• 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On 20th September, the United States finally repealed the insidious, twenty-year old ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, which prevented LGBT people from serving openly in the military.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!

Related posts:

1. BeLonG To’s example leads first ever UN meeting on homophobic bullying
2. LGBT Noise – March for Marriage 2011
3. I, like, like that you like this: Your fave Facebook links of 2011

Today, 10th December, is International Human Rights Day. Human Rights Day commemorates the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That was 63 years ago. Following a year of protest in many countries, from Tunisia to Cairo to the Occupy movement, Human Rights Day 2011 recognises the significance of social media and technology in assisting human rights defenders in new ways.

The Declaration was written and signed in the aftermath of World War II, and sets out the fundamental principles of what we today recognise as human rights. It forms part of the world’s bill of rights.

One of the key architects of the Declaration was the feminist and humanitarian, Eleanor Roosevelt.

Early life

A New Yorker, she was born in 1884 in Manhattan to a wealthy and privileged family. As a young adolescent she was orphaned, and was thereafter raised by her maternal grandmother. In her late teens, she was sent to a private school in England, where the head teacher was the feminist Marie Souvestre.

At 17 years of age, she was introduced to New York society (as you do), and shortly afterwards met a distant cousin, Franklin, who she would marry three years later (on St Patrick’s Day), and who himself would later become President of the United States.

During the 1920s, Eleanor became involved in the Democratic party. Franklin’s infidelities resulted in Eleanor further developing her strength of character and self-reliance, and his physical disability led to her developing her growing active role in politics. It was Eleanor who introduced her husband to the party, eventually resulting in his election as president in 1932.

Roosevelt was active in the Women’s Trade Union League, and campaigned on behalf of other Democratic candidates. She also taught literature and history at a private prep school for girls.

In 1928, Eleanor Roosevelt met journalist Lorena Hickok, with whom she formed a close relationship over the course of several years. (See also.)

Hickok was a cigar smoking, poker playing Wisconsonian, who had carved out for herself a career in journalism – which, in the early 1900s was an almost exclusively male domain. While in New York, she worked for the Associated Press and was sent to cover Eleanor Roosevelt’s life and engagements.

During World War II, Hickok lived in the White House. After the war and following Franklin’s death, she moved to the Roosevelt estate in Hyde Park, New York.

Research into their private correspondence reveals the intimacy of the relationship between Eleanor Roosevelt and Lorena Hickok.

Roosevelt addressed Hickok as “Hick darling”, and wrote:

I want to put my arms around you & kiss you at the corner of your mouth.

I can’t kiss you, so I kiss your picture good night and good morning!

How good it was to hear your voice… Jimmy was near & I couldn’t say “je t’aime et je t’adore” as I longed to do but always remember I am saying it & that I go to sleep thinking of you.

Hickok wrote:

Oh, I’m bad, my dear, but I love you so…. At times life becomes just one long, dreary ache for you.

I’ve been trying today to bring back your face. Most clearly I remember your eyes, with a kind of teasing smile in them, and the feeling of that soft spot just northeast of the corner of your mouth against my lips.

After Franklin’s election as president in 1932, Eleanor transformed the role of First Lady. She continued with her activism and speaking engagements, travelling to various locations during the Depression. She began a syndicated daily newspaper column, “My Day”, which ran for 26 years, as well as writing numerous articles and books.

It was at Hickok’s suggestion that Eleanor began holding her own press conferences open only to women reporters. This gave credence to women in the field and provided a forum for issues of concern to the First Lady.

During a time of segregation, Eleanor Roosevelt was an advocate for the African-American civil rights movement.

The war years

In 1941, with fascist power at its peak, Roosevelt was among the founders of Freedom House, an independent which today continues to support democratic change, monitors freedom, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

In 1943, she visited wounded soldiers in the warzones of the South Pacific. In 1944, she embarked on a diplomatic mission to improve relations with Latin American nations.

Eleanor formed a resilient and complex partnership with her husband. She learned how to use her position as political activist, First Lady, and Presidential confidante to promote issues of concern to her. She was adept at operating productively within the constraints of her public position.

Post-war

Following the death of Franklin in April 1945, Eleanor continued her work advocating for civil rights and equalilty. Her husband’s successor, Harry Truman, appointed her as a delegate to the UN General Assembly, which was first convened in January 1946. She was the first chairperson of the fledgling UN Commission on Human Rights, which first met in December 1946.

She was instrumental in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She was the driving force in its unanimous adoption by the General Assembly’s members: 48 countries voted in favour, 8 abstained, none opposed it. This was a remarkable achivement at the beginning of the Cold War era.

Roosevelt described the Declaration as “the international Magna Carta of all mankind”.

And so it remains.

Eleanor Roosevelt and Lorena Hickok remained close until Eleanor’s death in 1962. Following Eleanor’s death, a distraught and ailing Hickok was absent from the funeral. Instead, a minister drove her close to the cemetery near midnight so she could say goodbye in private and leave wildflowers at the grave.

Hickok died in on 1st May 1968 in a cottage on the grounds of the Roosevelt estate. Her funeral rites in 1968 were witnessed only by an undertaker. No friends claimed Hickok’s ashes and they eventually, after two decades, they were buried alongside other unclaimed remains at an unmarked grave on the back edge of Rhinebeck Cemetery in the Hudson Valley.

Related posts:

1. Human Rights: Hillary Clinton’s speech to the UN
2. LGBT milestones of 2011
3. World AIDS Day 2011

Tomorrow, 10th December, is International Human Rights Day. If you haven’t yet seen Hillary Clinton’s speech to the UN in Geneva this week, here it is.

My advice is to set aside 30 minutes to sit down and fully listen to the whole speech. Even better, while listening, read through the transcript. (I’ve pasted it below.)

The key message in the speech is that human rights are universal and indivisible, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, and that there are no exceptions to that (including religious, political or cultural considerations).

To be honest, before I heard/read it, in my head I let out a massive groan. I was wary of the US basically (once again) telling the world about the need to respect the rights of LGBT people – especially given the backlash over the decision of the UK and US to make aid conditional on vindicating the rights of LGBT people, and given it’s own not-exactly-great record on LGBT rights.

The speech is quite cleverly written, however. It seeks to pre-empt accusations of westernisation, neo-colonialism or American imperialism, and relies on comparisons with women’s equality and the abolition of slavery, as well as making reference to initiatives and progress made by Majority World nations. And it also directly addresses the US’s own shortcomings.

(Although, perhaps predictably, there has been angry reaction from some quarters.)

Have a listen and have a read.

Also: Today, at 9:30am (New York time, so that’s 2:30pm Irish time), the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, will be answering questions about human rights during a live webcast.

Secretary Clinton’s Speech to the United Nations on LGBT Human Rights

Good evening, and let me express my deep honor and pleasure at being here. I want to thank Director General Tokayev and Ms. Wyden along with other ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, and UN partners. This weekend, we will celebrate Human Rights Day, the anniversary of one of the great accomplishments of the last century.

Beginning in 1947, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a declaration that would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. In the aftermath of World War II, many nations pressed for a statement of this kind to help ensure that we would prevent future atrocities and protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people. And so the delegates went to work. They discussed, they wrote, they revisited, revised, rewrote, for thousands of hours. And they incorporated suggestions and revisions from governments, organizations, and individuals around the world.

At three o’clock in the morning on December 10th, 1948, after nearly two years of drafting and one last long night of debate, the president of the UN General Assembly called for a vote on the final text. Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none dissented. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.

In the 63 years since the declaration was adopted, many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality. Step by step, barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity have fallen away. In many places, racist laws have been repealed, legal and social practices that relegated women to second-class status have been abolished, the ability of religious minorities to practice their faith freely has been secured.

In most cases, this progress was not easily won. People fought and organized and campaigned in public squares and private spaces to change not only laws, but hearts and minds. And thanks to that work of generations, for millions of individuals whose lives were once narrowed by injustice, they are now able to live more freely and to participate more fully in the political, economic, and social lives of their communities.

Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.

This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors.

Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do. South Africa’s constitution, written in the aftermath of Apartheid, protects the equality of all citizens, including gay people. In Colombia and Argentina, the rights of gays are also legally protected. In Nepal, the supreme court has ruled that equal rights apply to LGBT citizens. The Government of Mongolia has committed to pursue new legislation that will tackle anti-gay discrimination.

