World
Brazil’s most populous state to allow same-sex marriage
Couples in São Paulo can get marriage licenses in 60 days
A São Paulo court on Thursday ordered notaries to begin offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples without a judge’s approval.
The decision, which will take effect in Brazil’s most populous state in 60 days, comes after the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court ruled in May 2011 that gays and lesbians can enter into civil unions. A São Paulo judge in June 2011 ruled two men could convert their civil union into a marriage — 206 of these unions have been converted into marriages in the state.
Alagoas in January became the first Brazilian state to extend marriage to same-sex couples without judicial approval, while Bahia on the country’s northeast coast late last month followed suit. Notaries in Rio Grande do Sul and the Federal District that includes the Brazilian capital of Brasilia have also issued marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.
The Brazilian government announced in 2003 it would recognize same-sex unions legally performed outside the country for immigration purposes. Authorities in 2008 simplified these regulations.
“It is a very important decision,” gay Brazilian Congressman Jean Wyllys told the Washington Blade. “And like the Constitution says, in its Article 226, that the state should facilitate the conversation of stable unions into marriage and it also says people are equal under the law, many same-sex partners demanded this in the court. What the judges are doing is complying with the Constitution, recognizing the rights of same-sex partners to enter into civil marriage.”
In spite of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court’s 2011 decision, Rio de Janeiro and many other states have yet to implement it. Wyllys has introduced a proposal that would amend the Brazilian Constitution to recognize same-sex civil marriage throughout the country. A bill that would allow gays and lesbians to tie the knot has languished in Congress since the mid-1990s.
“Justice is doing what should have already been done in the Congress and it deserves our applause,” Wyllys said. “The lack of a bill that ends this unjust discrimination, violation of the Federal Constitution and all the international human rights treaties, has left many partners to seek justice. Justice is doing its job well. Those of us who are missing are the lawmakers and the federal government that remains deaf to the call of millions of people who only want to be equal under the law.”
LGBT activist Felipe Pasqualotto shared Wyllys’ criticisms of the Brazilian government’s response to same-sex marriage and other issues.
“Even though São Paulo is just following the Supreme Court decision, it is a big step for Brazil considering we have been quite silent regarding human rights, especially gay [issues,]” he told the Blade.
The São Paulo ruling comes slightly more than a week after the Uruguay House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill that would allow gays and lesbians to legally marry in the South American country. Same-sex couples have been able to tie the knot in neighboring Argentina and Mexico City since 2010.
The Mexican Supreme Court on Dec. 5 unanimously struck down a law in the state of Oaxaca that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. A Colombian Senate committee on the same day approved a measure that would legalize same-sex marriage. (The country’s highest court ruled in June 2011 that gays and lesbians will be able to formalize their relationships in two years if lawmakers don’t tackle the issue.)
Lawyer Alder Martins told the Blade he believes internal Brazilian politics continue to play more of a role in the expansion of legal recognition to same-sex couples than recent developments in other Latin American countries.
“I don’t believe recent developments in Mexico, Colombia and Uruguay have influenced this process,” Toni Reis, president of the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians and Transgenders (ABGLT in Portuguese) added. “It’s a question of implementing Brazilian law.”
Costa Rica to consider legal recognition for gay couples
Meanwhile, the Costa Rican government announced on Monday it supports the extension of limited legal recognition of same-sex couples in the Central American country.
President Laura Chinchilla Miranda opposes nuptials for gays and lesbians, but her government urged lawmakers in a Dec. 7 press release to consider once again a measure that would extend inheritance, hospital visitation and other rights to same-sex couples.
“We hope that the Congress will continue to move forward with the bill and discuss the merits of the case and once and for all fill this legal void,” the government said in a press release. “The government urges respect and tolerance during this discussion that will take place in the Congress, the corresponding body which will take up this decision. Similarly it will respect the position of each deputy on this issue.”
The country’s highest court in 2010 struck down a referendum that sought to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Lawmakers who have repeatedly postponed debate on extending legal rights to same-sex couples are scheduled to potentially consider the proposal on April 30. The country’s Roman Catholic church and other religious leaders have spoken out against any attempt to do so.
