gaelick » Current Affairs

UK court rules in favour of gay couple refused from hotel

click here — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:31:07 +0000

Fear not, LGBT tourists to England and Wales! For today, you may tread safely.

The Court of Appeal today upheld a landmark court ruling in favour of a gay couple refused a room by the religious owners of a Cornwall hotel.

Martin Hall and Steven Preddy, civil partners, had originally successfully sued devout Christians Peter and Hazelmary Bull for sexual orientation discrimination. In 2011 Judge Andrew Rutherford held that the refusal to admit the same-sex couple to their hotel three years earlier breached England’s equality legislation. The defendants were ordered to pay the couple £3,600 in damages.

The appeal by the owners of Chymorvah House in Marazion, Cornwall, was rejected by three judges in the court of appeal in London. The Bulls had claimed that they regarded any sexual activity outside of marriage to be a sin, and denied any discrimination on their part. They claimed that the rules of their accommodation, based on their Christian faith, was that no unmarried couples could share a double room.

The Court of Appeal agreed with original ruling that the hotel’s rule directly discriminated against Preddy and Hall, and that the couple was subjected to differential treatment because of their sexual orientation as it is not possible for a same-sex couple to marry in the United Kingdom.

The appeal judges held that religious belief does not offer an exemption from discrimination laws which apply to running a business.

The Christian Institute had funded the Bulls’ appeal. Mr Bull, 72, and Mrs Bull, who is in her late 60s, were not in court for the ruling.

John Wadham, Group Director Legal of Equality and Human Rights Commission, which acted on behalf of the successful side in the appeal, said, “I have genuine sympathy for Mr and Mrs Bull, as their beliefs are clearly strongly held. We believe that this case will help people to better understand the law around freedom of religion. When offering a service, people cannot use their beliefs – religious or otherwise – to discriminate against others.

“As the discrimination ruling has been upheld, Mr Preddy and Mr Hall are entitled to the compensation ordered by the County Court. However the Commission has no intention of enforcing its entitlement to legal costs.”

“We welcome this important decision – there is no place for discrimination of gay and lesbian travellers in the 21st Century,” says Simon Forrester founder of Further Afield, whose company curates a hand-picked collection of LGBT-friendly accommodation around the world.

He fears, however, that this case may have undermined confidence of LGBT tourists. “We know from our own research that many gay and lesbian travellers are worried about the welcome they will receive at their holiday accommodation.”

OneMillionMoms vs. Ellen and JC Penney

tabula rasa — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:00:36 +0000

You may have heard about the furore surrounding JC Penney’s appointment of Ellen DeGeneres as their spokesperson, which seems to have angered right-wing conservative groups in America.

When appointing her as spokesperson for the chain, the new CEO of JC Penney, Ron Johnson said of Ellen in a statement:

I think Ellen is someone we all trust. She’s loveable, likeable, honest and funny, but at her soul, we trust her

The most vocal of these opposition groups has been OneMillionMoms, a branch of the American Family Association. On its Twitter account the group describes themselves as:

A network of Christian moms and grandmothers taking a stand for our children who are being exploited by the entertainment industry.

This group seems to genuinely believe that the appointment of an out gay spokesperson for the store is going to tear the moral fibre of the America apart.

The statement on their website reads:

Recently JC Penney announced that comedian Ellen Degeneres will be the company’s new spokesperson. Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families. More sales will be lost than gained unless they replace their spokesperson quickly.

Unless JC Penney decides to be neutral in the culture war then their brand transformation will be unsuccessful.

Their marketing strategy is to help families shop and receive a good value for their money. Degeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store. The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended and choose to no longer shop there. The small percentage of customers they are attempting to satisfy will not offset their loss in sales.

JC Penney has made a poor decision and must correct their mistake fast to retain loyal customers and not turn away potential new, conservative shoppers with the company’s new vision.

The statement goes on to say:

By jumping on the pro-gay bandwagon, JC Penney is attempting to gain a new target market and in the process will lose customers with traditional values that have been faithful to them over all these years.

OMM further advises their members that they:

can shop elsewhere if JC Penney does not appreciate our business. Unless JC Penney decides to be neutral in the culture war and listen to customers in a considerate fashion, their brand transformation will be unsuccessful.

I didn’t even know there was a culture war! If I had known, I would have been out-gaying myself even more recently.

Seriously though, it’s worrying that in this day in age, people still think that equality and rights represent a “culture war”. It’s extrememly disheartening to see that the pervasive “them” and “us” attitude still exists, and exists very publicly with groups like this.

On even closer inspection of the OMM site, it seems that it’s not just Ellen who offends them. They also have a crusade against Macy’s Department Store who incurred their wrath with an image in a recent catalogue:

In the hopes of making sales, instead they offended many customers in the process. The back cover looks like just a regular advertisement for their wedding registry service, but there is one major difference. When you take a closer look you see the cake topper of two men instead of the traditional man and woman. The ad also includes a license plate that reads “I do” and hearts scattered everywhere. Macy’s must believe this is mainstream, but just because gay marriage is legal in a few states, this is inappropriate marketing and conservative customers will not support it.

I’m actually lost for words on this group. They are also against Modern Family, Glee, the word “hell” in kids cartoons (am I the only one who didn’t know that was considered a curse word?) and many other things that I can’t be bothered listing, as they seem to be against pretty much everything.

Ellen broke her silence on the issue a couple of days ago with this brilliantly witty statement, but a statement which still got the message across very well.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zNKTTtAXCs

She explains:

I normally try not to pay attention to my haters, but this time I’d like to talk about it cos my haters are my motivators.

And proceeded to come out to any people who may have been living under a rock:

This organisation doesn’t think I should be the spokesperson cos I’m gay … so for those of you tuning in for the first time, it’s true, I’m gay. I hope you were sitting down! I hate to break it to you this way.

She goes on to point out that:

First of all, being gay or pro-gay is not a bandwagon…you don’t get a free ride anywhere. There’s no music, and occasionally we’ll sing “We Are Family” but that’s about it.

My favourite bit of the whole statement is this:

Not that there’s anyone counting, but for a group that calls themselves OneMillionMoms, they only have 40,000 members on their page … so they’re rounding to the nearest million, and I get that.

Her final lines were very appropriate to the issue, and further demonstrates just why we all love Ellen:

I wanna be clear, and here are the values that I stand for. I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you want to be treated and helping those in need. To me those are traditional values, that’s what I stand for.

Finance Bill includes provisions for civil partners

click here — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:31:38 +0000

Yesterday the government introduced the Finance Bill 2012. The proposed legislation will be discussed today in the Dáil. “So far, so boring,” I hear you say.

Well, yes. But, in amongst the latest raft of measures implementing economic shock doctrine in Ireland, there are provisions which affect civil partners.

GLEN, not surprisingly, have cheerfully welcomed the measures as “extending equal treatment for civil partners in the tax codes”. Given the organisation’s record on how they represent civil partnerships, however, I’d be a bit sceptical and prefer to read the document and wait for the Oireachtas debates myself.