Now, some worry that protecting the human rights of the LGBT community is a luxury that only wealthy nations can afford. But in fact, in all countries, there are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other, whether they are women, racial, or religious minorities, or the LGBT. Former President Mogae of Botswana pointed out recently that for as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS. Well, that holds true for other challenges as well.

The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn’t cultural; it’s criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.

In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing.

Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who’ve justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.

The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so.

Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all.

Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it.

But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.

Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn’t until he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee. Likewise, some worried in my country that the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have a negative effect on our armed forces. Now, the Marine Corps Commandant, who was one of the strongest voices against the repeal, says that his concerns were unfounded and that the Marines have embraced the change.

Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. We need to ask ourselves, “How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?” This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding.

A fifth and final question is how we do our part to bring the world to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Yes, LGBT people must help lead this effort, as so many of you are. Their knowledge and experiences are invaluable and their courage inspirational. We know the names of brave LGBT activists who have literally given their lives for this cause, and there are many more whose names we will never know. But often those who are denied rights are least empowered to bring about the changes they seek. Acting alone, minorities can never achieve the majorities necessary for political change.

So when any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot sit on the sidelines. Every time a barrier to progress has fallen, it has taken a cooperative effort from those on both sides of the barrier. In the fight for women’s rights, the support of men remains crucial. The fight for racial equality has relied on contributions from people of all races. Combating Islamaphobia or anti-Semitism is a task for people of all faiths. And the same is true with this struggle for equality.

Conversely, when we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won’t suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. Right here in Geneva, the international community acted this year to strengthen a global consensus around the human rights of LGBT people. At the Human Rights Council in March, 85 countries from all regions supported a statement calling for an end to criminalization and violence against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

At the following session of the Council in June, South Africa took the lead on a resolution about violence against LGBT people. The delegation from South Africa spoke eloquently about their own experience and struggle for human equality and its indivisibility. When the measure passed, it became the first-ever UN resolution recognizing the human rights of gay people worldwide. In the Organization of American States this year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBT people, a step toward what we hope will be the creation of a special rapporteur.

Now, we must go further and work here and in every region of the world to galvanize more support for the human rights of the LGBT community. To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten, or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear – I am not saying that gay people can’t or don’t commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay.

And to people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home – the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms, and offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are.
And finally, to LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people.

The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work. And in the coming months, we will provide every embassy with a toolkit to help improve their efforts. And we have created a program that offers emergency support to defenders of human rights for LGBT people.

This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. Government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the President has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination, and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons.

I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs, and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it.

The women and men who advocate for human rights for the LGBT community in hostile places, some of whom are here today with us, are brave and dedicated, and deserve all the help we can give them. We know the road ahead will not be easy. A great deal of work lies before us. But many of us have seen firsthand how quickly change can come. In our lifetimes, attitudes toward gay people in many places have been transformed. Many people, including myself, have experienced a deepening of our own convictions on this topic over the years, as we have devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay.

This evolution is evident in many places. To highlight one example, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality in India two years ago, writing, and I quote, “If there is one tenet that can be said to be an underlying theme of the Indian constitution, it is inclusiveness.” There is little doubt in my mind that support for LGBT human rights will continue to climb. Because for many young people, this is simple: All people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their human rights respected, no matter who they are or whom they love.

There is a phrase that people in the United States invoke when urging others to support human rights: “Be on the right side of history.” The story of the United States is the story of a nation that has repeatedly grappled with intolerance and inequality. We fought a brutal civil war over slavery. People from coast to coast joined in campaigns to recognize the rights of women, indigenous peoples, racial minorities, children, people with disabilities, immigrants, workers, and on and on. And the march toward equality and justice has continued. Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well.

I know that the thoughts I’ve shared today involve questions on which opinions are still evolving. As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights. We are called once more to make real the words of the Universal Declaration. Let us answer that call. Let us be on the right side of history, for our people, our nations, and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today. I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together. Thank you very much.

Related posts:

1. Human Rights Day 2011: Eleanor Roosevelt
2. BeLonG To’s example leads first ever UN meeting on homophobic bullying
3. LGBT milestones of 2011

Holy fucking shit.

I received the below in my inbox yesterday from change.org, and there’s nothing else to say, so I’m just reproducing it here. You can take action by clicking on the links.

[Trigger warning: The following contains descriptions of violence including sexual violence.]

Paola Ziritti is unthinkably brave to speak publicly about the “clinic.” She endured physical assault, sexual abuse, and a constant battery of insults. Guards would even throw buckets of cold water and urine on her. For two years, this was Paola’s waking nightmare – because she’s a lesbian. The “doctors” and guards at the clinic were trying to “cure” her.

Paola lives in Ecuador, where these so-called clinics are terrifyingly common — although the government shut down 27 this year, 180 clinics remain open, and most of the prisoners there are women. Gay men and trans* people are also held in the clinics, although far fewer.

Paola’s parents knew they were sending her to a forced confinement clinic, but they had no idea how awful it would be. Once Paola’s mother realized what she’d done, she tried to get her daughter back, but the clinic said no. The process to free Paola took a year.

A few incredibly courageous Ecuadorian women are fighting back — they call themselves Fundacion Causana. The women of Fundacion Causana started a petition on Change.org demanding that Ecuadoran Minister of Public Health Dr. David Chiriboga Allnut investigate and shut down all 180 remaining clinics that torture women to “cure” them. Please sign the petition now.

Fundacion Causana does direct-service work on the ground to save women from the clinics, but they say it’s not enough. They need the unbridled support of the Ecuadoran government to get all of the clinics shut down.

So far, the government has only shut down a small cluster of clinics in one region of the country. Ecuador’s government officials need to know that we are watching and will not stand idly by while women are imprisoned and tortured.

Please sign Fundacion Causana’s petition demanding that the Ecuadoran Minister of Public Health investigate and shut down every “clinic” that tortures members of Ecuador’s LGBT community:

• Sign the petition : Ecuador’s Minister of Health: Close “clinics” that torture LGBT people to “cure” them

• Fundación Causana : On change.org / Blog / Facebook

Related posts:

1. LGBT milestones of 2011
2. Human Rights: Hillary Clinton’s speech to the UN
3. Lesbians of leisure: happenings in March

UPDATE (2:50pm): Michael D Higgins has now passed the quota required to be elected President of Ireland. Final result expected at 4:15pm.

UPDATE 2 (6pm): You can now view Michael D Higgins’ speech in Dublin Castle on RTÉ.ie in full here.

The reign of the Marys (I & II) may have ended, but Ireland now welcomes into Áras an Uachtarain a man who is amongst other things a feminist, LGBT ally, intellectual and human rights activist. The Irish Times carries a profile of Michael D by Paul Cullen in today’s paper which is worth reading.

At the time of writing, the final results of the Presidential election are yet to be formally confirmed as we await the fourth and final count of votes to be completed, but Michael D Higgins comfortably won around 40% first preferences of the valid vote, and is picking up transfers by the hundreds of thousands, seeing off his main rival Seán Gallagher and the other five presidential contenders.

Earlier in the year, Higgins wished a Happy Pride to various Pride festivals, including Galway and Dublin. In 2007, when he was then a sitting TD, he spoke passionately in favour of equality for same-sex couples during Dáil debates around the then short-lived Civil Unions Bill.

Here’s an example of the man’s passion for the cause of equality:

EPIC.

Flickr slideshow via the official Michael D. Higgins campaign website.

Related posts:

1. Congratulations, Senator Zappone
2. Norris for President
3. LGBT milestones of 2011

During the past week – due to the chance that a person may have been in Syrian custody, and therefore may have been at risk of torture – the ‘Amina’ hoax diverted the energies, time and resources of international human rights organisations, journalists, and the US State Department, among others, from the events actually taking place in Syria. And it has placed activists within Syria at greater risk of harm.

Although the damage caused by the ‘Amina’ hoax to activists and ordinary civilians in Syria cannot be undone, it’s possible to consider some options to take action. For instance:

• You can help by simply writing a letter: Syrian brothers held by intelligence agency (Amnesty International)

• Or read about what’s happening in the region

• Find out about LGBT rights around the world

Why consider these options?

