Connect with us

World

Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Asia, Europe, and Canada

Japanese prime minister backs marriage equality without legislative commitment

Published

on

(Los Angeles Blade graphic)

JAPAN

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told parliament that he believed legalizing same-sex marriage would make the country happier, although he has no plan to bring forward legislation to make that happen. 

The remarks, which were echoed days later by Justice Minister Keisuke Suzuki, have buoyed the spirits of equal marriage campaigners in the country, despite the governmentā€™s lack of commitment to progress on the issue.

ā€œCompared to other prime ministers, there is a big difference in Ishibaā€™s tone, his direction and his outlook and we are clearly getting to the stage for Japan to take the next step in the right direction,ā€ marriage equality activist Alexander Dmitrenko told This Week in Asia.

Equal marriage advocates have been waging a long battle through both the courts and the political process to win same-sex marriage rights.

Earlier this month, a third appellate court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage violates the Japanese constitution, finding for the first time that the ban violates the constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. Five out of six lower courts that have heard cases seeking equal marriage have also ruled for equality. 

Elections in October yielded a parliament that has a majority in favor of equal marriage, but is still dominated by the largely conservative Liberal Democratic Party, which has formed a minority government. 

While Ishiba says he will not bring forward same-sex marriage legislation and is instead following the progress of cases through the courts for now, it is possible that other parties may try to force the issue by introducing their own bills. 

ā€œThe Fukuoka court has clearly said that the Diet must legally permit same-sex marriages in the same way that marriages between people of opposite sexes are recognized,ā€ Takeharu Kato, one of the lawyers in the equal marriage case that was heard in Sapporo.Ā 

ā€œWe intend to continue to put strong pressure on the government to realize these changes because we are confident that we are nearly there.ā€

PHILIPPINES

Government workers in the Philippines now have the right to dress according to their gender identity, under a new official dress code issued by the Civil Service Commission issued this month.

The Philippinesā€™ civil service is known for its strict dress code for government workers. Workers are required to wear specific locally inspired outfits on Mondays and have been required to wear gender-conforming smart casual office attire on other workdays.

Under the revised dress code, workers are freer to dress according to their gender identity, and female workers are freer to wear either skirts or pants. The new code also relaxes standards relating to tattoos, facial piercings, and hairstyles, as long as they donā€™t interfere with the employeeā€™s work or with safety standards.

Gender-inclusive dress codes have become a much-debated topic in the Philippines in recent years, particularly in schools and universities, where uniforms and dress codes are often strongly enforced. A growing number of institutions have adopted gender-neutral dress codes and uniforms, while the national government says it is studying creating a standard for gender-inclusive dress codes to promote equality.

In another positive development for LGBTQ Filipinos, Globe Telecom, one of the countryā€™s largest mobile providers, has announced it will provide spousal benefits to same-sex partners of its employees. 

Same-sex couples have no legal recognition in the Philippines. A civil union bill has been proposed several times in Congress, but has never advanced.

LITHUANIA

Lithuaniaā€™s constitutional court struck down an ā€œLGBT Propagandaā€ law this week, in a ruling that ought to bring relief to queer activists, publishers, and media outlets.

The ā€œLaw on the Protection of Minors,ā€ which was passed in 2009, banned the promotion of sexual relations or non-traditional conceptions of marriage or family, and drew sharp criticism from queer and civil liberties groups across Europe. It has been used in attempts to ban Vilnius Pride and led broadcasters to restrict advertisements for queer events and causes. 

In one landmark case, government censors used the law to restrict distribution of books of childrenā€™s stories due to its depiction of two same-sex couples. That decision was eventually appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which found last year that the law violated the European Conventionā€™s guarantee of free expression.

Following the ruling, the previous government tried to repeal the law, but after its bill was voted down by parliament, the government filed this legal challenge to the constitutional court.

“Finally, we are normalizing the portrayal and life of our community, and I believe that LGBT youth will live a freer life,” Vladimiras Simonko, head of the Lithuanian Gay League, told LRT.

The court ruled that the lawā€™s anti-LGBTQ sections were unconstitutional restrictions on free expression, and were also too vague, as they did not define what kinds of information disparage family values.   

