Connect with us

Living

State Department identifies LGBT abuses overseas

Report details findings from 194 countries

Published

on

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. State Department published its annual report on Friday evaluating the state of human rights overseas and revealing that LGBT abuses continue to persist in many places abroad.

Introducing the findings in a media appearance Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the report “usually generates a great deal of interest” among those following human rights and said she hopes the new report will do so again this year.

“Societies flourish when they address human rights problems instead of suppressing them,” Clinton said. “And we hope that this report will give comfort to the activists, will shine a spotlight on the abuses, and convince those in government that there are other and better ways.”

The report details the status of human rights in 194 countries over the course of 2010 and marks the 35th year in which the State Department has produced the findings, which are required by congressional mandate.

Clinton drew particular attention to the report’s identification of abuses against LGBT people overseas and said monitoring this activity is a part of the mission for the State Department.

“Because I believe, and our government believes, that gay rights are human rights, we remain extremely concerned about state-sanctioned homophobia,” Clinton said.

In addition to unveiling the report, Clinton also announced the launch of a new State Department website: humanrights.gov. The site is set to assemble reports, statements and other updates from around the world and is intended to become a depository of global human rights information.

Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, commended the State Department for publishing the findings and said the LGBT reporting “continues to be robust.”

“The introduction to the report cites an escalation of violence, persecution and discrimination against LGBT persons as one of three alarming human rights trends in the world last year,” Bromley said. “They note that this also translates into a denial of economic opportunity for many LGBT individuals.”

Bromley added the report demonstrates Clinton has made LGBT rights one of the State Department’s top priorities and said he looks forward to this continued U.S. engagement.

“That is due to the secretary’s leadership, but also to the many committed human rights officers in the State Department and in U.S. embassies around the world who are now actually meeting and interacting with LGBT human rights activists on a regular basis,” Bromley said.

The State Department details the condition of LGBT people in the countries examined in the report under the heading “Societal Abuses, Discrimination, and Acts of Violence Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.”

Among the abuses against LGBT people that the State Department identifies take place in countries where hostility based on sexual orientation and gender identity is well known or has been previously reported by media outlets.

In Uganda, where homosexual acts are already illegal, legislation was pending that would have instituted the death penalty for gays, although the bill reportedly has been shelved. Still, the State Department finds continued discrimination and a lack of legal protections for LGBT people.

“LGBT persons were subject to societal harassment, discrimination, intimidation, and threats to their well-being during the year,” the report states. “Individuals openly threatened members of the LGBT community and their constitutional rights during several public events.”

For example, the report cites a march that Pastor Martin Ssempa led in April against homosexuality in which participants openly threatened LGBT people.

Additionally, the State Department notes that in October a local tabloid published the names, pictures, and, in some cases, places of residence of LGBT activists under the headline “Hang Them.” According to the report, the Uganda High Court on Nov. 1 issued an injunction blocking the tabloid from publishing further information on homosexuality until the resolution of pending litigation filed by LGBT activists.

The State Department also finds continued abuses against LGBT people in Iran, where the punishment for homosexual acts is death.

The report states the country censored all materials related to LGBT issues and the Special Protection Division, a volunteer unit of the judiciary, monitored and reported “moral crimes.”

“In some cases security forces raided houses and monitored Internet sites for information on LGBT individuals,” the report states. “Those accused of sodomy often faced summary trials, and evidentiary standards were not always met.”

According the State Department, gays in Iran are sometimes “pressured” to participate in reassignment surgery “to avoid legal and social persecutions in the country.” Conditions for transgender people in Iran are seen as more favorable than they are to gays — although transgender people still face hostility.

According to the State Department, police in April found a 24-year-old transgender woman known as Mahsa strangled in her apartment. Her two brothers confessed to killing her on moral grounds.

“Although the brothers were sentenced to prison time of eight years and three years, respectively, the sentences included suspended jail time, which reduced their actual sentence in prison to three years and one year, respectively,” the report states.

The report also finds abuses against LGBT people in countries where hostility toward the LGBT community is less reported.

For example, in Honduras, the State Department says that no discriminatory law exists based on sexual orientation, but “social discrimination against persons from sexual minority communities was widespread.”

“Representatives of NGOs focusing on sexual diversity rights asserted that throughout the year security forces killed and abused their members,” the report states. “The prosecutor often encountered serious difficulties in investigating suspicious deaths of LGBT persons because the victims had concealed their identity or sexual orientation.”