The relevant bit is in Part 6 at Section 117 (“Miscellaneous amendments: civil partners”). Unfortunately, since it’s a series of amendments, it may be difficult to make sense of it at first glance (unless you’re a tax lawyer, say).

The government’s simplified version is:

Section 117 makes a change in respect of the tax treatment of civil partners subsequent to the passing of Finance (No. 3) Act 2011. The section addresses issues in relation to maintenance arrangements for
civil partners as compared to the maintenance relief provisions for married couples.

It also places civil partnerships on the same footing as married relationships where it is accepted, that after the break-up of a relationship, often for economic reasons, persons may continue to live under the same roof.

A number of minor technical amendments identified after passage of Finance (No. 3) Act 2011 are also being dealt with.

On first glance, and with precisely no expertise whatsoever, here’s my own (probably wrong) initial assessment:

One of the amendments relates to “rent-a-room relief” and means that now if a child is paying rent to their civilly-partnerfied parents for a room in the parents’ private residence, that rental income is not exempt from income tax (within a certain upper limit).

Stay with me, now.

Another amends the law relating to “wear and tear allowances for licences for public hire vehicles“. Jesus wept. Anyway, the amendment means that civil partners are included as well as spouses in being recognised as the “beneficial owner” of the vehicle licence upon the death of their partner.

Cheery.

The next amendment appears (to this lay person’s eyes at least) to be a bit of a semantic change. The section that’s amended, however is interesting. It currently states: “in the case of civil partners where they are not living separately and apart in circumstances where reconciliation is unlikely [...]“.

“Where reconciliation is unlikely”? Really? Does anyone else remember the big deal the then Minister for Justice, Fianna Fáil’s Dermot Ahern, made about being unable to include any mention in the Civil Partnership Bill about requiring family lawyers to explore the possibility of reconciliation before pursuing a dissolution of a civil partnership?

His justification was that it would be “unconstitutional” to include such a requirement. (Please..) And yet, since the Fine Gael Labour government has come to power, the prospect or otherwise of reconciliation is important when it comes to tax law? How curious. Does anyone know if the main Civil Partnership Act has been similarly amended?

It’s a good thing, certainly, since the clause relates to children and one-parent family tax credits – but it’s still a general contradiction, isn’t it?

Moving on.

The next amendment relates to the definition of “dependent relatives”. Surviving civil partners are included as being dependent relatives. Two things, however: they can be the parent of an individual, of the parent of an individual’s husband or wife; but there is no mention of the parent of an individual’s civil partner. The dependent relative, if they are a surviving civil partner, must also have not entered into a further marriage or civil partner; there is no such restriction mentioned in relation to a surviving spouse.

(Someone please tell me I’m reading this wrong.)

(a) In this subsection ‘dependent relative’, in relation to an individual, means a relative of the individual, or of the wife or husband of the individual, who is incapacitated by old age or infirmity from maintaining himself or herself, or a person, whether or not he or she is so incapacitated, and—

(i) who is the widowed father or widowed mother of the individual or of the wife or husband of the individual, or

(ii) who is the father or mother of the individual or of the wife or husband of the individual and is a surviving civil partner who has not subsequently married or entered into another civil partnership.

The words that spring to mind are “glaring” and “galling”.

After that, there are amendments which: include children raised by civil partners in relation to retirement funds; include surviving civil partners in relation to PRSA products; again makes a seemingly minor change (though the divil is always in the detail) in relation to income tax and civil partners living separately where reconciliation “is unlikely”; and broadens the definition of “maintenance arrangement“.

There are also seemingly minor amendments to capital acquisitions tax law, which aim to include civil partners as well as spouses; and, finally, provisions setting out the times and dates from which assessments or calculations are deemed to commence.

Ain’t equality grand?

Finance Bill 2012 (as initiated, together with Explanatory Memorandum) (PDF)
GLEN’s press release

Marriage equality comes to Washington state

click here — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:59:24 +0000

Gaining marriage equality rights in one state may be considered fortunate. Gaining marriage equality in two states may be regarded as real progress.

California’s Proposition 8 ruling is, like, so two days ago. Now it’s all about the introduction of a marriage equality Bill by the Washington legislature. (Do keep up.) West coast, y’all!

The state House of Representatives debated the measure before taking a vote just before midnight Irish time. It passed by 55 votes to 43. Washington governor, Christine Gregoire, who introduced the measure has indicated that she will sign the Bill into law immediately.

With today’s vote, we tell the nation that Washington state will no longer deny our citizens the opportunity to marry the person they love. We tell every child of same-sex couples that their family is every bit as equal and important as all other families in our state. And we take a major step toward completing a long and important journey to end discrimination based on sexual orientation.

- Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire.

The New York Times reports that the Bill could be signed as early as next week, but cautions that it may not take effect right away because, well, haters gonna hate. If opponents to the law can cobble together at least 120,000 signatures, then under state law the measure will be put to a referendum.

Nevertheless, now we can add to the list of things Washington is famous for: rain, Sleepless in Seattle, Nirvana, Starbucks, and marrige equality.

This is about couples. This is about family. This is about kids. This is about love and commitment.

- Rep. Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma.

Why should their union of over 23 years not be recognized? They are committed to each other. They love each other.

- Rep. Ruth Kagi, D-Lake Forest Park, talking about her Democratic colleague, Rep. Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, and her partner, Laura Wulf.

I’m very proud of my children. I’m very proud of my two sons. And they deserve the same rights and privileges that their brothers and sisters have. We have to have equal rights.

- Rep. Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney, D-Seattle, speaking about her two gay sons.

Congratulations, Washingtonians!

Quotations via AP/Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Sligo LGBT Soc protest againsts Lucinda Creighton with “marriage ceremony”

Jen — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:00:42 +0000

Correction/Clarification (10th February 2012 at 3:15pm):

At the time of writing, it was believed that Lucinda Creighton had lodged a complaint to IT Sligo regarding the protest which took place on Monday last. It has since come to our attention that this was not the case, and that no such complaint was made.

ENDS

Speaking of marriage equality, on Monday Lucinda Creighton was scheduled to arrive at a seminar in Sligo IT called European Economic Policy – What’s in it for Ireland?

In February of last year Creighton caused uproar when she was criticized for her thoughts on marriage equality. She tweeted:

I think marriage is primarily about children, main purpose being to propagate & create environment for children to grow up. Its a good policy for society to support male/female marriage imo. I think civil partnership should ensure gay couples r treated fairly and justly re tax inheritance etc & recognition by the State But marriage is different.

The LGBT community and allies across the country voiced their rage and urged Enda Kenny to fire his then “equality spokeswoman”, while Fine Gael covered their tracks by stating they were Creighton’s own views and had nothing to do with the party.

So when the LGBT Society at Sligo IT heard about Creighton’s trip to the college they got their thinking caps on and immediately decided that they were going to make their presence felt and show Creighton that they were there, they mattered, and the fight for their right to marry was still going as strong as ever.