Over the past seven days, thousands of refugees have fled Syria into Turkey; civilians in the town of Jisr al-Shughur were shelled and attacked by their own government; that same regime razed and destroyed civilian homes and crops in what has been described as a “scorched earth policy”. There have been reports of mass graves, arbitrary and extrajudicial executions, abductions, mass arrests, torture (including the torture and killing of children), and more. Meanwhile, the world prevaricates as horse-trading continues at the UN.

As I wrote in my initial article last week:

Even before the widespread protests began in Syria, the regime there readily targeted anyone they perceived to be a threat to its power. In late 2009, Tal al Mallohui – a child, aged 17 years – was taken from her home and eventually convicted by a security court – in secret, with no disclosure of the evidence against her, with no defence lawyer and with no possibility of appeal – to five years imprisonment. She was accused of “divulging information to a foreign state”. She is also a blogger, and wrote poems and essays that focused on the suffering of the Palestinians, restrictions on freedom of expression, and her hope for peace in the Middle East.

Before her conviction, Tal was detained for nine months without contact with the outside world. Her parents were then allowed to visit her once. Since her conviction, she has been detained in solitary confinement and is not allowed any visitors. Her family, like Amina’s, is a prominent family in Syria, with one of Tal’s family members having served as a minister for the father of current president Bashar al Assad. Tal’s family were terrified of the possible repercussions if human rights organisations intervened on her behalf, and instead sought to deal privately and diplomatically with the regime.

Last week, Human Rights Watch published a report on violations in Syria since this year’s protests. The report focuses on the area around Daraa, but reflects the wider situation in Syria.

The only appropriate word is merciless.

The report confirms the Syrian regime’s abduction, torture and killing of children – some as young as 10 years of age. If you have been following events in the country, you will have heard of Hamza al Khatib, the 13 year old child whose horrifically mutilated body was returned to his family after he was detained by the authorities.

The report also describes widespread abductions of Syrian citizens: these include targeted abductions (of activists, organizers of the protests, medical personnel, and people who tried to document the events in Daraa, as well as their family members) and arbitrary “sweeping” abductions. Witnesses describe torture of detainees “without exception”

Remarkably, there are people who find this whole scenario amusing: that a white, middle-aged American man pretended to be a Muslim woman of colour, and Syrian-American lesbian. There are people who would rather make punchlines about this instead of focusing on the point:

Everything about this hoax undermines and discredits ordinary people and activists who are in Syria, and who are working to improve their country at massive risk to their lives and the lives of their family members – whether they are LGBT activists, anti-regime activists, or both. The hoax, in fact, has assisted the Syrian regime.

Related posts:

1. Amina Abdallah Araf al Omari
2. The Amina hoax: “You took away my voice”
3. Ecuador “using torture clinics to ‘cure’ lesbians”

One was our poll asking whether people would agree with the Irish government deporting (non-Irish) LGBT people to countries where same-sex acts are criminalised.

There was also our article on the removal of any reference to sexual orientation from a UN resolution on extra-judicial executions. This despite the fact that several independent experts have reported to the UN about the grave abuses perpetrated in particular against LGBT people.

Yes, human rights – or, more accurately, human rights violations – are quite topical for us who are dykes, queers, faggots, deviants, possessed, witches, criminals, unnaturals, against God’s law, et al. There remain countries in the world where this is how we are viewed, including scores of countries where we are criminalised for who we are, and in six of these the penalties include execution.

When LGBTs flee such countries to seek asylum, will we get protection? How does Ireland treat asylum seekers who fear persecution because of their sexual orientation or gender identity?

Unfortunately, it’s not just in far-away countries that LGBTs are threatened. Problems in Europe – including in Ireland – persist. Added to the worrying events of recent years (just look at Bulgaria, Lithuania, Russia), there are some very sinister developments.

Europe

In Sweden, a lesbian couple who applied for refugee status has been threatened with deportation to Iraq. If returned, the women fear (among other things) that they may be subjected to so-called “honour killings”. In a bid to prevent the women being removed by the Swedish authorities back to Iraq, an emergency application was made to the European Court of Human Rights (under its “Rule 39″ procedures) to put a hold on their removal pending their cases being examined by the Court.

It is up to the Swedish government to honour the Court’s request and not return the women. The matter is ongoing, and only one of the women has received confirmation that she will not be deported, for now.

In the Czech Republic, gays – that is, gay men – are being subjected to “gay tests”. This is not a joke. Some refugee claimants who base their application on the grounds of their sexual orientation have been put through “phallometric” tests: the men are shown straight porn videos and, well, their anatomical responses are measured. The Czech government has defended the procedures.

The EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency has strongly criticised the practice. According to PinkNews:

The FRA said the practice violates international human rights laws which prohibit torture and inhumane or degrading treatment. It may also violate provisions around the right to a private life.

In addition, it questioned whether asylum seekers could consent to the test if refusal is taken as proof of lying.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has stated that:

self-identification as LGBT should be taken as an indication of the individual’s sexual orientation

I’d bet my next pay-cheque that no asylum applicant anywhere in the world, ever, has had their sexual orientation called into question when they’ve claimed to be straight.

Ireland

In Ireland, there is very little information in the public domain about the treatment of LGBT asylum seekers here. Although Gaelick is aware of cases where worrying decisions have been issued refusing refugee status – and at least one case where a deportation order has been signed – the anecdotal evidence available cannot be disclosed to protect individuals’ identities and to ensure their privacy and safety.

Amnesty Ireland’s LGBT group brought our attention to one case in the media, however. Last month, a gay man – who was an unaccompanied child at the time of his initial application for refugee status in Ireland – won his challenge to a deportation order signed by the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Dermot Ahern. The only problem is that the deportation order was issued in 2009, and the deportation was subsequently carried out and the man was returned to his country of origin.

The Evening Herald reported:

The man, who cannot be identified and is referred to as ‘A’, was deported last year after several other challenges were rejected.

Mr Justice Sean Ryan yesterday [12th November 2010] quashed the Minister for Justice’s decision of July 28 last year to refuse to revoke his deportation order for the man.

The man is still in Nigeria and yesterday’s decision does not mean he can come back to Ireland until the minister re-considers his decision, legal sources said.

In Nigeria, same-sex activity is a federal criminal offence country-wide. In individual states in the north of the country, Shari’ah law also applies. Elsewhere the majority of people practice various forms of Christianity, often mixed with elements of traditional religions including juju. Therefore, not only are there serious criminal sanctions in place, but societal attitudes are very strongly opposed to homosexuality.

How many other LGBT asylum seekers have been deported to unsafe countries where they may face torture, death or other forms of serious harm? Perhaps our next poll question should be: Why is Ireland deporting LBGT people to countries where they are criminalised and persecuted?

Persecution and seeking international protection: the good and the bad

A couple of months back, Orange wrote about developments in refugee cases, where asylum seekers were challenging through the UK courts refusals they received in their refugee applications. The refusals were issued with the reasoning that if those people returned to their countries were “discrete” (i.e. if they concealed their identities, or remained closeted) that would be an acceptable way for them to avoid being persecuted. The countries we’re talking about here are – wait for it – Cameroon and Iran. Iran.

Thankfully, the developments developed and sanity prevailed when the UK Supreme Court ruled on the matter in July of this year. (The court’s decision is equally applicable in Ireland, as human rights and refugee law is basically the same worldwide.)

The key part of the ruling emphatically dismisses the idea that lesbians or gay men should in any way conceal their identities and not “flaunt” who they are, or that they are required to be discreet. The ruling essentially boiled the correct approach down to a number of questions:

• When someone claims they fear persecution because they are gay, does the evidence indicate they are, or might be perceived to be, gay?

• If so, does the evidence show that “openly” gay people in that country may be persecuted?

• If so, what would this claimant do if returned to the country?

• If s/he would live openly and therefore be at risk of persecution, then s/he is a refugee – even if s/he could avoid the risk by living “discreetly”.

• If, however, s/he would live discreetly, the question must be asked why they would do that.

• If s/he would live discreetly simply because that his how s/he wishes to live, or because of social pressures (e.g. not wanting to distress or embarrassment to family or friends) then s/he is not a refugee.

• If, however, the reason for living discreetly is because of a fear of persecution, then s/he is a refugee.

The court explained:

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 [Refugee Convention] exists to protect – his right to live freely and openly as a gay man without fear of persecution.

It is that simple.

