explicit, at least implicit; the influence of her homosexuality on the assessment of her application had not only been established but had also been a decisive factor leading to the decision to refuse her authorisation to adopt. Accordingly, it considered that the applicant had suffered a difference in treatment. If the reasons advanced for such a difference in treatment were based solely on considerations regarding the applicant’s sexual orientation this amounted to discrimination under the Convention. In any event, particularly convincing and weighty reasons had to be made out in order to justify such a difference in treatment regarding rights falling within the ambit of Article 8. There were no such reasons in the present case because French law allowed single persons to adopt a child, thereby opening up the possibility of adoption by a single homosexual. Furthermore, the Civil Code remained silent as to the necessity of a referent of the other sex and, moreover, the applicant presented – in the terms of the judgment of the Conseil d’Etat – "undoubted personal qualities and an aptitude for bringing up children." The Court noted that the applicant’s situation had been assessed overall by the domestic authorities, who had not based their decision on one ground alone but on "all" the factors, and considered that the two main grounds had to be examined concurrently. Consequently, the illegitimacy of one of the grounds (lack of a paternal referent) had the effect of contaminating the entire decision. The Court concluded that the decision refusing the applicant authorisation was incompatible with the Convention and that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8. Judges Lorenzen and Jebens expressed a concurring opinion, and Judges Costa, Türmen, Ugrekhelidze, Jociene, as well as Judges Zupancic, Loucaides and Mularoni, expressed dissenting opinions. These are annexed to the judgment.
February 1, 2008 15 by Sylvia Tan The ILGA-Asia board is the fourth regional board to be set up within the framework of the 29-year-old organisation after Europe (1996), Latin-America (2000) and Africa (2007). Founded in 1978, the Brussels-based network has links with some 600 member organisations in over 90 countries including 75 gay groups across Asia. Asia is currently represented on ILGA's world board by Mira Alexis P. Ofreneo of Manila-based lesbian activist group CLIC (Can't Live In the Closet) and Aung Myo Min of Committee for Lesbigay Rights in Burma which is based in Chiangmai. They were elected at ILGA's last regional conference held in 2005 in Cebu, the Philippines. Following the appointment of the new ILGA-Asia board on Sunday, Poedjiati Tan of Gaya Nusantara, Indonesia's oldest gay rights advocacy group; and Sahran Abeysundara (Equal Ground, Sri Lanka) - best known to many as being a contestant on The Amazing Race Asia - will be the new female and male representatives to represent Asia on ILGA's world board. The other eight members of the Asia board are Eva Lee (Common Language, China) and Ashley Wu (Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association) representing East Asia; Toen-King Oey (Arus Pelangi, Indonesia) and Tan, South East Asia; Abeysundara and Hasna Hena (Bangladesh), South Asia; Anna Kirey (Labrys, Kyrgyzstan) and Suki (MSM Mongolia), Central Asia; Kamilia (Institut Pelangi Perempuan, Indonesia) and Frank Zhao (Trans China) were elected to fill the vacant seats in the West Asia region (Middle East) as it did not have any representation in the conference. The 10 board members will serve a 2-year term until a new board gets elected at the next ILGA-Asia conference to be hosted by Nepal's Blue Diamond Society in 2010. The other contender Bali, which was proposed by potential host organisation Gaya Nusantara, lost by a hair's breath when a vote was taken on Sunday. Only member organisations have voting rights, while individual members are excluded from voting. According to the ILGA website, the aim of a regional conference is to provide an "opportunity for Asian activists to reflect on ways to consolidate their movement and further progress in self-organising on a regional level." Rosanna Flamer-Caldera, ILGA Female Co-Secretary-General, says that one of the main aims of establishing a regional board is to create opportunities for activists in Asia to network, pool their resources and benefit from the experiences of others who face the same challenges in their own countries. "One of the short term objectives is to have a working constitution and eventually establish a secretariat in Asia - a registered NGO working for LGBTIQ rights. My vision is for Asia to form a cohesive and strong network to fight for our rights in this region which has long been neglected," the Sri Lanka-based activist told Fridae. "Many of the countries in Asia also criminalise homosexuality so I think a concerted effort to decriminalise in many of the countries would be a primary objective of quite a few regions." She added that the key to gaining LGBT rights is having a big voice, and making it "so much bigger so that people have to take notice" and recognise equal rights for gay, lesbian and transgendered people. Prominent speakers at the 4-day conference include Dr Naiyana Supapueng from the National Human Rights Commission in Thailand and Vitit Muntarbhorn, Professor of Law at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University who also co-chaired the experts' meeting which drafted The Yogyakarta Principles, a set of principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. Prof Vitit is also a UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Attendees of the conference also heard from Aya Kamikawa, a Setagaya Ward Assembly Member in Tokyo who is the first transsexual person to seek elected office in Japan; and Kanako Otsuji, Japan's first openly lesbian politician who ran in a national election last year about mainstreaming LGBT issues at a national political level in Japan A street parade was held in the city for the first time as over 200 conference attendees, observers and members of the local LGBT community marched from the Buddhist Centre (Puttastan) to Pantip Plaza on Saturday night. More photos and reports to follow