The staged marriages took place at the Salmon of Knowledge statue in the college grounds. The gay, lesbian and straight couples read vows and said their “I dos”. Shortly after this Lucinda Creighton arrived at the college while the LGBT society moved to the balcony to take photos.

Sarah O’Riordan, secretary for the ITS LGBT society said:

She showed up and we had one of our couples holding the flag. She averted our gazes completely. We kept silent, and went inside to stand on the balcony, and take photos, and they stood just to the left and attempted to pay no attention to us.

Sarah asked all in attendance to remember that this year Irish MEPs (Mary Lou Mcdonald , Bairbre Dé Brún,Padraig Mcloughlin,Toiresa Ferris, Kathleen Funchoin, Dan Boyle, Fiachra O Luain) signed the Be Bothered pledge which asked that:

…politicians remember to uphold their promises to the LGBT community, to uphold the fight for equal rights in the LGBT community, and to promise for the next twoand a half years to work 110% to make that difference.

Sarah’s speech concluded with:

We are all fighting for something in life, we are fighting for equality, four our rights, and it is a battle that never stops.

Creighton was not oblivious to the ITS peaceful protest against her presence in the college. Before she left she apparently lodged a complaint against the ITS LGBT Society. That didn’t dampen their spirits, however, and the couples enjoyed their ”honeymoon” in the local with a few pints and smiles all round.

California’s Proposition 8 deemed unconstitutional

click here — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:03:55 +0000

Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.

It’s LGBT History Month in the UK, but it was across the Atlantic that history was being made yesterday.

A court in the United States ruled yesterday on the validity of California’s Proposition 8, the referendum proposal which introduced a ban on marriage equality in the state.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in San Francisco, issued its ruling at 10am local time (6pm Irish time). It stated that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional as a matter of US federal law.

Although the [US] Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.

The Court’s ruling can be read here (pdf). The AP has some excerpts from the ruling here. The National Center for Lesbian Rights has issued a statement. There’s also an easy-to-understand analysis here.

Although strident in its language, the Court confined itself to a narrow issue: it did not address the question of the right to marry or equality for same-sex couples in general. Rather, the court looked at the particular circumstances which arose in this case.

California had already introduced marriage equality before the proposal to ban same-sex marriage was introduced, and eventually passed by voters.

The Court ruled that this measure, removing a right which had previously existed, was unconstitutional.

Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the state, or any other authorized party, an important right — the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.

Does the ruling have any implications for Ireland? Well yes and no and maybe (but mostly no).

Irish courts can have regard to judgements from other countries, although such judgements are not binding.

The circumstances of US case don’t arise in the Irish context: although the Fianna Fáil-led government introduced legislation in 2004 to ban marriage between same-sex couples, Ireland hasn’t already expressly provided for equality.

(Compare Spain, however: there, the previous Socialist government introduced marriage equality, but before recent elections, the conservative Partido Popular pledged to remove such equality. It remains to be seen whether the current Spanish government will follow through with this election promise and, if they do, whether such a move will stand up to EU and/or European human rights laws.)

The case being taken by Senator Katherine Zappone and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland is currently awaiting a hearing date from the Supreme Court. Before Christmas, they were unsuccessful in including a challenge to the 2004 legislation, but in theory the legislation may be open to challenge.

Although the US ruling relates to different circumstances, some of the points it makes may well be relevant to the Irish situation.

14 year old girl asks Maryland to vote “No” on marriage equality for her birthday

Jen — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:00:06 +0000

A video of a 14 year old girl asking the people of Maryland to vote “No” on marriage equality went viral yesterday on Buzz Feed. She spent her birthday with the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee and made her birthday wish to lawmakers. She said:

Today is my 14th birthday and it would be the best birthday present ever if you would vote NO on gay marriage. I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender. Even though some kids think it’s fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on. I don’t want more kids to get confused about what’s right and okay. I really don’t want to grow up in a world where marriage isn’t such a special thing anymore.

It’s rather scary to think that when I grow up the legislature or the court can change the definition of any word they want. If they could change the definition of marriage then they could change the definition of any word.

People have the choice to be gay, but I don’t want to be affected by their choice. People say that they were born that way, but I’ve met really nice adults who did change.

So please vote no on gay marriage. Thank you.

The recorded birthday message sounds obviously scripted. A girl of fourteen does not come up with these opinions on her own, so what kind of parents must she have? It’s truly sad to hear a fourteen year old voice her homophobia so blatantly whether she’s being influenced or not.

I posted the YouTube video on Facebook and immediately people were commenting on the video, voicing their outrage. Darragh Horgan said:

Definitely a sense of moral questioning going on, “whats right and okay“, plenty of things are not right and ok, but they are ongoing in the world at present and dont heed any obstruction. The only difference is, this threatens people’s understanding of the society they are in, and more importantly brings the recognisation of anyone who fails to fufill a heteronormative role into question as a second class citizen.

Paul Bostock said:

“But i think marriage should be between opposite genders and children must experience a mum and a dad” What bullcrap. When it comes to marriage and family it’s love and stability that matter, not gender. I still can’t believe the amount of “not-in-love” people that get married and screw up their kids time and time again and are allowed preference over a gay couple that’ll happily love and care for their children and for each other. The whole thing sickens me.

On ThinkProgress where the original ‘news flash’ was posted, a comment beneath the recording said:

For her to be abused that way by her anti-gay parents constitutes a form of child abuse. “People have the choice to be gay,” she says “but I don’t want to be affected by their choice.” The only way she is being “affected” by gay people is that her parents are teaching her to hate them.

For all of the people who have moved on from their prehistoric homophobic views, there seems to always be somebody waiting to challenge the progress that has been made, and what a disgrace it is when adults are still influencing the next generation of kids to be just as homophobic and ignorant as they are.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Tsr7rz9Og

Trans* people could be barred from flying in Canada

tabula rasa — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:16:05 +0000

As you may or may not have read this week, it seems that under current travel regulations in Canada, transgender individuals can be prevented from merely boarding a plane. In a recent post, I wrote about the violations of every day rights faced by T* identified people, and this is a prime example.

This story was first reported by Christin Scarlett Milloy who highlighted the relevant section of the Identity Screening Regulations:

5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if
(a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph

(b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents

(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents

Damn it Canada, you used to be cool! This revelation comes hot on the tails of the widespread confusion over marriages of same-sex couples performed in Canada (for more see CanuckJacq’s post ) The current conservative government seems to be doing their best to remove any sort of “LGBTQ heaven” image that Canada has. These travel regulations were set in place by the Conservative Minister of Transportation, Denis Lebel, and the full set of regulations can be rea here (.pdf). As you can see, they further state:

(2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an air carrier may transport a passenger who presents a piece of photo identification but does not resemble the photograph if

(a) the passenger’s appearance changed for medical reasons after the photograph was taken and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact

With that section they are demanding that a Trans* person carry a medical document with them when they travel, which is a pretty unfair onus of responsibility to be putting on anyone-travel is stressful enough without having to remember a doctor’s letter, or more to the point, without the added stress of having to go to see a doctor to obtain the relevant document, which will probably also cost a lot of money, just for the appointment. And what then of the T* people who would not be able to obtain said documentation?