Francisco Madrigal Ballestero of the Center for the Investigation and Promotion of Human Rights in Central America (CIPAC,) described the measure to the Blade earlier this week as “a project that was born partly out of fear.” He further categorized it as “an administrative exit to recognize unions with certain aggravating circumstances.”
“It is not either marriage or civil union, it is a legal figure type contract that gives rights to two people to live together,” Madrigal said. “We believe that this project does not solve the problem of citizenship that we have as LGBT populations, and it is for this reason that this project is not supported by the majority of organizations who work on human rights and sexual diversity.”
Madrigal also pointed out “we don’t see a quick exit” on the issue because the Costa Rican Constitutional Court has said it is the responsibility of the country’s Congress to decide the issue. “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court could choose to take this particular Costa Rican case,” he said. “We are aware above all the commission, like the court, will take its time to resolve it.”
A CIPAC poll earlier this year found 67 percent of LGBT Costa Ricans support civil unions, compared to only 22 percent who back the president’s proposal and 11 percent who endorse marriage rights for same-sex couples.
“From the people it’s no big deal,” José Chaves, general manager of Gay Tours that operates tours and other activities for gay visitors to Manuel Antonio National Park and other parts of the country, told the Blade. “We are not having manifestations of people in the streets saying like, ‘no, that should not be like that.’ It’s more like ‘of course, let the gay people have the rights and it’s no problem.’ But on the other hand it’s all these people in the government and the church from inside of the government that’s working against it.”
Pete Thelen, a co-owner of the Windy City Times who owns two vacation homes near Manuel Antonio National Park, agreed.
“Most Costa Ricans are a live-and-let-live kind of people, so if it doesn’t affect them, they don’t really mind it,” he told the Blade. “If civil unions would go through, I don’t think it would be a problem for most Costa Ricans. We’ve never had any problems with our neighbors. They’ve accepted us.”
India
India court allows transgender woman to participate in Armed Forces’ youth wing
Feb. 29 ruling in Kerala state upheld other judge’s decision
A Kerala High Court judge on Feb. 29 upheld another magistrate’s ruling that allowed a transgender woman to participate in the Indian Armed Forces’ youth wing as a female.
The High Court set aside a part of the order that directed the central government to amend the NCC Act to allow trans people to enroll based on their gender identity.
“When the petitioner has been given the identity of a female, she is certainly entitled to be enrolled in the NCC under section 6(2) of the NCC Act,” said Justice Anu Sivaraman. “In the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Transgenders Act and also in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in National Legal Service Authority (NALSA).”
The judge said that the court cannot direct the government to amend the law, but expressed hope that the Indian government would amend the NCC Act to expressly allow the entry of trans candidates to the NCC.
The Kerala High Court said that the fact that the National Cadet Corps Act does not recognize the third gender cannot be a reasonable justification to deny entry to a trans person.
Hina Haneefa had filed a petition with the High Court that challenged a section of the NCC Act that only allowed males and females under Section 6 of the law to enroll in the Cadet Corps.
“In view of the specific provisions of the 2019 act, a transgender person has the right to be recognized not only as a transgender but also a right to self-perceived gender, i.e. the female gender,” said Sivaraman. “The denial of enrolment is unsustainable. The petitioner will be entitled to participate in the selection process on the basis of her application. If she is successful, the petitioner will be enrolled in the NCC Unit.”
Haneefa is a trans woman who applied to enroll in the NCC after undergoing gender-affirming procedures and getting her identity card. The NCC denied her application.
Parliament in 2019 passed Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act of 2019, which extended rights to trans people.
While talking with the Washington Blade, Kalki Subramaniam, an Indian trans activist, queer artist, entrepreneur and actor, said trans people in the country have to fight for the inclusion of trans people in all sectors.
“We have to go to the court, we have to fight with the system, then the high court directs the state and the central government to take inclusive steps. Again and again, repetitive,” said Subramaniam. “Why should trans people should struggle for everything? I am sure, the central government is working towards equality and inclusion because they recently published Equal Opportunity Policy for Transgender Persons. The government will consider this to include trans people in NCC. What I am looking for is the inclusion of transgender people in the Indian military. That could be a long term plan, but it is possible and ultimately rests in the government’s hands.”