The court also found that the implications of the law also unfairly narrow the definition of family found in the constitution.

Same-sex couples are not legally recognized in Lithuania. A bill to recognize civil unions was introduced by the previous government but awaits a final vote before it can be brought into law. The current government has not made passing the bill a priority.

CANADA

The province of New Brunswick has finally repealed regulations that required schools to notify parents and receive their consent if a student wishes to use a different name or pronoun in class, following a change in government in October.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which had brought a legal challenge against the original policy, hailed the changes.

“We will discuss with our legal counsel and affected community groups, but expect that these changes will resolve legal issues in our constitutional challenge,” CCLA Director of Equality Programs Harini Sivalingam told CBC

The controversial regulation, known as Policy 713, was brought forward by the provinceā€™s previous Progressive Conservative Party government under former Premier Blaine Higgs. The regulation, which was introduced with limited consultation, led several of Higgsā€™ Cabinet ministers to resign in protest, and led the charge for provincial conservatives to campaign on anti-trans policies across Canada.

That strategy tended not to work for conservatives. In October, Higgsā€™s government was voted out in favor of the New Brunswick Liberals under Susan Holt, who had pledged to rescind the policy and ensure schools are welcoming for all LGBTQ students.

Similarly, Manitobaā€™s PC government was voted out in May after pledging to introduce a similar policy, and the British Columbia Conservatives lost their bid to replace the provinceā€™s NDP government in elections in October.

Still, Saskatchewanā€™s conservative government won reelection in October after introducing a similar policy earlier in the year, and Albertaā€™s conservative government just passed some of the most sweeping anti-transgender legislation Canada has seen in quite some time, including bans on classroom discussion of LGBTQ issues and participation in gender-appropriate sports.

Albertaā€™s anti-trans laws have already been challenged in court, but Saskatchewanā€™s government used a constitutional provision to prevent any legal challenges to its anti-trans laws for five years after an initial loss in court. 

But conservative governments in Ontario and Quebec, which had initially announced plans to introduce parent notification and consent rules for trans students, have yet to bring forward such policies or regulations.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Argentina

Javier Milei rolls back LGBTQ rights in Argentina during first year in office

Gay congressman, activists lead resistance against president

Published

on

Argentine President Javier Milei (Screen capture via YouTube)

Javier Milei’s rise to power marked a sea change in Argentine politics that profoundly impacted the countryā€™s LGBTQ community.

His first year in office has seen a combination of hostile rhetoric and concrete measures that have dismantled historic advances in human rights.

ā€œJavier Milei’s administration is fighting a two-way battle,ā€ Congressman Esteban PaulĆ³n, a long-time LGBTQ activist, pointed out to the Washington Blade. ā€œOn the one hand, symbolically, with an openly homo, lesbo and transodiant discourse, and on the other, in concrete facts, such as the closure of the Ministry of Women, Gender and Diversity, and INADI (the National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism).ā€

The decision to eliminate these key institutions sent a clear message: Diversity policies are no longer a state priority. This dismantling left LGBTQ Argentines without national advocacy tools.

Some provinces have tried to fill this void, but many others have followed the national governmentā€™s lead. This trend, according to PaulĆ³n and other activists, has left LGBTQ Argentines even more vulnerable.

ā€œWhat we are seeing is not only a setback in public policies, but also a direct attack on the dignity of thousands of people who, until recently, felt the support of the state,ā€ said PaulĆ³n. 

One of Milei administrationā€™s first acts was to close the Women, Gender and Diversity Ministry and INADI. These decisions, which Milei said was necessary to reduce ā€œunnecessary public spending,ā€ eliminated agencies that played an essential role in the promotion of human rights and the fight against discrimination.

ā€œWithout these institutions, the LGBTQ community has been left unprotected against violence and prejudice. Now, discrimination cases that used to be handled by INADI end up shelved or without follow-up,ā€ PaulĆ³n warned. ā€œThe message this sends is that our lives don’t matter to this government.ā€

PaulĆ³n and other activists say one of the Milei governmentā€™s most alarming decisions is to allow employers to fire employees without legal consequences.

ā€œToday, a person can be fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, without the possibility of recovering their job,ā€ warned PaulĆ³n. 