As Christin Milloy also points out in her blog post, summing it up better than I could ever hope to:

So for non-operative transgender persons, for gender nonconforming (genderqueer) persons, and for the vast majority of pre-operative transsexual persons, it is literally impossible to obtain proper travel documentation marked with the sex designation which “matches” the gender identity in which they live.

This is obviously a ridiculous situation for people to be left in, and even though there’s be no reports that anyone has been stopped so far, I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s a worrying precedent. It’s my second “Is this real life?” moment in under a week… I’m going to hide under a duvet now, wake me up when the world makes sense again.

There is a petition that you can sign if you want to take action.

Belong To launches LGBT refugee & asylum seeker project

click here — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:30:04 +0000

If you or anyone you know would like support and information from the Belong To LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees project, you can contact them by phone (01-670 6223) or by email (john@belongto.org)

This morning BeLonG To Youth Services launched their LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees Project.

BeLonG To created the Project to make life better for young asylum seekers and Refugees who may be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

BeLonG To has found that in several cases, young people in the refugee determination process come out after their initial arrival into Ireland, and therefore after their initial claim for asylum has been lodged.

There could be a number of reasons for this.

Think about it: largely, the countries where LGBT people are persecuted are countries where officials are corrupt and/or the police routinely violate the human rights of those they are meant to protect.

It may not be surprising, then, for someone who has lived their lives in that society to be fearful of disclosing their sexual orientation or gender identity to officials in Ireland.

Consider, too, the situation of separated children under the age of 18 years. The very fact of their young age may mean they haven’t come out to themselves, let alone disclosed this fact to anyone else.

I know I certainly didn’t seek support until my final year in school, and didn’t disclose to my peers until some time after that.

Significantly, if a person who applies for refugee status is perceived by the determining authority to have “changed their story”, this will almost certainly be viewed as undermining the applicant’s credibility.

A culture of disbelief permeates Ireland’s refugee status determination procedures at every level as it is.

Without proper training for the relevant officials, a person who discloses or comes out after the initial application for refugee status has been made will effectively be regarded as either simply a liar or someone who is introducing new information as a way to “enhance their claim”.

It is important to bear in mind, too, what happens when a separated child turns 18 while they await the outcome of their asylum claim.

A separated child is one who is in Ireland and is been placed in the care of the HSE as soon as they come to the attention of the authorities here. Usually nowadays the child resides with a foster family and has the support of a HSE social worker and/or project worker.

As soon as they turn 18, however, they leave the care of the HSE and are placed in one of the hostels housing adult asylum seekers.

In other words, they leave the constant safety and support of their adult carers. Although they will normally have an “after care plan” with the HSE, these young people are suddenly placed in a new environment where the possibility of hostile attitudes towards LGBT people is very real.

Even if a young LGBT person overcomes the hurdles of disclosure, coming out, establishing their credibility with the authorities, adjusting to their living arrangements – all while trying to carry on as normal an existence as possible, incluing pursuing studies and receiving any possible medical treatment they may need – they still must contend with simple ignorance and failure to correctly apply the law in their cases.

A refugee is someone who is outside of their own country, who fears persecution – in these cases on the grounds of being LGBT, or being perceived as such – and whose own country is unwilling or unable to protect them.

The recent report, Fleeing Homophobia, found that there have been a number of cases involving people who identify as gay which were refused notwithstanding the fact that homosexuality is criminalised in their countries of origins. It also found inconsistencies where some applicants from a particular country – e.g. Kenya – were declared to be refugees whereas others were refused.

The same report found that Ireland often refuses asylum on the basis that if the applicant is “discreet” in his or her country of origin no persecution will arise.

This is despite the fact that a leading ruling regarding LGBT asylum seekers states clearly what approach is required in cases involving LGBT asylum seekers. In short, a person cannot be expected to conceal their sexual or gender identity in order to avoid persecution.

The court stated:

When an applicant applies for asylum on the ground of a well-founded fear of persecution because he is gay, the tribunal must first ask itself whether it is satisfied on the evidence that he is gay, or that he would be treated as gay by potential persecutors in his country of nationality.

If so, the tribunal must then ask itself whether it is satisfied on the available evidence that gay people who lived openly would be liable to persecution in the applicant’s country of nationality.

If so, the tribunal must go on to consider what the individual applicant would do if he were returned to that country.

If the applicant would in fact live openly and thereby be exposed to a real risk of persecution, then he has a well-founded fear of persecution – even if he could avoid the risk by living “discreetly”.

If, on the other hand, the tribunal concludes that the applicant would in fact live discreetly and so avoid persecution, it must go on to ask itself why he would do so.

If the tribunal concludes that the applicant would choose to live discreetly simply because that was how he himself would wish to live, or because of social pressures, e g, not wanting to distress his parents or embarrass his friends, then his application should be rejected. Social pressures of that kind do not amount to persecution and the Convention does not offer protection against them. Such a person has no well-founded fear of persecution because, for reasons that have nothing to do with any fear of persecution, he himself chooses to adopt a way of life which means that he is not in fact liable to be persecuted because he is gay.

If, on the other hand, the tribunal concludes that a material reason for the applicant living discreetly on his return would be a fear of the persecution which would follow if he were to live openly as a gay man, then, other things being equal, his application should be accepted. Such a person has a well-founded fear of persecution. To reject his application on the ground that he could avoid the persecution by living discreetly would be to defeat the very right which the Convention exists to protect – his right to live freely and openly as a gay man without fear of persecution. By admitting him to asylum and allowing him to live freely and openly as a gay man without fear of persecution, the receiving state gives effect to that right by affording the applicant a surrogate for the protection from persecution which his country of nationality should have afforded him.

The Secretary of State should, of course, apply the same approach when considering applications of this type. Although I have, for the most part, concentrated on the position of gay men, the Secretary of State and tribunals should approach applications concerning lesbian women in the same way.

(The man who wrote this seminal judgement, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, sadly passed away almost exactly one year later, on 26th June 2011, following a brief illness. His same principles were later applied, separately, to a case relating to religious belief.)

The BeLonG To Project aims to develop best practice for inclusion of LGBT asylum seekers and refugees in those statutory and voluntary services which work with either asylum seekers and refugees or LGBT communities, and which have a focus on youth and young adults.

BeLonG To will offer training and capacity building to this end. The organisation will also provide direct support to LGBT asylum seeking and refugee young people aged 14-30 years through its Project Youth Worker, John Duffy.

The Project draws on advice and feedback from key partners in the statutory and NGO sectors. Training Workshops will soon be launched, and in December 2012 there will be a seminar and report published. The Project will be completed in January 2013.

The LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees Project is co-financed by the European Commission under the European Refugee Fund (ERF) and is supported by the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration in the Department of Justice and Equality, by Pobal and by the HSE.

Speakers at this morning’s launch included:

Sophie Magennis, Head of Office, UNHCR Ireland
Sue Conlon, CEO, Irish Refugee Council
Dr. Nazih Eldin, Director, HSE Health Promotion Office, Dublin North East
Patricia Brazil, Barrister and the Averill Deverill Lecturer in Law at TCD / National Expert for Ireland to the European Fleeing Homophobia Project

For any further information, please contact the Project Coordinator, Marissa Ryan.

Ireland to Host European Transgender Forum

Gooner — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:00:15 +0000

Later this year Ireland will have the honour of hosting Europe’s largest forum on transgender rights and activism. This prestigious event, the European Transgender Forum, will take place in Dublin City University over the weekend of September 7th to 9th. The forum has taken place biannually since 2006 and will be attended by policy makers and activists from across the continent.

TGEU Executive Director Julia Ehrt has said of the event:

The Council is very important for the European trans movement. Right now there is real momentum for trans human rights across Europe. The European Transgender Council provides a vital space for trans activists to come together and instigate real change. We are very happy to have a reliable partner in TENI to jointly organize this important event

Transgender Equality Network of Ireland (TENI) are to be congratulated for this honour as it was their bid that won the council over. TENI Director Broden Giambrone was kind enough to take some time with me to react to this wonderful news, saying

TENI participated in past councils, and found them really valuable for learning and networking. Meeting up with hundreds of activists from across Europe, you can’t help but open up to the possibilities of what can be achieved. When the call came round for potential hosts, we had to bid for it!

Bringing the TGEU Council to Ireland is a fantastic opportunity for us. We can showcase what’s going on here – both the progress and the challenges. The Council participants are at the forefront of trans human rights. The Council will offer trans allies in Ireland the chance to connect with a larger movement and see – in an international context – what direction trans rights are headed. Dr Lydia Foy first asked for a revised birth certificate in 1993, and Ireland remains one of the last EU countries to legally recognise trans people. With such a long, slow struggle, you can feel like you’re in the trenches, fatigued and isolated. Turning the spotlight to Ireland is going to draw support for our work. It should refresh us.

Obviously, we want to use the Council to highlight the upcoming Gender Recognition Legislation. This is a key moment for Ireland: this Government can pave the way for progressive gender recognition legislation, and ensure that future generations can thrive in a progressive society that celebrates diversity.

As Broden says, Ireland is one of the last EU countries to legally recognise trans people. The current criteria within the legislation recommends that couples be forced to divorce before one of them can legally transition. They are so afraid of any kind of alternative family structure that they want to force people to divorce, and here I thought it was 2012! Baring in mind that in Ireland couples have to live apart for years before being granted a divorce, this would be devastating to many couples who wish to remain together.

Bringing the forum to these shores is bound to highlight the struggle for trans rights in this country and congratulations to Broden and everyone at TENI for this feat.

Locker room bigotry

tabula rasa — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:29:51 +0000

A few days ago, pinknews.co.uk posted this story, which was was subsequently picked up by the Huffington Post . The story originated from a video produced by LGBT Youth North West in England. In the video, a young lesbian talks about how she was forced to use the boys changing rooms by her P.E teacher, who told her

You’re not attracted to lads so you have to get changed there.

I cannot even imagine how hard this situation was for that girl. She was left with no alternatives by this teacher, as she also says

When I was in P.E., I couldn’t get changed in the girls’ toilets or the locker room or anything, so I had to get changed with the lads.

This is obviously completely unacceptable behaviour from anyone, but it’s worse coming from a teacher, as they are the people supposed to protect you from bullying and victimisation while you’re in school. When I first read this story, and watched that video, I was in total disbelief. Seriously….what the actual fuck was that teacher thinking??

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASgFOtyK-w0

Looking back, I was subconsciously aware of my sexuality at around 13. However, I pushed it to the back of my mind and refused to deal with it, finally admitting to my out gay best friend in TY that maybe I might be bisexual. He kept that to himself thankfully, and I again pushed it to the back of my mind, not to be dealt with again till I kissed a girl for the first time in 6^th year.

We managed to keep that very quiet, and I didn’t come out until college. I sometimes wonder if I should have come out sooner, but on the whole I’m glad I didn’t, I don’t think it would have gone down well in my convent school in a small town. I’m lucky that I got to avoid situations like the ones described by the young people in that video, because I was given the space by the people who knew about my sexual orientation to come out in my own time, unlike many of these young people who trusted someone who then spread it around the school.

I think a lot of the problem comes down to lack of education surrounding LGBTQ issues on behalf of both the pupils and teachers. I know there’s the SPHE programme now for secondary school students, but that wasn’t there when I was in school…When I was there, the only time sex and sexuality was discussed was in religion class, and even at that it was skimmed over so quickly the pages blurred! And that wasn’t that long ago either, I did my leaving cert on ’06!

Perhaps if LGBTQ issues were more openly talked about in schools, and a safer environment to come out in was created, situations like the ones experienced by those young people wouldn’t happen as often. We need to get young people in schools talking about the coming out process, and why you should never out someone. The message needs to be put out there in schools that just because someone is gay, does not mean that they are automatically attracted to everyone of the same gender.

Born This Way?

CanuckJacq — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:00:58 +0000

So everyone’s all annoyed at Cynthia Nixon because she said that being gay is her choice. Maybe it is. Why are we so ready to jump down her throat over it?

“I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out.”
New York Times

Although it’s catchy, from a thoughtful perspective, I’ve never much liked the Lady GaGa anthem “Born This Way”. Mostly because, despite being hyped as this super-progressive tune, she allows it to be chopped up to appease censors for the radio and television, and then talks about LGBT being ok because some “god” made us this way. No thanks. We don’t need some god’s permission to be who we are.

Tabula Rasa and Sinead wrote recently about people who identify as “queer”, and in a lot of cases you’ll find that we do identify that way because the LGBT labels are restrictive (not just to yourself, but also for your partner). I quite liked Michael Urie’s comment on why he calls himself queer.

When asked what letter in LGBTQ he identifies himself, Urie says Q, for queer.

“I’ve been in a relationship for a while now, and if you just met the two of us together we’d be ‘gay,’ ” he explains. “But that somehow means anything that happened before [we met] didn’t count—and I don’t feel that way. I know that some people feel that way. They were with women, but it always felt wrong. But it didn’t for me. It felt right at the time. It didn’t work out, but it also didn’t work out with other men—many times. That’s why ‘gay’ never seemed right.”
The Advocate

There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that sexuality can and does change — not by force or anything, but a lot of people come out late in life, having been reasonably happily opposite-married for years. For years, we’ve ascribed all those to conforming to societal expectations, but it’s possible they all weren’t. They’re not always willing to say that those relationships were lies.