Related posts:

1. Altering your sexual orientation
2. Human Rights: Hillary Clinton’s speech to the UN
3. The Kaleidoscope Trust

Dr. Lydia Foy with her solicitor, Michael Farrell, of FLAC

Yesterday afternoon, word was excitedly spreading that the Irish Government had withdrawn its appeal against the 2007 High Court decision which held that the Irish State had breached the European Convention of Human Rights by refusing to allow for the applicant–Dr. Lydia Foy, a transgendered person–to obtain a birth certificate reflecting the sex appropriate to her gender.

At the time the Government decided to lodge the appeal, it was regarded as a particularly callous move since the European Court of Human Rights had already found the UK to have breached the European Convention of Human Rights in a challenge on the same grounds in Goodwin v UK [2002]. Since the legal status of transgendered people was no better in Ireland than it was in the UK at that time, Ireland knew that the European Court judgment meant that the Irish State would either have to catch up and remedy the gaps in protection for its transgendered people, or else face a similarly expensive and unnecessary case before the European Court of Human Rights. Furthermore, the UK then introduced the Gender Recognition Act in 2004–before the 2007 High Court decision–but the Irish State remained defiant and determined not to be influenced by the developments of our closest neighbours. In fact, the continuance of the appeal has been something of a anomaly since the publication of the Renewed Programme for Government back in October 2009. On page 19 of the renewed programme, the Government pledges to introduce gender recognition legislation during the life of the current government:

“We will introduce legal recognition of the acquired gender of transsexuals.”

Now that the Government has dropped its appeal, the State must fulfill the requirements laid down under section 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act 2003. Namely, the Taoiseach must lay a ‘Declaration of Incompatibility’ between Irish law and the European Convention of Human Rights before the Seanad and the Dáil within 21 working days of the Houses of the Oireachtas. This declaration specifically must state that the High Court found that Irish law as it currently stands is incompatible with the Convention. The Irish state must now also take action to afford recognition of a transgender person’s new identity or face the ignominy of being reprimanded bythe European Court of Human Rights.

Dr. Foy first initiated proceedings against the State in 1997 and, 13 years later, much work still needs to be done in order for the State to vindicate the rights of transgendered people. The first steps for such work have been taken and on May 6th, an interdepartmental gender recognition advisory group met for the first time and is expected to make proposals for legislative reform within six months to the Minister for Social Protection,  Éamon Ó Cuív (although, interestingly–and maybe tellingly–not to the Minister for Justice & Law Reform, Dermot Ahern). The terms of reference for the group outline the following heads of a future Bill:

• a process for legal recognition of the acquired gender of persons suffering from gender identity disorder who have made transition from one gender to another.
• to set up a gender recognition register for such persons. The certificates issues by this register should be indistinguishable from birth certificates and not refer to the fact a person has acquired a new gender.
• an entitlement to transsexuals to marry in the legally recognised reassigned gender.

The working group and future legislators will hopefully carefully scrutinise and consider the experience of other nations and their transgendered citizens in developing its response to the vacuum in legal protection and provision for transgendered people in Ireland. In particular, the Government would be well-advised to avoid the temptation to carbon-copy the UK’s Gender Recognition Act 2004 into Irish law. An unsavoury aspects of the UK’s response include the forced divorce or annulment of marriages and the forced dissolution of civil partnerships. It is a mystery why this particularly harsh and intrusive feature was included rather than a simpler clause converting one institution to the other. An alarming and saddening aspect of most states in recognising gender reassignment is the requirement for genital surgery to have taken place. The latter criticism is the most contraversial as in many instances it amounts to mandatory sterilisation. In devising the approach it will take in addressing the human rights deficiencies identified in the Foy case, those charged with developing and implementing Irish provisions for gender recognition ought to heed the principled concluding remarks of Justice William McKechnie’s judgment in the Foy decision:

“Everyone as a member of society has the right to human dignity, and with individual personalities, has the right to develop his being as he sees fit; subject only to the most minimal of State interference being essential for the convergence of the common good. Together with human freedom, a person, subject to the acquired rights of others, should be free to shape his personality in the way best suited to his person and to his life.

All persons by virtue of their being are so entitled.”

…Somewhat related news from the UK today

• Woman who had sex change wins legal right to pension at 60 (guardian.co.uk)

Related posts:

1. Irish support same-sex marriage
2. Mayor’s remarks aren’t going to stop Moscow Pride

The countries – including Egypt, Sudan, Qatar, Pakistan, China, Russia, Angola and Burundi – are members of a committee in the UN who decide which non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can be accredited to the UN. Other countries on the committee who supported the NGO include the US, the UK, and Romania. Turkey abstained from the vote.

(It’s not clear how the remaining committee members voted: Colombia, Cuba, Dominica, Guinea, India, Israel and Peru.)

[update]
Sara in the comments tells us of how the remaining committee members voted: Colombia, Israel and Peru voted against the motion of no-action. Guinea & Cuba voted for it. Dominica was absent when the vote was taken. India abstained.
[end update]

The IGLHRC (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission) was seeking accreditation to the important Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The vote has prevented the committee from making a decision on accepting the IGLHRC’s accreditation. Accreditation allows organisations to make representations to the UN on human rights issues within their expertise.

Reuters quoted the head of the IGLHRC:

“IGLHRC is disappointed by the vote of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations to block action on our application,” Cary Alan Johnson, head of the New York-based group, said in a statement to Reuters.

[...]

Johnson said it was “a clear case of discrimination against an organization because it defends the human rights of LGBT people around the world and promotes non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Radio Netherlands Worldwide has an audio interview with Johnson, here.

[update 2]
The LGBT Intergroup, a committee of the European Parliament, made the following statement to Gaelick via Twitter:

We deplore conservative countries’ attitude; we count on EU countries to further help IGLHRC get the consultative status.

[end update]

The UN was was established as a result of World War II and its atrocities, including the atrocities perpetrated against minorities, the marginalised, and political dissedents, among others; and following the relatively short-lived League of Nations (itself set up following World War I). Eleanor Roosevelt played a crucial role in the formation of the UN, and was instrumental in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The records of those trying to halt the work of the IGLHRC on gay rights are pretty appalling.

In Egypt, homosexual behaviour is not specifically criminalised. Since the beginning of this century, however, the authorities have used “Public Order & Public Morals” laws dating from the 1990s to persecute homosexuals. Famously, the authorities raided a boat party on the Nile in Cairo, charging 52 men with violating vaguely-worded laws, such as “violating the teachings of religion”, “propagating depraved ideas”, “contempt of religion” and “moral depravity.”

Sudan jailed a woman, Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, in 2009 after she refused to pay a fine for wearing trousers. Earlier in the same year, several women who were arrested with her were subjected to “lashes” for the same supposed crime. The laws in Sudan are based on Shari’ah. The penalty for homosexual behaviour is death.

The death penalty is also applied in Qatar for same-sex relationships between both males and females.

In Pakistan, homosexuality is outlawed under both colonial laws which remain in force, and under Islamic laws. Islamic law applies particularly in the tribal areas near the border with Afghanistan, which are effectively autonomous.

China appears to have a complicated relationship with homosexuality. There are no laws explicitly criminalising homosexual behaviour. Until now, however, gays and lesbians were barely tolerated. This vote appears to clarify matters on how Chinese officialdom views gay rights.

Homosexual acts were decriminalised in Russia in 1993. There are no protections under law for LGBTs, however. The authorities in Russia – notably in Moscow – have in recent years cracked down, often violently, on attempts to hold Pride marches. This year’s Pride march took place only due to the organisers releasing false details of the event.

Homosexual acts are criminalised in Angola as “an offense against public morality”. The penalty for “repeat offenders” is to be sentenced to a labour camp. Earlier this year, Angola refused to accept the Ambassador for Israel, Isi Yanouka, due to the fact that he is a gay man.

In 2008, Burundi criminalised homosexuality when the president, Pierre Nkurunziza, secretly signed the legislation into law. Those convicted face imprisonment of two to three years and a fine of 50,000 to 100,000 Burundian francs (42 to 84 US dollars).

The Vatican and the Organisation of Islamic Countries hold observer status at the UN.

No related posts.