Still, the report states that LGBT people in Honduras have successfully organized demonstrations against discrimination in the country. Among the events was a demonstration in Tegucigalpa to raise awareness about homophobia and a government-authorized Pride celebration at San Pedro Sula. It was not known if the police provided sufficient protection for participants at these events.

The report also identifies human rights abuses against LGBT people in places where the rights of LGBT people are sometimes seen as higher than they in the United States — such as in Western Europe, where many countries allow same-sex marriage and nationwide relationship recognition is available to LGBT people.

In the United Kingdom, for example, the report finds LGBT people enjoy protections against human rights abuses and notes that the nation’s law prohibits discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation.

The report finds that dozens of Pride celebrations took place with no interference by the authorities and local police forces are more actively aware of bias-motivated crimes against LGBT people.

“The law encourages judges to impose a greater sentence in assault cases where the victim’s sexual orientation is a motive for the hostility, and many local police forces demonstrated an increasing awareness of the problem and trained officers to identify and moderate these attacks,” the report states.

But the report notes that LGBT people in the United Kingdom aren’t completely free from human rights abuses. The State Department cites an increase in the number of forced marriages of LGBT teenagers and a recent report stating that foreign gays seeking asylum experience “significant disadvantages” because of sexual orientation.

“[NGO] Stonewall claimed that, by ‘fast tracking’ these more complex cases and denying them quickly, UKBA staff did not give applicants time to talk openly about their sexual orientation,” the State Department states.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Advice

I don’t see the point in a relationship 

Life is short and I want to do whatever I want

Published

on

Going through life with a partner isn’t for everyone. (Photo by yanik88/Bigstock)

Michael,

I’m 34, and after being on the dating scene for about 12 years, I’m coming to the conclusion that I don’t want to be in a relationship. 

I don’t love hanging out with the same person over and over again. I don’t feel all gooey when I’ve been with someone for a while. I run out of things to say, and also, it just gets boring.

I like my space. I don’t like having to share the bathroom or have someone next to me all night, especially when they want to go to sleep holding me. I know that sounds like heaven to a lot of people but it just feels intrusive to me. 

It’s a pain to have to compromise what I want to do. When I want to go someplace on vacation, or try a restaurant, or get up early to go to the gym, or sleep in, I don’t want to have to run that by someone else and get their OK. Life’s short. I want to do what I want to do.

I feel like we are constantly bombarded with the message to date and find a mate, but I don’t really see the point.  I don’t think I’m an introvert—I have a lot of friends—but I also like to spend time by myself and not be accountable to anyone.

When I think about marriage, it seems like a very old-fashioned concept, developed for straight people who want to have children. Historically you needed one person to work and another one to stay home and raise the kids. And you needed to stay together to give your kids two parents and a stable home. I get that.

But if I’m not having kids, what’s the point? I don’t need a husband to have sex. I can and do hook up all the time. It’s so easy to find someone online. And I get to have a lot more variety when I’m single than when I’m dating. Even though my relationships are always open, when I am dating someone, I always hook up a lot less, because I have to worry about the boyfriend’s feelings being hurt if I hook up “too much.”

I know I sound unromantic and maybe selfish but this is how I see it.  

My friends are all about having a boyfriend. They think I’m being ridiculous. Can I get another opinion?

Michael replies:

You make great points. Relationships do require us to give up some of our independence. They can feel stifling at times. And when the excitement of a new partner fades, things will at times feel “boring” in all sorts of ways, including sex. You can choose to avoid all of this by remaining single.

But relationships also give us tremendous overlapping opportunities to grow, including:

Being pushed to develop a clear sense of self: When we must constantly decide what we are willing to do or not do as part of a couple; and when our partner inevitably and frequently has interests, values, and priorities that conflict with ours, then we are challenged, over and over, to decide what is most important to us and how we want to live our lives.

Frequent opportunities to build resilience: All those old issues from our past that get us upset or riled up? We have to work through them so that we can stay (pretty) calm rather than losing our minds when our buttons are pressed.  

Improving our ability to have hard conversations – and without rancor: Unless we’re able to disagree, speak up, or confront when it’s important to do so, we are going to twist ourselves into a pretzel striving to accommodate the other person. And being able to engage in tough talks in a loving way is necessary if we want to have a loving relationship.

Becoming a more generous person: You wrote that you like to have things your way. But part of life, whether or not we are partnered, involves being thoughtful, considerate, and willing to put someone else first at times. Great relationships require us to do all of these things regularly—and many of us find that contributing to the happiness of someone we care about can increase our own happiness.