I remember this interview with Glee’s Chris Colfer on a fansite. He was asked when he knew he was gay. He answered:

I think high school, but I find out new things about myself every day.
Gleefan.com

It seems like it should be a natural fact that we change and evolve in many ways throughout our lives. The fact is, however, that most of our early advocates relied heavily on the argument that gay people are born irrevocably gay. The argument is “How can you criminalise someone for how they were born?”. It’s what they call “biological determinism” and it relies on the argument that somehow, we just can’t help ourselves.

In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way. I have dated both men and women in the past, and when I’ve been with men, I never had to lie back and think of Megan Fox. I still notice attractive men on the street and on television. If I were terrified of the stigma associated with homosexuality, it would have been easy enough to date men exclusively and stay in the closet my whole life.
The Atlantic

The problem with accepting the “born this way”, or biological determinism argument, is that we are then required to accept all others of the kind. So if someone says they were just born horribly violent and racist, well, we have to accept them too, right?

This is where discernment enters the picture.

You know, if someone turned to me tomorrow and said, “Hey, great news, Jacq, I can make you straight,” I’d punch their fucking lights out. I’m happy being queer. I’m not very happy with the world around me, but I’m happy with me, and my marriage and my life. Why would I change that? I wouldn’t care if they had empirical evidence of an out and out “cure” for the gay. I don’t want it. I’m making that choice right now. Nothing to do with how I was born. Everything to do with not thinking that being queer is a bad choice to make.

So in many ways, I think my queerness is a choice. If I had really wanted to, I could have married a guy and had a samey-wamey life that wouldn’t have made me particularly happy. My job proves that it’s possible to exist in less than ideal situations without entirely losing the plot. So I chose to be happy, to pursue the people I wanted to be with, the culture and subcultures of my choice. And no, I probably wouldn’t have chosen this if I wasn’t in some way predisposed to be attracted to women, but if someone else does, I don’t really mind.

At the end of the day, our message needs to change. No more “oh, poor us, we were born this way and just can’t help ourselves.” How about “It’s a legitimate lifestyle. It doesn’t hurt anyone and makes a whole lot of people really freaking happy.” Can’t we just leave it there? Does it matter if we were “born this way”?

So that Canada thing, eh?

CanuckJacq — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:00:38 +0000

I’ve had a funny week. At one point, my government started talking about my marriage not being valid. Not forced divorce, as some people were interpreting it, but it having never actually existed at all.

Now, I have plenty of things that prove a marriage took place and exists. We have wedding bands. We have a bad video and lots of awful photographs. Then there’s the marriage certificate and the licence we applied for from abroad.

Now the whole thing was cleared up pretty quickly – probably less than 24 hours, in fact, from the time the news starting doing the rounds on all the LGB blogs. The Justice Minister made a blanket assurance that the government would introduce legislation to ensure that our marriages are valid. Aw, gee, guys, thanks. (they also blamed the Liberals — who introduced marriage equality — for leaving this loophole for them to abuse).

Pardon me if I’m not suitably impressed. Shall I ask my parents when’s the last time someone questioned the validity of their marriage? And yet we were married in the same city, 30 years apart.

The coverage of the whole thing was dizzying. It’s one thing to want a divorce. It’s another thing to have some jerk federal lawyer tell you your marriage never existed at all. But that’s what happened to the couple currently seeking to divorce.

I spoke to a few law type friends when this all happened. It all happened so quickly, I was left with a kind of whiplash and confusion.

There was a lot of coverage of government people talking about a “rogue federal lawyer” who apparently, came up with this all on his own.I’ve been reliably informed by someone who has done his job in the past that “going rogue” as a federal lawyer is about as easy as running a record mile in 3 feet of water.

And this is what leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This wasn’t the action of one dopey federal lawyer. It was the argument of the government’s lawyers, who represent the government, and this argument went through an approvals process. How many people in that office think it’s ok to fuck around with our marriages for the sake of a legal argument?

Since the Conservatives came into power, they’ve been pretty careful about silencing their homophobic voices. It seems impressive, until this happens and you realise that all they’ve been doing is PR. They’ve been quieting the opinions but not getting rid of them. So while they don’t say stupidly homophobic things in the press anymore, it doesn’t mean they don’t wish that Canada was not a beacon of equality in the world.

And whatever happens, things like this will never stop feeling like a warning.

Transgender Girl Scout incites panic among Christian right

Gooner — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:00:17 +0000

I was never in the Girl Scouts, not really my thing as a kid. It involves being social and talking to people, not the forte of this card carrying geek. My sister was in it though and her daughter now proudly tells me all about her various badges every time I visit, it’s beyond cute.

Traditionally the organisation is about teaching girls to think beyond the traditional role of the woman by imparting leadership skills and greater respect for themselves.

With this in mind I was delighted with the response the organisation gave to a recent debacle in Colorado. A 7 year old girl, Bobby Montoya, who was assigned male at birth, was refused membership. After consideration the group then changed their stance, in a press release they said

Girl Scouts is an inclusive organization…if a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.

Well done, it’s never to late to do the right thing. However, true to form the Christian right have had a most distasteful response to this progressive stance.

A boycott of the cookies sold by the Scouts was called for by, Taylor, a 14 year old girl in a rant that doesn’t bear repeating. She takes this opportunity to promote a group called the Honest Girl Scouts – how’s your blood pressure there? Though the roof yet? I mean come on, get over yourself. She talks about a “true all-girl experience”. Your ignorance is showing Taylor.

It gets worse! The notion that trans girls are “boys passing themselves off as girls” in order to hurt the girls is deeply unsettling. What are they saying, that Bobby, who is going through a level of self discovering and expression that is nothing short of inspirational at such a young age, is somehow trying to incite violence against women. Come on! What’s next, a campaign saying that the Girl Scouts are leading kids towards homosexuality? Give me a break.

Taylor is 14, lets hope she grows up and learns a little about life. However, I don’t have any hope for the fundamentalists behind her type of rant. Sadly, they are intent of using this brave little girl in Colorado as some kind of target.

Well done to the Scouts in Colorado for not allowing the exclusion of this brave girl and lets hope many more troops follow suit.

“Vote Against” Project in North Carolina

Gooner — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:54:16 +0000

We gays do a good campaign don’t we? It Gets Better, NOH8 and so on.

To be fair to our community, most LGBTs really want a way to come together and try to make a difference and when given a platform we can outdo ourselves. The latest in this distinguished list is the North Carolina “Vote Against” Project.

Some background for you: on 8th May next the folks of North Carolina will vote on a ban on same sex marriage. While most places are voting on recognising rights, these people have to stand up and speak just to keep things the same and prevent their work for marriage equality taking a major step in the wrong direction.

Last September a rally was held in Raleigh, NC, to oppose the legislature’s vote to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Sadly, however, the amendment passed and now attention must go to getting as many no votes as possible, but what exactly would this mean to LGBTs in North Carolina?