The IDGTF programme contains the following blurb:

The story the world must not forget. In October 1998 Matthew Shepherd, a gay twenty-one-year-old student at the University of Wyoming was kidnapped, severely beaten and left to die, tied to a fence in the middle of the prairie outside Laramie. Moisés Kaufman and members of Tectonic Theatre Project made six trips to Laramie in the aftermath of the murder and conducted over 200 interviews with the people of the town. This breathtaking theatrical collage explores the depths to which humanity can sink and the heights of compassion of which we are capable. Unabridged.

There is actually nothing I can fault about the play. The 8 actors involved gave phenomenal performances, each playing several characters throughout the production. They moved seamlessly between their characters, using jackets to symbolise which person they were playing.

The Laramie Project is quite possibly the most moving and powerful play I have ever seen. There wasn’t a single dry eye in the theatre after the statement that Denis Shepard (Matthew’s father) read to the court was read out as part of the play.

This play is definitely a must see for all LGBT people.

The International Dublin Gay Theatre Festival runs until the 15^th of May. For details on this week’s productions, download the festival programme here: http://www.gaytheatre.ie/downloads/IDGTF_Brochure_2010.pdf

For more information on IDGTF, go to www.gaytheatre.ie

Related posts:

1. Dublin Gay Theatre Festival (2-15 May)
2. Win Tickets! – Language UnBecoming A Lady

As far as I’m concerned, at least, IWD is needed as a focus-point, an awareness-raising event to draw attention to the daily, lived experiences of women in this world: whether it’s discrimination in the workplace; whether it’s politicians equating rape with media coverage of their public lives; or whether it’s murder, mutilation, torture, rape and other violations of women’s most fundamental rights.

IWD is needed to highlight the achievements in obtaining equality between women and men. IWD is also needed to highlight the ongoing forms of oppression of half the human population, for reasons solely of their gender. IWD is needed because women’s liberation or emancipation never happened and is still a live issue. The oppression of women in predominantly patriarchal societies continues, and feminist activism is needed more than ever.

Feminism, as far as I see it, is based on the fundamental principles of equality, solidarity and human rights. Feminism in practice, therefore, is required to benefit both males and females in society. Notions that feminism is somehow anti-male is absurd – and, frankly, my view is that anyone (male or female) who uses feminism as a way of attacking men doesn’t know what feminism really is.

This year is the 15th anniversary of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action. In 1995, the UN convened the Fourth World Conference on Women. The outcome of the Beijing Conference was the Platform for Action, an agenda for women’s empowerment.

Perhaps 15 years is too short a time to expect to see real, tangible change in the situation of women in the world. Well, it has been over 100 years since International Women’s Day was first marked in 1909. Its following gained momentum in 1911. The global centenary of IWD is being marked next year, 2011. Moreover, The Beijing Platform, a 132-page document, set out actions to be taken to ensure fundamental changes by the year 2000. The world is still waiting.

Here are a few reasons for continuing to observe IDW and for continuing to actively ensure that feminism is a reality in politics and society:

• On 3rd March, the difficulties affecting women in particular, or disproportionately, in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haïti was highlighted. The problems include trafficking and exploitation of orphaned children, especially girls; increased risk of sexual violence and the lack of institutional structures to address it, as well as the lack of services for women survivors of violence; the fact that over 40% of households in Haiti are headed by single women, and that women play a key role in providing for their families and caring for dependents, means that lack of adequate food, shelter and security affects women disproportionally.

• On 4th March, The Economist reported on “Gendercide: The worldwide war on baby girls.” In China, where the state enforces a one-child policy, the value attached to male children over female children is reflected in the high rates of infanticide of female infants. The rates are so high, and the population so severely affected, that it is estimated that China in 2020 will have 30m-40m more men of age 19 and younger than young women. There are many other nations – such as India, those in south-east Asia, and former Soviet states – with no one-child policy to speak of, where similar trends can be seen.

• In January, Ireland’s Minister for Arts, Sport, Culture and Tourism, Martin Cullen, compared media intrusion into his life as “like waking up every day and being raped.” The Irish Times political correspondent, Déaglán de Bréadún, in his blog stated that Cullen’s remarks were “unfortunate and inappropriate” and commented that objections to Cullen’s use of words were a “disingenuous and opportunistic pursuit of a political agenda against Cullen” in the context of privacy.

• In December, at a sentencing hearing in a court house in Listowel, Co. Kerry, dozens of locals shook hands with a man, Danny Foley (35), of Meen, Listowel, who had been convicted of sexual assault of a woman in the town. At the hearing, a parish priest, Fr Seán Sheehy, provided a spoken statement to the court in support of the convicted man.

• In the UK, the BBC reported on a survey of members of the public in relation to their views of rape survivors: “More than half of those of both sexes questioned said there were some circumstances when a rape victim should accept responsibility for an attack. The study found that women [respondents] were less forgiving of the victim than men.”

• The Guardian newspaper in January wrote about a report on men who pay for sex. A quote from one of the report’s respondents: “Prostitutes are un-rapeable.”

• In February, it was reported that in Turkey, a 16 year-old was murdered by being buried alive by her family members. The reason for her killing (described as a so-called “honour killing”) was that she had been talking to boys. “The girl, who has been identified only by the initials MM, was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-metre hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home.”

• In Utah, both houses of the legislature passed a bill that effectively criminalises miscarriage. “Perhaps the most troubling part of the bill is a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by so-called “reckless” behavior. Under the “reckless behavior” standard, an attorney only needs to show that the woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she did not intend to lose the pregnancy [sic].”

An impressive 186 States have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The near universal ratification of this key international instrument for women’s rights is a reason for celebration on the occasion of its 30th Anniversary. Violence against women, a critical area in the Beijing Platform for Action, has been increasingly recognised as a key priority in all regions of the world. Many countries have adopted or strengthened legislation on domestic violence, and initiated programmes, policies and awareness raising activities addressing both old and new forms of exploitation and violence against women and girls.

Yet old challenges in the protection of women’s rights remain, such as multiple forms of discrimination. In addition, new challenges have emerged in conjunction with phenomena like the global financial crisis, political violence, displacement and migration, and the acceleration in environmental degradation. The continued use of brutal violence against women, including sexual violence, as a weapon of war in conflict situations also remains a pressing concern. At the domestic level, lack of implementation of laws and other commitments to secure women’s rights, and the lack of gender sensitive budgetary policies, remain chronic problems.

The areas of critical concern for women identified in Beijing such as the economy, the environment, armed conflict, poverty, decision-making and political participation, as well as violence against women, to give only a few examples, appear more pressing than ever in our current economic and political context.

- Rashida Manjoo, UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, 5th March 2010

(Incidentally, there is an International Men’s Day.)

Related posts:

1. Lesbians of leisure: happenings in March
2. Post-IWD: Women, know your limits!

Background

After their traditional engagement on December 27, 2009, Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga were arrested on December 28, 2009 and charged with “unnatural offenses” and “indecent practices between males” (Sections 153 and 156 of the Malawi Penal Code) with a potential sentence of up to 14 and 5 years in prison, respectively.

The Court has denied bail to Monjeza and Chimbalanga, citing “fear that the public will be hostile against them” as justification for their ongoing incarceration. As their defenders have argued, however, a continued stay in prison instead exposes them to more abuse and the violation of their fundamental rights at the hands of fellow inmates and jailers.
The arrests and subsequent mistreatment of Monjeza and Chimbalanga violate their constitutional rights to equality (Article 20), to freedom of association, conscience, opinion, and expression (Articles 32-35), and to the enjoyment of a cultural life of one’s choice (Article 26). The arrests also violate Malawi’s international human rights commitments, including the rights to privacy and non-discrimination that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees to all regardless of sexual orientation, as well as the rights to equality, dignity, security and life in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Articles 3-6). The Yogyakarta Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, a document signed by several respected African jurists, states that governments must “repeal criminal…provisions that prohibit…consensual sexual activity among people of the same sex” to ensure all people’s rights to equality and non-discrimination (Principle 2). The lives of Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga must be respected without discrimination, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Reports indicate that the prosecution sought to further humiliate the two by subjecting them to internal medical examinations to confirm the sodomy charges without their consent. Such examinations cannot be allowed as they are in direct violation of Malawi’s Constitution, including the right to dignity (Article 19), which states that no person shall be subject to degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to privacy (Article 21), which includes the right not to be subject to search of one’s person.