The new policy has left many employees ā€” especially transgender people ā€” without legal recourse. Advocacy groups say companies have taken advantage of this regulation to carry out selective firings. The freezing of a trans-specific labor quota has deepened employment discrepancies for one of the countryā€™s most vulnerable communities.

PaulĆ³n told the Blade that anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from Milei and several of his ministers has also had an effect on Argentine society.

ā€œToday, anyone feels they can say anything without consequences,ā€ said PaulĆ³n, who noted that ultraconservative and religious sectors view Mileiā€™s government as an ally. 

This rhetoric, according to PaulĆ³n, has yet to translate into widespread violence.

ā€œWe are not yet in a situation of systematic violence as in other countries, but the risk is there,ā€ he said. ā€œEvery word of hate from power legitimizes violent actions.ā€

Congress, civil society leads resistance

In the face of this adverse scenario, resistance has taken various forms.

PaulĆ³n and other opposition lawmakers have worked on bills to protect LGBTQ rights and reverse regressive measures.

ā€œWe will not stand idly by. We put forward concrete proposals to guarantee access to health care, inclusive education and labor protections,ā€ said PaulĆ³n.

Activists have strengthened alliances with their counterparts in neighboring countries, such as Brazil and Chile, and Mexico. They are also working with international organizations that have expressed concern about the situation in Argentina.

Although the outlook is bleak, PaulĆ³n said he remains hopeful. 

ā€œMilei is going to pass, like all processes in democracy,ā€ he said. 

PaulĆ³n stressed that marriage equality and the transgender rights law are deeply rooted in Argentine society, and act as barriers to stop further setbacks. The challenge now, he says, is to maintain resistance, organize the community, and strengthen international ties.

ā€œWe have an organized movement, tools to defend ourselves and a mostly plural and diverse society. This process will also come to an end,ā€ said PaulĆ³n. ā€œIn this context, the struggle for LGBTQ rights in Argentina is a reminder that social conquests are never definitive and that resistance is vital to preserve the achievements made.ā€Ā 

Continue Reading

Uganda

Ugandan minister: Western human rights sanctions forced country to join BRICS

President Yoweri Museveni signed Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2023

Published

on

(Image by rarrarorro/Bigstock)

Ugandan Foreign Affairs Minister Henry Oryem has revealed U.S. and EU sanctions over the countryā€™s Anti-Homosexuality Act and other human rights violations have pushed Kampala to join the BRICS bloc.

Oryem noted Western powersā€™ decision to sanction other countries without U.N. input is against international norms, and Uganda needed to shield itself from such actions by aligning with the bloc that includes China, Russia, India, South Africa, Brazil, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Iran, and Indonesia. (Consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized in the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Iran is among the countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death.)

Kampala officially became a BRICS member on Jan. 1, joining eight other countries whose applications for admission were approved last October during the blocā€™s 16th annual summit in Kazan, Russia.  

ā€œThe United States and European Union, whenever they impose sanctions, expect all those other countries to make sure they abide by those sanctions and if you donā€™t, you face penalties or even they sanction you,ā€ Oryem said. 

Oryem spoke before parliamentā€™s Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday.

MPs asked him to explain the circumstances that led Uganda to join BRICS and the countryā€™s financial obligation from the membership.      

ā€œNow because of that and the recent events, you have realized that the United States and European Union have started freezing assets of countries in their nations without UN resolutions which is a breach of international world order,ā€ Oryem said. ā€œUganda canā€™t just standby and look at these changes and not be part of these changes. It will not be right.ā€

Oryem also said President Yoweri Museveniā€™s Cabinet discussed and approved the matter before he directed the Foreign Affairs Ministry to write to the BRICS Secretariat about admitting Uganda into the bloc.

The U.S. and other Western governments condemned Museveniā€™s decision to sign the Anti-Homosexuality Act, and announced a series of sanctions against Kampala. 

Washington, for example, imposed visa restrictions on government officials who championed the Anti-Homosexuality Act, re-evaluated its foreign aid and investment engagement with Uganda, including the Presidentā€™s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and reviewed Kampalaā€™s duty-free trade with the U.S. under the African Growth and Opportunity Act for sub-Saharan African countries.