According to the Vote Against website the amendment does the following:

In addition to prohibiting same-sex marriage, as state law already does, the Amendment would:

prohibit North Carolina from ever passing legislation that would grant civil unions;
bar the state from instituting domestic partnership rights;
strip the domestic partner insurance benefits currently offered to employees by a number of local governments.

It’s hard to fathom in this day and age that people still have to stand up against this kind on nonsense, but there it is.

Curtis Brown is a Raleigh-based photographer who has started the project which captures images of people wearing “vote against t-shirts”, much like the NOH8 campaign started by Adam Bouska in California.

Brown is even going on tour around the states to facilitate the participation of as many people as possible. You just have to commend people like him: well done to Curtis and all his volunteers. Let’s hope the vote goes the right way and this kind of backwards step is prevented by a large majority.

New Anti-Marriage Equality Argument in Canadian Court

CanuckJacq — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:00:39 +0000

Yesterday, Canada’s Globe and Mail published a story stating that lawyers, on behalf of the Canadian Government, were set to argue that a same-sex marriage contracted between two non-residents was never a valid marriage in the first place, and thereby decline to allow a divorce.

The particular case involves two women in their thirties, who married in 2005 and now are seeking a divorce. In Canada, a divorce is only possible following 1 year’s residency in Canada, even though it is possible to marry without any residency requirements.

The couple are challenging the residency requirement in a Charter case.

The argument to be put to the court in February — by government lawyers — is that if two people marry in Canada but are ineligible to marry in their jurisdiction of residence, the marriage is invalid. If this argument succeeds, the couple will not require a divorce because they will be deemed to never have been married, along with about 5000 other non-resident couples since 2004.

“In this case, neither party had the legal capacity to marry a person of the same sex under the laws of their respective domiciles – Florida and the United Kingdom,” Mr. Gaudet stated. “As a result, their marriage is not legally valid under Canadian law.”
Federal Lawyer, Sean Gaudet, Globe and Mail

So far, the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has said that his goverment is not interested in reopening the debate on marriage equality and asserts he was not aware of the details of this case.

From an Irish perspective, this could have a devastating impact on the Zappone/Gilligan case if they are deemed to have never been married at all. My own marriage would also be affected.

Regardless of outcome, it’s a harsh reminder that the fight is never over. Our rights, even where they are recognised, appear to be endlessly vulnerable.

I will have another post with analysis shortly.

LGBT milestones of 2011

click here — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:31:05 +0000

Here’s another article from one of our new writers, Niamh Ní Mhaoileoin. Happy New Year!

2011 has been celebrated as a great year for the LGBT community. Of course, as long as severe inequality persists, it’s difficult to wholeheartedly agree that it was a great year. We’ve seen setbacks for marriage equality in Ireland, homosexuality still criminal in 76 countries around the world, lesbians tortured in anti-gay clinics in Ecuador, the LGBT community drastically suppressed in Russia, and gay teenagers everywhere still being tormented by homophobic bullying.

All the same, 2011 has certainly upheld that crucial message; that it gets better. So, grab a cup o’ kindness and we’ll run through some of the achievements of the LGBT movement in 2011.

1. Civil Partnership

Ireland rang in the New Year with the Civil Partnership Act, which came into effect on 1st January 2011, granting considerably enhanced rights to co-habiting partners, including gay couples. On 4th April, Hugh Walsh and Barry Dignam entered into the first publicly celebrated partnership under the Act.

On 5th March, the Taoiseach outlined the government’s intentions for a constitutional convention, including a provision for discussing marriage for same-sex couples. While the parameters of the convention remain unclear, the mention of marriage equality in the Programme for Government shows that gay rights have become something of a legislative priority. As Iarnród Éireann would put it, “We’re not there yet… but we’re getting there”.

2. LGBT Representatives in the Oireachtas

The number of openly gay Oireachtas members has quadrupled in 2011. In February, Dominic Hannigan and John Lyons of the Labour Party became the first openly gay TDs in the history of the State. David Norris, despite the upsets in his presidential campaign, held the Trinity seat he’s been fighting from for the last 24 years.

Finally, in a real triumph for the LGBT community, for women, for men, for children, for Human Rights, for Ireland, for the world, the solar system and the universe… the visionary Dr Katherine Zappone was appointed to the Senate at the request of the Táiniste.

3. Born this Way

Like it or not, Gaga’s anthem, released on 23rd May, was the soundtrack of gay 2011.

Gaga is a leader in a powerful popular campaign for equality that’s taking place on people’s TVs and iPods, and in their tweets, hearts and minds.

4. Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

On 20th September, the United States finally repealed the insidious, twenty-year old ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, which prevented LGBT people from serving openly in the military. At last, the army that professes to fight for freedom around the world afforded this most basic freedom to its own soldiers.

Last month the full adorable implications of the change were embodied by the ‘first kiss on land’ between Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta and Petty Officer 3rd Class Citalic Snell.

5. Hillary Clinton’s Speech

In the months since the repeal of DADT, the Obama administration has dramatically altered its foreign policy relating to gay rights. This shift culminated in Hillary Clinton’s ground breaking speech in Geneva on December 6th, urging the world’s leaders to afford LGBT people “the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity.”

6. President Higgins

On 29th October, the election of Michael D. Higgins as the 9th President of Ireland was another victory for progressive, tolerant Ireland.

This feminist, human rights activist and LGBT ally is a true successor to the Marys Robinson and McAleese in the struggle to dismantle “the noxious apparatus of homophobia”.

7. International leaders support marriage equality

Around the world, the cause of Marriage Equality has been gaining momentum. In the UK, David Cameron has pledged that his government is now committed to discussing “how, not if” to implement full civil marriage for LGBT couples, and to have the legislation in place within the lifetime of the current parliament. The ruling Australian Labour Party also adjusted its platform to support full marriage equality.

In the USA, President Obama at last took a stronger stance on gay marriage, and voicing his support for the ‘Respect for Marriage Act’, which will invalidate DOMA. While many of the prospective Republican candidates for 2012 are virulently anti-gay, with Obama onside we’re promised a fair fight. Well, as fair as a fight can be when one side is clearly right.

8. Marriage equality in New York

On June 24th, just in time for a particularly joyful Pride, New York passed its Marriage Equality Act, becoming most populous state yet to legalise full gay marriage.

The first wedding in Manhattan was a real tearjerker, taking place between Phyllis Siegel, 77, and Connie Kopelov, 85.

9. Progress on homophobic bullying

Horrifying stories of gay bullying and suicide continued to emerge this year, most memorably that of 14-year old Jamey Rodemeyer, an out 14-year old activist and blogger. However, it seems that although change comes dropping slow, change does come.

In December, Ireland’s own Belong To were held up as role models at a UN conference in Rio, dedicated specifically tackling homophobic bullying as human rights abuse.

10. The UN’s first resolution on LGBT rights

This year the UN Human Rights Council passed a specific resolution supporting LGBT rights for the first time in its history. The resolution expresses “grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.”