These arrests create a climate of fear in Malawi and intimidate human rights advocates, negating the progress made in the National Aids Strategy to stem the spread of HIV and AIDS by targeting outreach efforts at men who have sex with men (MSM). This persecution stifles the voices of sexual minorities and makes it difficult or impossible to provide effective HIV/AIDS prevention, outreach, and treatment, setting a dangerous precedent for fundamental human rights and public health in Malawi.

See video

No related posts.

Two couples – Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarillo – are taking a case to the federal courts against the state of California. The couples in the case – Perry v. Schwarzenegger – are unmarried couples, and they are suing to challenge Proposition 8 as being in breach of the US Constitution.

As you may be aware, Proposition 8 was run in California at the time of the presidential elections in November 2008, and was passed by just over half of voters. The Proposition bans same-sex marriage in California. (Same-sex marriage was legal for a few months prior to the passing of Prop 8, and those marriages remain legally valid according to the California Supreme Court.)

On Wednesday, during a preliminary hearing in the Perry case, an unusual discussion took place. An excellent report by Lisa Leff for the Associated Press details the exchange between chief judge Vaughan Walker and lawyer for the proponents of Proposition 8, Charles Cooper. Cooper was seeking to have the case either struck out altogether, or to make it more difficult for the plaintiffs in cases such as these.

In refusing the application, the judge – appointed by former president, George W. Bush – informed Cooper that when the case goes to trial in January 2010, he and his legal team must “present evidence showing that male-female marriages would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal”.

Honestly, read Leff’s report in full which quotes parts of the dialogue in detail. Vaughan pressed Cooper to show what is the harm or adverse effect on opposite-sex marriages and on children. Cooper was unable to answer: in relation to the question concerning the effects on opposite-sex relationship, he eventually responded, “I don’t know”.

When pressed further, using a double-negative he asserted that it is not self-evident that there is no harm, and suggested that the people of California should not “take the risk” but should be allowed to see how the same-sex marriage “experiment” plays out in other U.S. states. Vaughan was having none of it: “Since when do Constitutional rights rest on the proof of no harm?”

Read it! [here]

Read it, especially because some entities in Ireland continue to raise similar issues as those put forward by Cooper and co. We have long heard anti-marriage equality voices in Ireland talk of “allowing certain rights to same-sex couples”, but referring to marriage as “the gold standard” (as persistently parroted by David Quinn) and as being the only place within which to raise children. Marriage is often – explicitly or implicitly – discussed and defined in terms of procreation.

Such arguments were even put forward in the Zappone and Gilligan case, and were referenced by judge Dunne in her judgment against the two women. (This includes relying on evidence by the Irish state’s witness, Prof Patricia Casey, who to my knowledge failed to disclose her position as patron of the Iona Institute, which was launched shortly after the judgement was issued.)

Indeed, as well as the issues mentioned above, judge Vaughan also wants to find out if the proponents in of Prop 8 have or had any anti-gay stance, and has required the disclosure of correspondences of those involved in the campaign.

The Perry case is relevant to Ireland not only because the case deals with the topic of marriage equality. It is relevant because Ireland and the UK (like many former and current Commonwealth members and former British colonies) are ruled by the common law system, as well as by legislation.

Our laws are not the same, certainly, but our legal traditions are; moreover, the courts in Ireland have in the past regarded US and Canadian rulings (among others) as either being of persuasive value or approved them to cite as precendent, thereby incorporating such cases into Irish caselaw. (For example, the infamous Flynn v Power ruling of 1985 relies on a ruling of the Canadian courts; the case has since been overturned in Canada and is now defunct there, but remains good law in Ireland. But that’s a whole other matter!)

The Perry case is due to go to trial in January 2010. As yet, there is no date that I’m aware of for the Zappone and Gilligan case to be heard in the Supreme Court (and that Court has quite a backlog, by all accounts).

I’ll be keeping a trained eye on the news reports – and, if possible, the transcripts – of Perry as it proceeds. I hope that the Zappone and Gilligan legal team will do likewise, as the appeal to the Supreme Court will deal solely with legal argument (the facts as established in the High Court may not be re-visited on appeal). I also hope that activists, Irish lawmakers and members of government are aware of the details of the case.

Whatever the eventual outcome of Perry, how the issues will be discussed – those indicated, at least, by Wednesday’s pre-trial hearing – will be very, very interesting to see.

See also:
MarriagEquality
LGBT Noise

Related posts:

1. Setback in fight for marriage equality in Ireland
2. Preliminary hearing in Zappone & Gilligan appeal tomorrow!
3. Marriage: The Gold Standard?

Born in Léopoldville in the Belgian Congo (now Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo), David Norris was the first openly gay person elected to public office in Ireland, and is a Senator, Joycean scholar, former university lecturer in English, civil and human rights campaigner, fluent orator, bon viveur, and an all-round wonderful man. He is a writer, historian, traveller and raconteur and “his greatest fears are bores and boredom”.

He may be most noted for his legal challenge, through the Irish and European courts, seeking to impugn Victorian legislation criminalising male homosexual acts. In Norris v. Ireland, David Norris (whose legal team included one Mary Robinson) endured what I can only imagine was a bizarre and disturbing scrutinising of his very being, by several conservative, religious – and quite possibly homophobic – barristers and judges from the late 1970s until the early 1980s. (Norris’s case was initiated in 1977, and the Supreme Court’s ruling against him, by a margin of three-to-two, was handed down in 1983.)

At the time of the Supreme Court ruling, the now Senator was a lecturer in Trinity College, Dublin, in his thirties, and was also involved in the National Gay Federation and the Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform – having previously been the chairman of the Irish Gay Rights Movement. (Background.)

The leading judgement was by the Chief Justice of the time, the Honourable Mr. Justice Thomas Francis O’Higgins, and included this nugget:

In the course of the trial of this action in the High Court, reference was made to the Wolfenden Report, to the Kinsey Survey on homosexual behaviour conducted in the United States and to a similar survey conducted in Sweden. No such survey has been conducted in Ireland, but the trial judge on the evidence he heard, was prepared to conclude that there is probably a large number of people in this country with homosexual tendencies. Of these, however, only a small number are exclusively homosexual in the sense that their orientation is congenital and irreversible. It is this small group (of those with homosexual tendencies) who must look to the others for the kind of relationship, stable or promiscuous, which they seek and desire. It follows that the efforts and activities of the congenital must tend towards involving the homosexually orientated in more and more deviant sexual acts to such an extent that such involvement may become habitual. [...] These are some of the consequences which, experience has indicated, tend to follow on a lifestyle which is exclusively homosexual.

Oh, and that’s just a sampler, folks: if you thought Brenda Power can get you riled, just read that judgement by some of Ireland’s finest legal minds at the time..! Even the well-intentioned Justice Henchy – who, although in the minority with judge McCarthy, was of the opinion that the appeal by Norris should be allowed – had some fairly questionable things to say about the gays.

Thankfully, David and the rest of us eventually (in 1988) had the benefit of the enlightenment of Strasbourg, when the European Court of Human Rights issued its ruling which led to the decriminalisation in Ireland of homosexual acts between men (in 1993).

In addition to making legal history, and helping to change the lives of thousands of Irish people for the better, his activism, scholarship and interests range from political developments in Israel and in Iran, to the preservation of Georgian Dublin, to the running of Guantánamo Bay, to his knowledge of things Biblical, to attending rock concerts. (At least, I presume that last one is true: I saw him on Saturday toddling across Gardiner Street in the direction of the U2 concert at Croke Park. And very dapper he looked, too!)

Senator Norris, we salute you!

www.senatordavidnorris.ie

Senator Norris hosts “Sunday with Norris” every Sunday morning on Newstalk 106-108FM

Related posts:

1. Norris for President
2. Congratulations, Senator Zappone

The Bill is thought to fall short of the needs of same-sex couples and families, for example not catering for same-sex couples who have children, or dealing with the issue of adoption. Yesterday, we saw protesters at Dáil Éireann, opposed to the fact that the Bill won’t provide full equality for lesbian and gay couples. Today, The Irish Times front page reports that the Green Party is in a bit of a huff about the Bill not going as far as they had hoped. Gosh, if only there were a party in government whose election mandate was for full equality for same-sex relationships. Oh yes, that’s you, Greens. Too little, too late.

Keep watch here for analysis of the Bill as soon as we can get our grubby little mitts on it!