Besides these ongoing challenges, relationships give us the experience of someone knowing us deeply, and knowing someone deeply.  There can be great comfort in going through life with someone with whom we have this intimate connection, along with ongoing shared experiences of trust, support, comfort, and love. Long-term companionship is also an adventure: Can we keep the relationship vibrant and fun as we both keep changing over time? 

If you choose to remain single: Many people play their friendships on the easy setting, keeping things pleasant, on-the-surface, and non-confrontational; and cutting people off when things aren’t going well. Hanging in there to deal with the rough stuff can lead to deeper, longer friendships, and plenty of personal growth.

I do have a question for you: I am curious what sort of relationships you saw growing up, and what your own relationship experiences have been.  

Intimate relationships aren’t for everyone, and you get to decide what is right for you. But if your negative view of relationships is influenced by having witnessed or experienced intrusive or just plain awful relationships, maybe you want to do some work (therapy, for example) to heal from this stuff, rather than letting your past limit your future. A healthy relationship means being part of a couple while also remaining a vibrant individual, not being stifled, bored, and losing your independence.  

(Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].)

Continue Reading

Autos

Wagons ho! High-class, head-turning haulers

Automakers still offer a few good traditional station wagons

Published

on

2026 Volvo V60 Cross Country

As a teenager, one of the first cars I drove — and fell in love with — was our family’s hulking full-size wagon. It stretched over 19 feet in length and weighed a whopping 5,300 pounds. That’s three feet longer and 1,000 heavier than, say, a Ford Explorer today. 

But this Leviathan felt safe and practical, especially when tootling around town with my crew or traveling solo cross-country. Of course, this hauler was also an eco-disaster. 

Luckily, that’s not the case today. And even though the number of traditional station wagons keeps shrinking, automakers are still offering a few gems.    

VOLVO V60 CROSS COUNTRY

$54,000

MPG: 23 city/31 highway

0 to 60 mph: 6.6 seconds

Cargo space: 51 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)

PROS: Elegant design. Composed handling. Top safety features.

CONS: So-so power. Modest rear legroom. Only two trim levels.    

The 2026 Volvo V60 Cross Country doesn’t cry for attention — and that’s the point. This is the automotive equivalent of Kristen Stewart, a celebrity who’s confident in her own skin and sees no need to post about it. 

Under the hood, there’s a four-cylinder turbo engine paired with a mild-hybrid system, producing 247 horsepower. You won’t outrun other drivers, but there is a sense of calm authority when accelerating. The standard all-wheel drive and 8.1 inches of ground clearance mean this wagon is ready for dirt roads, bad weather or a spontaneous weekend jaunt. 

And inside? Scandinavian minimalism at its finest. Clean lines. Gorgeous materials. Google-based infotainment that mostly works — though occasionally the system could be a bit faster, at least for my taste. The ride is smooth, composed and quiet, even if acceleration feels more “measured sip” than “espresso shot.” 

But here’s the twist: After more than a decade, this is the final Volvo wagon in the U.S. Its farewell tour ends in 2026. That alone gives it collector-car status.

MERCEDES-AMG E53 WAGON

$95,000

MPG: 21 city/25 highway

0 to 60 mph: 3.4 seconds

Cargo space: 64.6 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)

PROS: Supercar vibe. Hybrid versatility. Stunning interior.

CONS: Some fussy controls. Can feel heavy when cornering.    

If the Volvo V60 Cross Country is subtle, the 2026 Mercedes-AMG E53 Wagon is a screamer. It’s like being at a Lil Nas X concert: flashy, high energy, and full of shock and awe.  

This performance wagon — a plug-in hybrid, no less — pushes well over 500 horsepower (and in some configurations over 600 horsepower), launching from 0 to 60 mph as fast as a $300,000 Aston Martin supercar.

Yes, deep down, this is still a wagon. But you also can do a Costco run in something that could embarrass sports cars at a stoplight. That duality is delicious.

Inside, Mercedes leans all the way in. The high-tech Superscreen setup stretches across the dash. Ambient lighting glows like a curated art installation. The 4D surround-sound audio literally pulses through the seats. It’s immersive. Borderline excessive. And entirely the point.

Rear-axle steering helps mask the size of this car, but there’s no hiding the weight — it’s a big, powerful machine. Still, this hauler handles far better than physics suggests it should.

PORSCHE TAYCAN CROSS TURISMO

$121,000

Range: 265 miles

0 to 60 mph: 2.8 seconds

Cargo space: 41 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)

PROS: Lightning fast. Space-age design. EV smoothness.

CONS: Very pricey. Options add up quickly. Limited rear visibility.    

The Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo completely rewrites the wagon formula. Fully electric. Shockingly fast. Designed like it belongs in the Louvre.

Performance is instant. Depending on trim level, you’re looking at 0-to-60 mph in less than 3 seconds. No exuberant engine noise — just that smooth, purring EV surge.

Handling? Pure Porsche. Low center of gravity thanks to the battery-pack placement. Precision that makes winding roads feel like choreography. And then — hello — there’s also a Gravel Mode for light off-road use.

Inside, the style is restrained but high-tech. Digital displays dominate, including a 10.3-inch passenger side touchscreen. Yet the layout feels intentional rather than overwhelming. Build quality is exceptional. Options, including leather-free materials and an active-leveling system for hard cornering, are endless — and expensive.

Range varies by model. But as with any EV, your lifestyle (and charging access) matters. 

Overall, this is a wagon that looks and behaves like one helluva class act.

Continue Reading

Advice

My family voted for Trump and I cut off contact

Now my father is ill and I don’t know what to do

Published

on

How should you react when family members support Trump? (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Dear Michael,

I stopped talking to my family last year because they all voted for Trump. It’s not like they didn’t know whom they were voting for — they’d already had four years of seeing him in action.

I decided that I couldn’t remain in contact with people whom I felt wanted to take away my rights as a gay man. That is what they essentially did by voting for Trump.

They had come to my wedding in 2012, they had welcomed my husband and me into their homes for the holidays for our entire relationship, so I couldn’t believe how little they actually cared about me and my community. I was profoundly hurt.

They’ve reached out but I have been too angry at their hypocrisy to engage in more than a perfunctory way. I miss them, sure, but as I’ve watched our community be attacked, I just get so angry that I don’t want to talk. I certainly don’t want to hear them justify bigotry and hatred.

Now one of my siblings has reached out to let me know that my father’s health is rapidly declining. I’m wondering if I should rethink my decision and reach out to him, maybe even visit, before he dies.

But then I think of ICE’s attack on our country and the removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall and I don’t want to talk to people who support what is happening to vulnerable, marginalized people and the LGBTQ community.

My father was a good father to me. Even when I first came out to him, he was loving and supportive. I can’t square his behavior personally toward me with his support of this regime. The hypocrisy makes me so angry. How could he purport to love me and then vote against my freedoms?

I would love some suggestions about how to square my two opposing viewpoints.

Michael replies:

Many years ago, a great mentor taught me that the one thing you can count on in a relationship is learning to tolerate disappointment: Both being a disappointment, and being disappointed in the other person. This is true for love relationships and it’s also true for other significant relationships. All of us are different in some major ways and so we are bound at times to disappoint our loved ones in major ways, and to be disappointed by them in major ways.

That is why I’m not a fan of purity tests. To expect that someone must think like you (much less vote like you) in order for you to have a relationship with them is unrealistic, impractical, and sometimes damaging.

Of course, a person may hold some beliefs that give you reason not to want to have any connection to them. But is that the case here?

From your description, your family has always been loving and supportive of you as a gay man. That is no small thing. They seem to care about you enough to have continued to reach out, even though you have stopped talking to them. 

Perhaps they had some other reasons for voting as they did, other than to roll back LGBTQ rights and to attack immigrants.

Instead of wondering how they could be so hypocritical, how about talking with them and striving to understand their choices? I don’t know what they will say, and you may hear different answers from your various family members. But at least you will get some clarity, rather than presuming that they made their voting choices from a place of malice. Then you will be in a better position to decide if you want a relationship going forward.

Another point to consider: Very few things are set in stone. Even if your family made their voting choices based on holding positions that you neither like nor respect, they may be open to shifting their views over time. One way to perhaps influence their thinking is by engaging with them, sharing your thoughts, and asking them to consider the possible consequences of their actions. If you choose to re-engage with them, two points to consider: 

First, don’t expect that you will change their minds. You can advocate for what you want, but you have to let go of the results.

Second, they are more likely to consider your points if you do not approach them from a judgmental, self-righteous stance. 

Many years ago, when I was newly a vegetarian, I was eager to challenge and “educate” friends who weren’t following my dietary ideas. Guess what? It didn’t work. Then I got some great advice: A great way to influence others to consider eating fewer animals was to serve them delicious vegetarian food.

The same point is true here. We can’t beat people over the head to agree with us. But if we approach them with some kindness, rather than with the certainty that we hold the moral high ground, we may help them see a bigger picture.

And sometimes, we too may see a bigger picture.

Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].

Continue Reading

Popular