While the resolution has no binding effect, it is a milestone in that it reflects an international shift in values. Its opponents are concerned that the Resolution will force countries to legalise homosexuality and recognise marriage equality. Here’s hoping that they’re right.

Have we missed anything important? Add your 2011 milestones in the comments!

Ron Paul’s newsletters uncovered

Gooner — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 06:00:30 +0000

Ron Paul is one of the many that make up the list of GOP candidates who are hoping to take on Obama in 2012. Among other positions, he sits on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs and Financial Services, as well as on the Joint Economic Committee. Paul is thought of as one of the serious contenders for the Republican ticket but is, like most of the others, staunchly right-wing. So it gave me great pleasure to see, yet again, that his old newsletters are being dug up for another read.

The New Republic has found some of his newsletters from the 1990s which are both racist and anti-gay. I have read some of his racist comments before and have long been amazed that he has risen as high as he has. Scary to think people like him get votes, but there you go.

The newsletters in question were named Ron Paul’s Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, Ron Paul’s Freedom Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. He had a staff of ghost writers but I can’t accept any argument that he didn’t know what was being published under his name. Sentiments like:

I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.

Not forgetting that among other things I won’t repeat, Paul said of the great Martin Luther King Jr.:

We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.

I’m not making this up. I couldn’t.

Of course us gays are also on his list, writing in 1994 that:

those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.

Don’t forget, this guy is a doctor, he worked as an obstetrician and gynecologist in the 60′s and 70′s. This makes statements like the above truly dangerous.

In 1990 he published another gem:

I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.

Aw, how nice of him. It was easier for us to be in the closet, less pressure, how thoughtful!

I could literally go on and on filling pages with quote after quote but I won’t infuriate you any more. Where the hell do they get these candidates? I feel for Americans. Anyone with even the smallest amount of intelligence and sense of civic duty has no choice in the 2012 Presidential election, they have to vote Democrat. Let’s hope Obama makes it to 2016, I don’t think even Bush could be scarier than some of the current Republicans.

I’d vote for RuPaul before I’d even think of endorsing Ron Paul and I hope the majority see this as a “no brainer”.

14 year old girl asks Maryland to vote “No” on marriage equality for her birthday

Naughty and nice

HAL — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:00:05 +0000

We all know that you’d better watch out, stop bawling and for god’s sake lose the pout or you’ll have nothing in your Chrissy sock. If you’ve been a good little Gaelicker, you may now preen; those of you who were bad can fight for a spot on the naughty step.

It turns out that Santa Claus has a lesbian working in the toy factory and, even though she didn’t win the Secrets Ireland hamper, she has taken some time out of her busy schedule to tell us who will get a pressie from the big man this year.

Ryan Murphy

Naughty or nice - You have been a very good boy this year, bringing us gaylords and lezbots aplenty, so you can relax and count your monies this Christmas season.

Watch out – Don’t get too cocky though, we see small fissures in the land of Glee. More Santana, less Finn and that ridiculous Irish fella and my sack will be all yours next year. Wait…..that sounded….

Irish People

Naughty or nice – Ah sure how could you be anything but lovely, look at ya with your rosy, red cheeks. Plus, time after time, you have shown that you support LGBT rights. In every poll run this year, you were all on for full gay marriage rights. As long as there’s a free bar.

Watch out – Make sure in 2012, that you don’t spend so much time counting the pennies that other things are forgotten. Human rights aren’t a luxury.

Irish Government

Naughty or nice – Naughty doesn’t cover it, you bunch of lazy numpties! The only thing you work hard at are covering your arses and filling your coffers. New government, same crap. Who do you represent, coz it isn’t those lovely Irish people we just spoke about.
If Santa gave you coal, you’d probably put it in the shed just in case, instead of giving to those people with no fuel allowance.

Watch out – Toika, Merkozy and the IMA; not exactly three gift-bearing entities, eh?

David Norris

Naughty or nice – Much more nice than naughty, David. You are still a joy to behold and continue to inspire, educate and represent with a flair all your own. Who knew that voters prefer Dobbin to wizards?

Watch out – Just think twice before writing any letters, m’kay?

Americans

Naughty or nice - Lord there are a lot of you aren’t there? Some of you are just fabulous and will be getting all manner of lovelies from Santa this year. You have allowed LGBTs equal rights in a few places, so well done you. You others? What on earth are you thinking? As much as the effort is appreciated, you really don’t have to entertain the world with the hilarity of lunatics. Here I sit in Lapland/The North Pole and each day I read more about this Bachmann person or that Mitt individual, and I think “are they serious?”. Then I remember that you couldn’t possibly be, you couldn’t really want these non-witches and spineless folk to actually run your country. Ho, ho, ho what am I thinking! Funny people you Americans.

Watch out - If you can’t vote for, vote against.

Gaelick Readers

Naughty or nice – Oh ladies (and some lads) you have been nice when naughty and naughty when nice, a trick only you can achieve. Look for a silicon present under your tree. If it’s not there, I may be because I didn’t win the effing Secrets Ireland competition!!! Bitter? Not me….

Watch out - Just continue to be you, comment lots and always feel free to write an article or two. I hear those editors are a nice enough bunch.

BeLonG To’s example leads first ever UN meeting on homophobic bullying

click here — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:15:52 +0000

This just in from the absolute heroes that are the Belong To crew:

Over the course of the last week, BeLonG To Youth Services participated in the first ever UN level consultation on tackling homophobic bullying worldwide.

The event culminated in the drafting of ‘The Rio Statement‘, which was issued by the representatives of twenty five LGBTQ organisations present at the conference. Simultaneously, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon issued a ground breaking statement calling on governments globally to combat homophobic bullying.

Speaking on his return from the Rio meeting, Michael Barron, Executive Director at BeLonG To Youth Services said:

The Rio Statement on Homophobic Bullying and Education for All represents very important progress in our battle to end homophobic and transphobic bullying against LGBT young people throughout the world. As UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon states, this bullying represents a ‘grave violation of human rights’ and it is vital that all countries tackle this issue.

BeLonG To’s work to end homophobic bullying in Ireland was identified as best practice at the Rio meeting, and will be included in a United Nations toolkit which will be made available to governments and civil society organisations around the world who work to end what former President Mc Aleese referred to as ‘the noxious apparatus of homophobia‘. This follows from the recent endorsement of our work in this area from Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe.

Michael continued:

It was a great privilege to represent BeLonG To and Ireland at this first global UN consultation on homophobic bullying. What is clear is that we are making very good progress in this area in Ireland. In particular I would like to commend the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the Department of Education, and the HSE’s National Office for Suicide Prevention for their progressive work in recent years.

But this is no time to be complacent. Homophobic bullying is an issue of huge urgency and continues to have devastating effects, including school drop-out, drug use and suicide, on young people here in Ireland.

In light of these important actions from the UN, we urge the government to reprioritise action to support LGBT young people. No young person should have their human rights and safety violated because of who they are.

Belong To: web / fb / twitter / youtube