Update:

The Bill has now been published, along with an explanatory memo:
- Civil Partnership Bill 2009 as initiated (PDF format)
- Civil Partnership Bill 2009 Explanatory Memorandum

The Bill may be amended as it proceeds through the houses of An tOireachtas (the Dáil and Seanad). We’ll try to give our own comments as and when we can read through it. In the meantime, please feel free to give your own opinions and thoughts in the comments!

Update 2 – 1:26pm:

Newstalk 106 FM are due to have a panel discussion on the Bill soon, it appears – You can tune in on the radio, or listen via their website. (Nothing yet on RTÉ Radio 1, as far as I’m aware.)

Update 3:

Newstalk 106 FM headlines at 1:30pm quote Minister Dermot Ahern as saying that Civil Partnerships “are not a stepping stone to gay marriage”.

Update 4:

The Irish Times Breaking News reports on the Bill here, with comments from Minster Ahern, Labour’s Brendan Howlin and the ICCL.

Update 5:

The Irish Examiner’s Breaking News also has the story, here, including this comment from GLEN:

“This is a major civil rights reform that will resolve many immediate and pressing issues faced by lesbian and gay couples” said Kieran Rose, Chair of GLEN, who said the Government were to be congratuled “on bringing forward this complex and comprehensive legislation and committing to its early enactment”.

[ ... ]

However GLEN said a remaining concern was the issue of legal support and recognition of the many children being parented by same-sex couples.

“Inclusion of legal recognition of children being parented by same-sex couples will be critical for the welfare of these children” said Rose.

Update 6:

LGBT Noise have now issued a press release concerning the Bill. Read it here. The statement includes:

Noise believes that this bill will only serve to cement inequality for gay and lesbian people by explicitly excluding them from the primary social insitution of marriage, and that it is nothing but state-endorsed discrimintaion. Gay couples should not be forced into a situation where they are made to participate in their own discrimination out of urgent necessity to regularise their legal arrangements.

Update 7

MarriagEquality.ie have accused the government of “short-changing” lesbians and gay men with this bill:

Following the publication of the civil partnership bill today, MarriagEquality is calling on the Government to acknowledge that the bill is forcing lesbians and gay men to accept a second rate set of rights, and ensures that lesbian and gay relationships will be regarded as inferior to married couples. MarriagEquality advocate that the Government instead move to provide lesbians and gay men with equality by providing access to civil marriage.

Research conducted by Lansdowne Market Research shows that 81% of the public agree that everyone should receive equal treatment from the state regardless of their sexuality. 61% further believe that denying lesbians and gay men civil marriage is a form of discrimination.

Grainne Healy, Co-Chair, MarriagEquality, commented, “MarriagEquality want equal marriage rights for lesbians and gay men. Civil partnership is not marriage like, and does not confer marriage like rights on lesbians and gay men who choose to legally register their relationship through it. The civil partnership legislation is deficient on so many levels and discriminates against lesbians, gay men and their children to such an extent that MarriagEquality are calling on to Government to legislate for civil marriage now.”

A deeply upsetting aspect of the civil partnership legislation is that the Government has totally ignored lesbian and gay parents and their children. In reality all children should have equal access to their parents and vice-versa, and should have the same rights as all children in Ireland. 75% of the public believe that all children should be treated equally by the state. Furthermore, a same-sex couple will not be eligible to apply to be considered to adopt a child under civil partnership: not even the child of their registered civil partner.

Update 8 – 5:55pm:
(Thanks to HAL for adding all my updates while I’ve been offline!)

Courtesy, once again, from MamanPoulet, Minister Ahern – who today has stated clearly that the Civil Partnership Bill is “not a stepping stone to marriage” and that marriage is “preserved” and “guarded” – was in 1993 opposed to the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Yes indeed, and this is a matter of public record.

After quoting from the Irish constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann (Articles 40.1, 41.1.2º, and 45), Ahern who was then a backbencher went on about his “not being intolerant” (in fact, “Anyone who knows me well knows that I am a very tolerant person”) and about “the common good.”

He said, “We seem to have reached the stage where we are legislating for pressure and minority groups.” And he said, “We have a duty to legislate for the standards and norms which we regard as appropriate for the Irish people. This does not necessarily have to include all the people, but we should strive to achieve a certain standard and norm in our society.”

The deputy went on to talk about “the breakdown of society” and “protecting the family unit,” and even managed to include reference to the murder of Jamie Bolger.

Just before he ended his speech he said:

Mr. D. Ahern: Much play is made of the word “equality”, for example, equality in regard to the age limit. I wonder if this issue will end here. Will the pressure groups which have succeeded in having this legislation brought before the House stop here? I think not. Will we eventually see the day in this country when, as has happened in the USA, homosexuals will seek the right to adopt children? We should think seriously about this possibility.

I have a problem with the age limit of 17 years. I appreciate that the Minister is endeavouring to equalise the age limits for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. However, under the child care legislation passed by this House a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18 years. We should bear this in mind.

Oh yes, and when the now Minister began his speech on that day – almost to the day – back in 1993, he said, “I do not often find myself in agreement with my constituency colleague, Deputy McGahon, but on this occasion I am.” With what was he agreeing, you may ask?

With this:

Mr. McGahon: Homosexuality is a departure from normality and while homosexuals deserve our compassion they do not deserve our tolerance. That is how the man in the street thinks. I know of no homosexual who has been discriminated against. Such people have a persecution complex because they know they are different from the masses or normal society. They endure inner torment and it is not a question of the way others view them.

The Lord provided us with sexual organs for a specific purpose. Homosexuals are like left hand drivers driving on the right hand side of the road. The Minister should seek a derogation from the ruling of the European Court to prevent this unacceptable legislation being foisted on the Irish people. I remind the Minister that the age of consent has been reduced to 12 years in Holland. Will we have to accept such an appalling move in years to come? Many Members of the Minister’s party are very unhappy about this legislation although some of them have expressed their support for it. The Minister should put the issue to the people in a referendum.

Make of all that what you will..

Related posts:

1. Irish support same-sex marriage

The newsdesk has been a-flutter with reports that members of direct-action community group for fair treatment of lgbtq people, EQUALS, are demonstrating their discontent with what they see as the codification of inequality in the Civil Partnerships Bill 2009 at Leinster House this Thursday lunchtime. Lisa Connell was chained to the gates of the Houses of the Oireachtas and Will St. Leger mounted the gatehouse with a flag which read “Marriage Rights are Equal Rights” on Kildare Street, Dublin 2. Both have now been removed by the gardaí but not before they got a chance to talk to waiting journalists. Senator David Norris has also addressed the crowd who assembled to support the demonstration. Tune into your new bulletins for reports and interview snippets and follow the action as it happens on Twitter with Gaelick, David Norris and Panti.

Photos to follow. More breaking news information from BreakingNews.ie.

UPDATE: Will St. Leger has been arrested and brought to Pearse Street Garda Station, Dublin 2.

UPDATE: You can follow Equals on Twitter and Facebook and also see some photos from today in LGBT Noise’s Flickr pool.

UPDATE: Will St. Leger has been released without charge.

UPDATE: Added more photos. Thanks to Caroline Kinsella for permitting us to reproduce them.

 

Will St. Leger atop gatehouse

 

Demonstration at Dáil Éireann

 

Lisa Connell interviewed by TV3

 

Gardaí prepare to remove Will St. Leger

 

Gardaí arresting Will St. Leger

 

Will St. Leger and Lisa Connell

No related posts.

The court’s decision effectively means that the vote by the simple majority to pass Proposition 8 still stands. (That simple majority, by the way, was 52.24% – hardly resounding.) Proposition 8 inserts a new provision into the Californian constitution, stating that marriage can only between a man and a woman. It reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Some have been outraged at the court’s decision; some have taken a stoical view along the lines that the ruling was technical and that the court’s hands were tied.

Reading the decision, however, I’m not so sure I ultimately agree with the latter view. The ruling is set out very clearly into an introduction, and three subsequent sections detailing the court’s reasoning. (It can be read here [.pdf].)

The decision helpfully and clearly summarises the previous marriage cases which led to the same court’s earlier decision stating that same-sex marriages should be allowed. The distinction is that, in the previous cases, the law at issue was statutory; in the present case, however, it’s a constitutional matter.