The U.S. in May 2024 imposed sanctions on House Speaker Anita Among and four other senior Ugandan government officials accused of corruption and significant human rights violations.

Although the EU criticized the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, the 27-member bloc did not sanction Kampala, despite pressure from queer rights activists. The state-funded Uganda Human Rights Commission and several other human rights groups and queer activists, meanwhile, continue to pressure the government to withdraw implementation of the law.

UHRC Chair Mariam Wangadya, who called on the government to decriminalize homosexuality last month, has said her commission has received reports that indicate security officers who enforce the Anti-Homosexuality Act have subjected marginalized communities to discrimination and inhuman and degrading treatment

ā€œAs a signatory to several international and regional human rights conventions, Uganda is committed to ensuring non-discrimination and equality before the law,ā€ Wangadya said.  ā€œAt the domestic level, Ugandaā€™s constitution, under Article 21, prohibits discrimination based on gender, ensuring equality before the law, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or social status.ā€

Museveniā€™s son comes out against Anti-Homosexuality Act

Museveniā€™s son, Army Chief General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, has also emerged as a critic of the Anti-Homosexuality Act.

ā€œI was totally shocked and very hurt. Japanese are warriors like us. I respect them very much. I asked them how we were oppressing them. Then they told me about the AHA,ā€ he said on X on Jan. 3 while talking about how the Japanese questioned him over Ugandaā€™s persecution of queer people during his recent visit to Tokyo. ā€œCompatriots, let’s get rid of that small law. Our friends around the world are misunderstanding us.ā€

Kainerugaba, who is positioning himself as Museveniā€™s successor, had already declared an interest in running for president in 2026 before he withdrew last September in favor of his 80-year-old father who has been in power for more than three decades.

In his X post, Kainerugaba also indicated that ā€œwe shall remove this Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2026.ā€ He left the platform six days later after his posts threatened Ugandaā€™s diplomatic relations.

ā€œThey (gays) are sick people, but since the Creator made them … what do we do? Even ā€˜kibokoā€™ (whips) might not work. We shall pray for them,ā€ Kainerugaba said. 

The Supreme Court is currently considering a case that challenges the Anti-Homosexuality Act. The Constitutional Court last April upheld the law.

Continue Reading

India

Indian Supreme Court rejects marriage equality ruling appeals

Judges ruled against full same-sex relationship recognition in 2023

Published

on

The Indian Supreme Court (Photo by TK Kurikawa via Bigstock)

The Indian Supreme Court on Jan. 9 rejected a series of petitions that challenged its 2023 ruling against marriage equality

A 5-judge bench ā€” Justices Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Surya Kant, Bengaluru Venkataramiah Nagarathna, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta ā€” said there were no errors in the ruling that justified a review.

five-judge Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, on Oct. 17, 2023, in a 3-2 decision ruled against recognizing the constitutional validity of same-sex marriages in India.

The court emphasized it is parliament’s rule to decide whether to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. It also acknowledged its function is limited to interpreting laws, not creating them.

The judges on Jan. 9 stated they had reviewed the original rulings.

“We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record,” they said. “We further find that the view expressed in both the judgments is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed.ā€

A new bench of judges formed on July 10, 2024, afterĀ Justice Sanjiv KhannaĀ unexpectedly recused himself from hearing the appeals, citing personal reasons. The reconstituted bench included Narasimha, who was part of the original group of judges who delivered the ruling.

“The fact that we have lost is a comma and not a full stop for equality,” said Harish Iyer, a prominent LGBTQ rights activist in India and one of the plaintiffs of marriage equality case. “The admission of review petitions is a rarity, and while we will proceed with all legal recourses available this is not the only fight.”

Some of the plaintiffs in November 2023 appealedĀ the Supreme Court’s original decision. Udit Sood and other lawyers who had represented them in the original marriage equality case filed the appeal.