Subramaniam expressed her firm belief that all Indian citizens, including members of the trans community, deserve the opportunity to serve the country. She emphasized the potential of trans individuals to contribute to national defense and public service, highlighting both the military and civil services as avenues for their inclusion. Subramaniam voiced her confidence in the central government of India’s willingness to address this issue and expressed hope for future action.
Souvik Saha, an LGBTQ activist and founder of People for Change, one of India’s premier advocacy groups, said he supports the Kerala High Court ruling.
“This decision is a significant step towards inclusivity and recognizing the rights of transgender individuals to participate fully in all aspects of society,” said Saha. “The NCC Act currently only allows for the enrollment of male and female cadets, which is discriminatory against transgender individuals and reinforces harmful binary gender norms. By ordering the central government to amend the NCC Act to accommodate transgender individuals, the Kerala High Court is acknowledging the need for legal protections and equal opportunities for all genders.”
Saha said the decision will set a positive precedent for other institutions and organizations to follow suit in recognizing and accommodating trans people. Souvik added it sends a clear message that discrimination based on gender identity is not acceptable and that trans people have the right to equal opportunities and access to resources.
“Moreover, allowing transgender individuals to enroll in the NCC provides them with valuable opportunities for personal development, leadership training, and civic engagement,” he said. “By participating in programs like the NCC, transgender individuals can gain skill, confidence, and a sense of belonging, which are essential for their overall well-being and success.”
“Overall, the Kerala High Court’s decision to allow a transgender woman to enroll in the NCC is a significant victory for LGBTQ rights and a crucial step towards creating a more inclusive and equitable society,” he added. “It is imperative that the central government swiftly amends the NCC Act to ensure that transgender individuals are not excluded or discriminated against based on their gender identity.”
Ankush Kumar is a reporter who has covered many stories for Washington and Los Angeles Blades from Iran, India and Singapore. He recently reported for the Daily Beast. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is on Twitter at @mohitkopinion.
World
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe and Asia
Marriage equality advances in Liechtenstein, Thailand
UNITED KINGDOM
BY ERIN REED | Following a recent decision in England by the National Health Service to stop prescribing puberty blockers for transgender youth, former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss introduced a bill that would outlaw gender-affirming care for trans youth. The bill would also eliminate any recognition of social transition and would define sex to exclude trans individuals in the Equality Act. Currently, trans youth can still access gender-affirming care through private clinics. However, Truss’ bill ran into trouble on Friday when, instead of being debated, MPs spent hours deliberating over ferrets and pet names, exhausting the available time and preventing the bill from being heard.
As of this week, the National Health Service in England has declared that it will no longer permit trans youth to receive puberty blockers for gender dysphoria. Although the announcement sparked significant public backlash, its practical impact was somewhat mitigated by the extreme waitlist for care, which exceeds five years. Only a hundred trans youth had been prescribed blockers of the thousands waiting for an appointment. Importantly, the decision does not affect care through clinical research trials and does not affect private clinics — a route many parents had already pursued due to the surging wait times at the limited number of NHS clinics providing care.
Truss introduced a bill aimed at curbing that latter route of obtaining care. The proposed legislation would criminalize the prescription of gender-affirming care to trans youth. It seeks to prevent “the recognition of gender inconsistency in children,” which is defined as “referring to a child with language that is inconsistent with their sex” and “treating a child in a manner that is inconsistent with their sex.” However, the bill does not specify how boys and girls should be treated in accordance with the law. Additionally, it proposes amendments to the Equality Act to define sex to exclude trans individuals and end protections in bathrooms and other similar spaces.
See these lines from the bill here:
However, when the time arrived to debate bills, MPs diverted their attention to hours of discussions about ferrets and pet animal names within the context of an animal welfare bill. In one notable interaction, Labour MP Sarah Champion addressed Labour MP Maria Eagle, remarking humorously on the frequent mentions of ferrets:
Champion: “I am very interested in my honorable friend’s, well, key mention of ferrets at every opportunity in this debate. I’d like to put on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar.”
(Laughter)
Eagle: “Well she has that now on the record. I don’t know really what else to say about that except that I’m sure that Oscar brought her brother great joy, and that’s what pets do, and I’m sure there are many other ferret owners who might attest to the same thing.”
You can watch the exchange here:
In another exchange, even some conservatives appeared to be in on it, such as MP Mark Spencer, who spoke at length listing off of many pets that had been named and put on the record.
Spencer: “I am confident that Members of all parties will agree that animals have been of great support to individuals and families, particularly during COVID-19, when my pets were certainly of great support to me. Pets often help to keep people sane when they are under pressure in their everyday pursuits, so it would be remiss of me not to put on the record the names of my three dogs, Tessa, Barney and Maisie, and the name of my cat, Parsnip. There has been a proud tradition this morning of mentioning various pets, including: Harry, George, Henry, Bruce, Snowy, Maisie, Scamp, Becky 1, Becky 2, Tiny, Tilly, Pippin, Kenneth, Roger, Poppy, Juno, Lucky, Lulu, Brooke, Lucy, Marcus and Toby, who are the dogs; and not forgetting Perdita, Nala, Colin, who is sadly no longer with us, Frank, two Smudges, Attlee, Orna, Hetty, Stanley, Mia Cat, Sue, Sulekha, Cassio, Othello, Clapton, Tigger, who is sadly no longer with us, and Pixie, who are the cats.”
The lengthy exchanges on pet names and ferrets ran the time out, and as such, the bill targeting trans people could not be heard. The lengthy discussion, which has since been referred to as a filibuster, echoes filibusters that have occurred in the U.S. to kill similar legislation, including recently in West Virginia on a bill that also would have defined sex in an identical way.
The exchanges provided a ray of hope for trans residents in England, which has been beset by anti-trans politics in recent years. Likewise, it was a sign that the Labour Party, which has previously been seen as “backsliding” on trans rights, has not completely abandoned its transgender constituents. Though the bill is not officially dead, it has been placed at the bottom of the priority list for March 22, meaning it almost certainly will not be debated, with government sources calling the bill “unworkable.”
For those who advocate for trans rights, however, the ferret has become “an overnight symbol of trans resistance” and a sign that anti-trans politics may be reaching their limit even in the U.K.
IRELAND
BY ROB SALERNO | The Irish people delivered a major rebuke to the political establishment by voting overwhelmingly against a pair of constitutional referendums that had been endorsed by all parties which would have amended language in the constitution that says a woman’s place is in the home, and that families are based on marriage.
The government had held the referendum on International Women’s Day, March 8, in a symbolic move, and turnout was measured at 44.4 percent. Results were announced the following day.
Ireland’s gay prime minister, Leo Varadkar, accepted defeat Saturday.
“It was our responsibility to convince the majority of people to vote ‘yes’ and we clearly failed to do so,” Varadkar said.
The first question, which was defeated 67 percent to 33 percent, asked voters to add the words “whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships,” to the constitution’s definition of “family,” in order to be more inclusive of diverse family types.
The second question, which was defeated by a similar margin, as voters to delete a clause that says “the State recognizes that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall, therefore, endeavor to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
Critics say the language promotes sexist gender stereotypes. The revised language would have used gender-neutral language to recognize “the provision of care, by members of a family to one another.”
Advocacy group LGBTQ Ireland had called for people to vote “yes” to both referendums, “so all children and families, including LGBTQ families, are recognized equally in the constitution.”
But a persuasive “no” campaign had arisen that alleged the revision would have struck women’s privileges and rights. Forces aligned against the referendum included some progressive and feminist groups that alleged the proposed language was unclear and lacked consultation.
Irish voters have in recent years approved a number of progressive reforms to their constitution, including streamlining the divorce process in 2019, legalizing abortion and decriminalizing blasphemy in 2018, and legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015.
LIECHTENSTEIN
BY ROB SALERNO | The tiny principality of Liechtenstein got one step closer to full equality for LGBTQ people as its parliament approved a bill to legalize same-sex marriage with a 24-1 vote, bringing a years-long process nearly to a close.
Local LGBTQ advocacy group FLAY expressed gratitude to members of Landtag, the Liechtenstein parliament, for advancing the law last week.
“Thank you for 24x ‘yes’ in the Landtag,” the group posted to its Facebook page.
“FLay the association for the queer community in Liechtenstein is very happy that 24 out of 25 deputies in parliament voted in favor on today’s first reading. Keeping in mind the completely blocked situation only 3 years ago, the denial of our government for participating any public discussion, we can be more than proud and happy on our successful steps towards the legitimation of the civil marriage for all,” Stefan Marxer, a FLay board member told the Washington Blade in an email.
The marriage bill is expected to pass second reading before the summer parliamentary break, and come into effect by Jan. 1, 2025, unless a referendum is called on the issue.
The tiny country of about 40,000 people, about the size of D.C., has made major progress on advancing LGBTQ rights in the last decade, though the International Gay and Lesbian Association-Europe ranked the country 38th among 49 European countries in its annual survey of LGBTQ rights on the continent last year.
Liechtenstein has allowed same-sex couples to form registered partnerships with limited rights since 2011. The registered partnership law was subject to a referendum after gay rights opponents collected more than 1,000 signatures demanding it. The law was approved by voters 69 percent to 31 percent.
A same-sex couple had sued the state seeking the right to marriage in 2017, but ultimately lost when the state court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was not unconstitutional. However, the court did find that the law banning same-sex couples from adopting was unconstitutional and ordered the country to amend the law. It eventually did so last year.
Discussion of marriage equality began in earnest in Liechtenstein after neighboring Switzerland passed its same-sex marriage law in its parliament in 2020.
One obstacle was the prince, who wields significant executive authority in Liechtenstein compared to other European monarchies. In 2021, Prince Hans-Adam II said that while he supported same-sex marriage, he would not support adoption rights. That obstacle seemed to disappear when the state court ordered the government to legalize full adoption rights. By 2022, Hans-Adam’s son Alois, who governs as regent, told a magazine that same-sex marriage was “not a problem.”
The Catholic Church had also intervened, with former Archbishop of Liechtenstein Wolfgang Haas leading a campaign against the bill and cancelling a traditional service at the opening of last year’s Parliament in protest. Haas retired last autumn.
Despite broad agreement among legislators, the same-sex marriage law has taken a slow path through Parliament. In November 2022, Parliament voted 23-2 asking the government to bring forward a same-sex marriage bill. The government held a three-month-long public consultation on same-sex marriage last year before putting the bill on the agenda for Parliament’s March 2024 meeting.
Under the marriage bill, the country will stop registering new partnerships, and people in partnerships will have the option of converting them to marriages or keeping them as they are. All other rights will be equalized.
Liechtenstein is the last German-speaking country to legalize same-sex marriage. Around the world, 37 countries have legalized same-sex marriage, including 21 countries in Europe. The most recent country to legalize same-sex marriage is Greece, and Thailand is expected to pass a same-sex marriage law later this year.
JAPAN
BY ROB SALERNO | Two courts ruled this past Thursday that Japan’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, increasing pressure on the government to legalize it.
District courts have been weighing same-sex marriage since several coordinated cases were filed across the country in 2019. Along with Thursday’s ruling from the Tokyo District Court, five district courts have ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, while one court has upheld the ban. A seventh district court case was filed last month.
But on Thursday, the Sapporo High Court delivered the first ruling on same-sex marriage at the appellate level, and same-sex couples won there, too.
So far, all courts have dismissed claims for monetary compensation.
It’s likely that all of the cases will end up at the Supreme Court.
In a statement released after the ruling, the plaintiffs’ lawyers called on the government to act swiftly to protect their rights.
“I would like to reiterate that this shows that there is no time left for legal reform. The government should take seriously this judgment that found this provision to be unconstitutional … and promptly amend the law to allow marriage between same-sex couples,” the statement says.
Under Japan’s legal system, courts rarely invalidate or amend laws that are ruled unconstitutional, leaving that to the legislature.
But Japan’s national government has long been cold to LGBTQ rights. Last year, queer activists had hoped that the government would finally pass a long-demanded anti-discrimination bill, but by the time it was put before the legislature, it had been watered down to a bill that only calls on the government to promote understanding of LGBTQ people.
At the local level, queer activists have seen greater success. Twenty-nine of Japan’s 47 prefectures, as well as hundreds of municipalities, have enacted partnership registries for same-sex couples that at least afford some limited rights.
THAILAND
BY ROB SALERNO | Same-sex marriage could soon be a reality in the Southeast Asian country, as a bill to legalize cleared its first test in the legislature Thursday.
A committee set up by the House of Representatives to examine the bill approved it, setting it up for a final vote in the House on March 27. After that, it will need to be approved by the Senate, which is dominated by appointees of the former military junta that ruled the country until 2017. It is expected that the bill will pass into law by the end of the year.
The proposed bill gives same-sex couples equal rights to married heterosexual couples, including in inheritance, tax rights and adoption.
Same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights generally have become a major political issue in Thailand in recent years, with queer people becoming increasingly visible and demanding greater equality.
Parties promising to legalize same-sex marriage and promote LGBTQ rights were the major victors of last year’s election, although the leading party was controversially disqualified from forming a government due to its support for reforming laws that penalize disparaging the monarchy, which was deemed unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the parties that formed government agreed to pass a same-sex marriage law, and last December, the house voted overwhelmingly to approve in principle a series of draft marriage bills.
The new government has also signaled that it will soon introduce a bill to facilitate legal gender change for trans people, and has begun a campaign to provide free HIV medication as an effort to eliminate HIV transmission by 2030.
Reporting by Erin Reed and Rob Salerno
Africa
Burundi’s president reiterates LGBTQ people should be stoned in a stadium
Évariste Ndayishimiye first made comment last December
Burundian President Évariste Ndayishimiye on March 8 reiterated his call for LGBTQ people to be stoned in a stadium.
Ndayishimiye made the remark during the commemoration of the International Women’s Day in Gitega, the country’s political capital. He first called for the public stoning of LGBTQ people last December during a public event.
LGBTQ activists sharply criticized the comments and some international diplomats even threatened to cut economic ties with Burundi. Ndayishimiye, however, seems unmoved by this pushback and maintained that if it meant if his nation would cut economic ties with the developed countries on the basis of his anti-LGBTQ stance then so be it, reaffirming that nothing will change his stance.
Jésus Dior Kant, a gay man and LGBTQ activist from Burundi, said the president’s remarks are tantamount to publicly calling for the lynching of gay people.
“This violent and anti-LGBT+ rhetoric endangers the lives of many individuals in Burundi and stains the nation’s commitment to human rights,” said Kant. “Such discourse not only incites homophobia and violence but also violates international human rights laws and norms that protect individuals regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Kant also said what Ndayishimiye said now poses a real and immediate threat for LGBTQ people in the country.
“The impact of this statement is not merely rhetorical, it poses a real and immediate threat to the safety and well-being of the LGBT+ community in Burundi,” said Kant. “It encourages hate crimes, promotes discrimination and undermines progress made towards equality and justice. This is not just a problem for the LGBT+ community but a stain on the moral fabric of our global society, reflecting on us all.”
Kant called for Ndayishimiye to immediately withdraw his remarks and commit to protecting the rights of LGBTQ people in the country.
“Your call to stone gay individuals constitutes a blatant violation of human rights and an incitement to violence and discrimination,” said Kant. “We implore you to take the necessary measures to withdraw your statement advocating violence against the LGBT+ community, commit to protecting LGBT+ individuals in Burundi by enforcing laws that guarantee rights and well-being and respecting international human rights conventions, ensuring that Burundi is a nation that respects and values every human life.”
Clémentine de Montjoye, a researcher at Human Rights Watch’s Africa Division, said the anti-LGBTQ crackdown in Burundi could become worse, including continued political repression and restrictions on freedom of expression to maintain the governing party’s control.
“This type of fearmongering is not new in Burundi, where sexual relations between people of the same sex have been illegal since former President Pierre Nkurunziza signed a new criminal code into law in 2009,” noted de Montjove. “The law was a fierce blow to Burundi’s LGBT people, who had begun to come out and organize, albeit in small numbers, to demand their rights be respected.”
De Montjove further noted the National Assembly’s human rights commission added the anti-homosexuality provision in the 2009 criminal code at the last minute, apparently under pressure from Nkurunziza, who made statements on television that described homosexuality as a curse.
“Ndayishimiye, who presents himself as a progressive, rights-respecting leader, should be working to reverse this trend rather than stoking more fear and hatred,” said de Montjoye.
-
Commentary4 days ago
Sexting with younger guy has me asking: How queer am I?
-
Commentary5 days ago
What will you do to make Pride safe this year?
-
Africa3 days ago
Burundi’s president reiterates LGBTQ people should be stoned in a stadium
-
Texas4 days ago
Pornhub blocks Texas accessing site over age verification law