February 1, 2008 (For full text and photos: http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=2160&viewarticle=1 ) 16 The march, which was organised in conjunction with the 4-day conference, was covered by the local media including The Nation newspaper, The Irrawaddy News Magazine and the BBC World Service. Among those present were Sunil Pant, the founder and director of Nepal’s Blue Diamond Society - an organisation that advocates the rights of sexual minorities. According to a press release issued by Pant in December last year, the Nepal Supreme Court had “issued directive orders to (the) Nepal government to ensure rights to life according to their own identities and introduce laws providing equal rights to LGBTIs and amend all the discriminatory laws against LGBTIs.” It also declared that persons of the third gender should be recognised as such. Locally termed metis, they could be pre op male to female transgenders, or persons with a gender expression that is not typical of his/her biological sex. While some members of the LGBT community have expressed discomfort about massage parlours (and gogo bars especially in the case of Bangkok Pride) prominently advertising their services during pride parades, a veteran pride parade organiser argued that any promotion of commercial services should be viewed the same way as long as the participants are supportive of the gay cause. He highlighted that while many have no reservations about the presence of blue-chip brands, the same people may balk at the presence of massage parlours, gogo bars and other businesses that cater to the gay community as their participation casts gays in a bad light. Related web sites International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission Blue Diamond Society International Lesbian and Gay Association Isis International-Manila Equal Ground Arus Pelangi Institut Pelangi Perempuan Gaya Nusantara 17 New York, U.S.A. - The United Nations Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations refused ECOSOC status to three lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups. In a tie vote, the committee recommended denial of ECOSOC consultative status to the Spanish LGBT federation, Federaci'n Estatal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales (FELGTB). It also deferred consideration of two other LGBT national federations: COC (Cultuur en Ontspanningscentrum) from the Netherlands and ABGLT (Associao Brasileira de Gays, Lesbicas, Bissexuais, Travestis e Transexuais) from Brazil which was deferred for the second time. Both NGOs will be therefore reconsidered in the upcoming NGO Committee session of May. The three organizations had applied for ECOSOC consultative status at the UN, an observer status which allows Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to participate in UN Sessions.In the January sessions of the ECOSOC NGO committee 19 countries review applications and issues recommendations that are then later approved or rejected by the full ECOSOC with 54 members. Beto de Jesus (ABGLT - Brazil) says: "Being deferred for the second time is obviously frustrating. We are looking forward to have our association become the first one coming from the Southern hemisphere to officially and permanently represent the voice of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender people in an UN forum says Beto de Jesus who represented ABGLT, a federation gathering over 200 LGBT groups in Brazil. The fact we were presented a rather long list of questions on the eve of the review of our application shows again how determined is our opposition. Joyce Hamilton (COC The Netherlands) says: "It was a shocking first experience at the UN, an organisation that is supposed to safeguard the rights and dignity of each human being. This blatant structural discrimination against LGBT organisations shows the need for a continued battle at this level. It is important to continue the dialogue with conservative member states for recognition of LGBT rights as human rights and the need for recognising diversity of the world population. Consultative status will enable COC to address the fact that the UN cannot accept a society where people are discriminated and marginalised based on their sexual orientation or identity. It most certainly has strengthened our motivation to continue the fight. "The Spanish Federation (which was also deferred previously) received a negative recommendation in a tied vote. The NGO Committee only proceeded to voting on FELGTB's application after defeating a motion by Egypt, Pakistan and Qatar to again defer their application. The motion to recommend status was defeated in a tied vote of 7 Yes, 7 No, 4 Abstain and 1 not present (voting a motion to grant which results in a tie counts as a vote not to grant). This is a big improvement from the vote on ILGA and LBL two years ago which were voted down by a margin of 9 No and 5 Yes.Voting totals on granting consultative status: Yes: Columbia, Dominica, Israel, Peru, Romania, UK, USANo: Burundi, China, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, SudanAbstentions: Angola, Guinea, India, TurkeyNot present: CubaToni Poveda and Sylvia Jaun, President and Secretary general of FELGTB had to answer over 20 questions over the organizational aspects of the association, political positions and were asked to clarify the federation's comitment to the the rights of the Child. They of course regretted that the recommendation was negative but recognize how this vote allows FELGTB to get its application to the next stage: a vote on this recommendation by the full ECOSOC in its July session.Toni Poveda (FELGTB - Spain) says: "Even getting this negative recommendation was difficult in the NGO Committee today. Representatives of Egypt, Pakistan, and Qatar constantly came up with additional questions for us and claimed that proceeding to a vote on whether or not to grant consultative status to the group - before all questions are answered - would constitute preferential treatment to this NGO. UK, Romania, and others disagreed, considering that the NGO Committee received sufficient information in order to make a decision during this session This session showed clearly how rights of LGBT's are the last frontier in the field of universal human rights". From her side, Sylvia Ja'n (FELGTB) wished to mention the major support we've had from the permanent mission of Spain in the UN. They engaged in many diplomatic conversations and read a declaration of support from the Spanish government. There is clearly a group of countries in this committee, which insists in blocking the applications of LGBT groups from one session to another, preventing them to reach the full ECOSOC where their position does not have a majority. We were succesfull in overcoming this situation but unfortunately our Dutch and Brazilian friends were not. The nature of the questions LGBT human rights defenders were asked, repeatedly trying to link homosexuality and pedophilia, simply shows how far our stubborn opposition is ready to go to put obstacles before LGBT groups on their way to recognition as members of civil society.In the concluding comments, the UK stressed that the NGO Committee discriminates against LGBT NGO applicants and that it is the right of this community to have their voice heard at the UN. Romania also regretted the outcome of the second motion and the fact that the NGO Committee "engaged in a blatant act of discrimination today," and pointed out the pattern established for LGBT NGOs to be rejected in the NGO Committee and then approved in the plenary of ECOSOC, wondering where the NGO Committee is heading with this practice.Philipp Braun, Co-secretary general of ILGA, the International Lesbian and Gay Association says: "The LGBTI community is clearly gaining ground at the UN as shown by the increased support from countries that before were hostiles to LGBTI issues. Only 2 years ago we were in a much more difficult position in the NGO Committee and even a tied vote was but a dream. ILGA wants to thank the countries that supported these NGOs in the Committee. I want to congratulate the courageous activists from ABGLT, COC and FELGTB for standing their ground at the United Nations. ILGA also wishes to thank Adrian Coman from the International Lesbian and Gay Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) for giving support to their lobbying at the Committee". Background InformationIn 2005, ILGA began its "ECOSOC Campaign", an initiative aimed at allowing LGBTI human rights defenders to address the UN "in their own name", by getting LGBTI groups from diverse countries to apply for ECOSOC status. In 2006 and 2007, after harsh and lengthy consideration by the ECOSOC, consultative status was granted to five LGBT organizations: ILGA-Europe, the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association, the Danish, Swedish and German national LGBT federations (LBL, LSVD and RFSL) and the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Quebec, CGLQ. This development has already allowed ILGA members to address the floor of the Human Rights Council (HRC) plenary, which prompted the High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour to state her support for LGBT rights in that international forum. ILGA has been facilitating the presence of LGBT activists at the United Nations Human Rights Council since 2004.
29th February 2008 18 by Tony Grew In November 2007 Archbishop Tutu told the BBC that if he believed that God was homophobic, he wouldn't be a Christian. The Nobel Peace Prize winner said he was ashamed of his church because of its treatment of gays. He said that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual head of the Anglican communion, has not demonstrated the attributes of a "welcoming God" to homosexuals. "Our world is facing problems, poverty, HIV and AIDS, a devastating pandemic, and conflict," Tutu said. "God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another. In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality." He said that the Church acted in an "extraordinarily homophobic" way during the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Asked if he still felt ashamed, he replied: "If we are going to not welcome or invite people because of sexual orientation, yes. "If God as they say is homophobic I wouldn't worship that God. It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual. You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred. It's like saying you choose to be black in a race infected society." In December he apologised to gay people all around the world for the way they have been treated by the Church. |