The first matter to be decided, according to the court, was whether Proposition 8 constituted an amendment or a revision. (After that, they would deal with the issue of those who have already been married over the past year.) To do this, they needed to carefully “assess (1) the meaning and scope of the constitutional change at issue, and (2) the effect — both quantitative and qualitative — that the constitutional change will have on the basic governmental plan or framework embodied in the preexisting provisions of the California Constitution.”

The judges in the present case (I don’t know if they were actually the same individual judges who issued the previous marriage ruling) strive to frame their decision in the context of the earlier case, and thereby limit the scope and effect of the Proposition 8 provision: they say that the effect of Proposition 8 does not limit “the constitutional right of same-sex couples to ‘choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage’ (Marriage Cases [...] 43 Cal.4th at p. 829)”.

The danger in this approach as I see it, however, is that the judges hands are tied to saying that same-sex couples are (at present, at least) separate but equal: this calls to mind the U.S. era of segregation, or South African apartheid – the whites at the whites’ water fountain, the blacks at theirs: separate, but equal. Of course, we know what history has to teach us about such arrangements.

What is more worrying, however, is that the judges strain their reasoning to reach this conclusion, not as their overall ruling of the court, but in order to justify calling Proposition 8 an “amendment” (which is permitted) – rather than a “revision” (which is not permitted).

That is to say, if the judges found that Proposition 8 was found to have “entirely repealed or abrogated” the constitutional privacy rights of same-sex couples and due process; or if they had found that Proposition 8 had “fundamentally altered” the meaning and substance of constitutional equal protection principles: then, they might have found that Proposition 8 was a revision and therefore invalid.

But they didn’t: the judges found that

Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

Perhaps I’m missing something, but the fact that they’ve decided to classify Prop 8 as an amendment and not a revision (thereby allowing Prop 8 to remain valid) worries me. (Especially as people on this side of the water are fond of following the people on the other side of the water..)

What do you think?

No related posts.

The full title of the conference is the trip-off-the-tongue, “Marriage Matters for Lesbian and Gay People in Ireland: Social and Legal Perspectives” (mm, sounds fun..!) and it’s taking place in the Westbury Hotel, Grafton St, Dublin 2, from 10am-4pm.

Despite the soporific name, there are some muchos interesting headline acts attending, including:

• Alejandro Alder, International and Human Rights Co-ordinator, FELGTB;

• Patricia Prendiville, former Executive Director ILGA-Europe, 2004-2008;

• Professor Sheila Greene, Director, Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin;

• Peter Tatchell, Human Rights Campaigner, Gay Rights Activist, Writer;

• Niall Crowley, former CEO Equality Authority and Equality Expert

There will also be panellists, including Grainne Healy (Co-Chair, MarriagEquality) who spoke at Sunday’s rally; Brian Sheehan (CEO, GLEN); LGBT Noise, go team!; Dundalk OUTcomers; Platform for Equality.

The info, according to MarriagEquality’s mailing list email:

The National Lesbian and Gay Federation (NLGF) with the support of the Equality Authority are holding a National Symposium: ‘Marriage Matters for Lesbian and Gay People in Ireland: Social and Legal Perspectives‘.

Symposium Aim
To provide a forum for the exchange of information and for dialogue between interested LG national organisations, community groups and individuals, as well as legal, equality and human rights professionals, and all those advocating for change on the issue of lesbian and gay marriage, subsequent to the introduction of civil partnership legislation.

Who should attend?
The symposium will be of particular interest to lesbian and gay equality advocates and activists; politicians; policy makers; legal practitioners; community and social work professionals; trade unionists; and all those interested.

This event will take place on Thursday 7th May 2009 in the Westbury Hotel, Grafton St, Dublin 2, from 10am – 4pm.

The symposium is a follow-up activity to the European Year of Equal Opportu nities for All (2007).

It’s free to attend, but you must reserve your place by next week, on 1st May 2009.

Email nlgfederation [at] gmail [dot] com

No related posts.

We thought it might be a good idea to try to collate as many photos of the rally as possible from anyone and everyone who’s there. Thanks to a brainwave by the lovely Conor Pendergrast, we’ve decided to set up a Gaelick Flickr group – so, anyone who wants to, should be able to upload their pics of the rally there!

Here are the particulars:
- Our Flickr group
- Flickr groups FAQs

Hopefully we won’t meet any technical glitches along the way. If you do, please let us know in the comments or by email: clickhere [at] gaelick [dot] com

Hooray!

No related posts.

So many would-be commentators have suggested that the only way marriage could be extended to same-sex couples is “if we have a referendum” (followed by sage nodding). Well, I ask both, “Why?” and, “What if?”

What if our legislators just legislated for same-sex marriage? They legislated for opposite-sex marriage for the first time in 2004: before then, it was all court-made law. Of course, as we all know, while courts are bound by precedent, the law can (eventually) evolve to reflect real life. Well, the 2004 Act put the kybosh on that: now courts are bound to interpret that law, and that law is pretty clear:

Civil Registration Act, 2004, section 2(2)(e):

For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if—
. . .
both parties are of the same sex.

So, I suggest that a law be enacted by the Dáil and the Seanad to simply delete this one line from the statute books.

But wait, I hear strains of “…but the Constitution says..” Actually, the Constitution doesn’t say: the courts said. If legislation was proposed, one of two things could happen:

(a) The President could refer the matter under Article 26 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court to examine whether the law is constitutional before it was enacted and signed into law; or
(b) An individual could attempt to challenge the legislation through the courts after it has been enacted

Referring a Bill to the Supreme Court is a discretionary function of the President. Personally, it would be quite unfortunate if President McAleese referred the matter to the Supreme Court as she has in the past been a supporter of the LGBT community. But, under the law, she may do so.

So, in an ideal world, let’s assume the legislation has been signed into law. There are a few important practical issues to consider. It’s all very well to suppose what the Constitution “says” (even though the Constitution is, in fact, silent on the definition of marriage), but there’s theory and then there’s practice. And in practice, when it comes to matters legal, there are procedures.

Firstly, someone would need to show that their personal rights are somehow adversely affected by the new law. Secondly, if they even managed to do that (which I seriously doubt), they’d have to rebut what’s known as “the presumption of constitutionality”.

The presumption of constitutionality is basically where a law enacted by An tOireachtas (our parliament) is presumed to be in accordance with the Constitution, and the burden of proving otherwise lies on the person seeking to impugn the legislation.

But first, who could actually take a case to the courts to challenge such a law? Seriously, who?? Who would actually be affected by gays suddenly being able to legally regularise their relationships?

It must be someone who can establish what’s known as locus standi. No, that’s not a biblical plague: it’s showing that you have some standing to challenge a law or a ruling.

The courts in this country have pronounced on it in various situations, to do with constitutional cases and non-constitutional cases. The authority is a case called Cahill v Sutton [1980] I.R. 269, and has been cited here, here and interestingly for our readers, in the Norris judgement of 1983. Locus standi can be summed up thusly, in the words of judge Henchy in the Cahill case:

The Constitution has given Parliament the sole and exclusive power of making laws. The courts normally accord those laws the presumption of having been made with due observance of constitutional requirements. If a citizen comes forward in court with a claim that a particular law has been enacted in disregard of a constitutional requirement, he has little reason to complain if in the normal course of things he is required … to show that the impact of the impugned law on his personal situation discloses an injury or prejudice which he has either suffered or is in imminent danger of suffering.

In the same case (hat tip to McGarr Solicitors’ blog), the then Chief Justice said:

Where the person who questions the validity of a law can point to no right of his which has been broken, endangered or threatened by reason of the alleged invalidity, then, if nothing more can be advanced, the Courts should not entertain a question so raised. To do so would be to make of the Courts the happy hunting ground of the busybody and the crank.

(Emphasis mine – fnarr)

But back to the first quote: Someone please tell me, who – who? – would suffer “an injury or prejudice” if I can marry me missus?
_______________________________________

Give Inequality the Red Card: Civil Marriage Rally – Sunday, 19th April 2009, 2pm @ Central Bank, Dublin

Free tea and cakes before the rally @ Panti Bar, Capel Street from 12 noon; post-rally BBQ @ The Purty Kitchen, Essex Street East
_______________________________________

Previous posts:
Give Inequality the Red Card: Civil Marriage Rally
Same-sex relationships: are we really excluded from equality?
Marriage on Gaelick

No related posts.