The appeal argued the ruling contained “errors apparent on the face of the record,” and described the earlier ruling as “self-contradictory and manifestly unjust.” It criticized the court for acknowledging the plaintiffs face discrimination, but then dismissing their claims with “best wishes for the future,” contending this approach fails to fulfill the court’s constitutional obligations toward queer Indians and undermines the separation of powers envisioned in the constitution. The appeal also asserted the majority ruling warrants review because it summarily dismissed established legal precedents and made the “chilling declaration” that the constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to marry, create a family, or form a civil union.

While speaking to the Washington Blade, Iyer said this setback is a reminder that our futures can be shaped by collaboration and numerous small victories along the way.

“We will have a multi-pronged approach,” he said. “We need to speak to parents groups, teachers, police personnel, doctors, and medical staff, news reporters, podcasters, grassroots activists, activists from allied movements, our local/state and national level elected representatives. We all need to do our bit in our circle of influence. These small waves will create a force that will help us propel toward marriage equality.”

Iyer told the Blade he is confident the community will achieve marriage equality within his lifetime, offering assurance to every queer individual.

“I just hope that I am not too old to find someone to marry with by then.”

As per the Supreme Court’s rules, a ruling is reviewed only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, the discovery of new evidence, or any reason equivalent to these two. Justices typically consider appeals without oral arguments, circulating them among themselves in chambers. The same set of justices who issued the original ruling typically rules on the appeal. In this case, however, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S. Ravindra Bhat, and Chandrachud, who were part of the original bench, had retired.

Souvik Saha, founder of Jamshedpur Queer Circle, an LGBTQ organization that conducts sensitization workshops with law enforcement and local communities, described the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal as not just a legal setback, but a significant blow to the hopes of millions of LGBTQ people across India. He said the decision perpetuates a sense of exclusion, denying the community the constitutional promise of equality under Article 14 and the right to live with dignity under Article 21.

“This decision comes at a time when global momentum on marriage equality is growing,” said Saha, noting Taiwan and more than 30 other countries around the world have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples. “The lack of recognition in India, despite the 2018 Navtej Johar judgement ā€” decriminalizing homosexuality, leaves the LGBTQ community in a vulnerable position.”

Saha further noted in Jharkhand, a state in eastern India where socio-cultural stigmas run deep, the Supreme Court’s refusal highlights the fight for equality is far from over.

He shared the Jamshedpur Queer Circle recently supported a young lesbian couple who were disowned by their families and faced threats when attempting to formalize their relationship. Saha stressed that without legal safeguards, such couples are left without recourse, underscoring the urgent need for marriage equality to ensure protection and recognition for LGBTQ people.

“While the decision delays progress, it cannot halt the movement for equality,” said Saha. “Marriage equality is inevitable in a country where nearly 60 percent of Indians aged 18-34 believe that same-sex couples should have the right to marry (Ipsos LGBT+ Pride Survey, 2021.) This ruling highlights the need to shift our advocacy strategy towards building a stronger case for social and political change.”

Saha proposed several calls to action and strategies for moving forward.

He emphasized to the Blade the need for mobilizing the community through state-level consultations and storytelling campaigns to humanize the issue of marriage equality. Saha also highlighted the importance of developing stronger petitions, supported by case studies, international precedents, and data to effectively address judicial concerns.

Saha suggested working with allies in civil society and corporate India to push for incremental changes. He advocated for engaging policymakers in dialogue to promote legislative reforms, emphasizing the economic benefits of inclusion. Saha also called for campaigns to counter misinformation and prejudice, while establishing counseling and support groups for LGBTQ people and their families that provide guidance and support.

“Legal recognition of marriage is not just about ceremony; it is about the basic rights, dignity, and respect that every individual deserves,” said Saha. “Together, through collective action, we will ensure that the arc of justice bends in our favor.”

Indrani Chakraborty, an LGBTQ activist and mother of Amulya Gautam, a transgender student from Guwahati in Assam state, described the Supreme Court’s appeal denial as an “insensitive approach.”

“Love and commitment are emotions that can never be under boundaries. Rejection of same-sex marriage is an oppressive approach towards the LGBTQI+ community,” said Chakraborty. “This is discrimination. Marriage provides social and legal security to the couple and that should be irrespective of gender. Same-sex relationships will be there as always even with or without any constitutional recognition. The fight should go on, as I believe, this validates the intention. The community needs to stand bold, and equality be achieved.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular