Jan 15, 2013 | News
In particular, the Court recognizes that preventing sexual orientation discrimination is an important and legitimate purpose that justifies restrictions on freedom of religion.
In its judgment in Eweida and Others v. United Kingdom, issued on 15 January, the European Court of Human Rights affirmed that the right to act in accordance with one’s religion may be limited in order to protect others from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The ICJ, the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) welcome this decision.
Two of the four applications that were considered jointly in Eweida and Others concerned employees who refused to provide services to same-sex couples because of their personal religious beliefs.
The other two applications concerned employer-imposed restrictions on wearing visible crosses at work.
Lillian Ladele was employed by the London Borough of Islington as a marriage registrar.
She had refused to perform same-sex civil partnership ceremonies as part of her job because she believed that civil partnerships were equivalent to marriage and that same-sex unions were contrary to God’s will.
Following her refusal, she was disciplined and ultimately dismissed.
The Court held that Ladele’s employer’s decision not to make an exception for her religious beliefs was both legitimate and proportionate, in light of the Court’s own case-law concerning the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the need for same-sex couples to have legal recognition and protection of their relationships.
There was thus no violation of her right to be free from discrimination on the basis of religion.
Gary McFarlane was employed by Relate Federation, a private organisation providing sex therapy and relationship counselling.
He objected to treating same-sex couples and was dismissed.
The Court found that the right balance had been struck between McFarlane’s right to manifest his religious belief and “the employer’s interest in securing the rights of others.”
There was no violation of his right to freedom of religion, either separately or in conjunction with the right to be free from discrimination.
“Article 9 of the European Convention protects the right to manifest one’s religion in public, but this right is not unlimited,” stated Alli Jernow, Senior Legal Advisor of the International Commission of Jurists. “With today’s judgment, the Court upholds the importance of protecting others from discrimination.”
“This is a very timely decision, and particularly important in view of the fact that similar refusals to perform marriages and partnerships of same-sex or refusal to provide services to same-sex couples is a frequent occurrence in other European jurisdictions. This decision should help to guide national governments on the balance between freedom of religion and the right to non-discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation,” stated Evelyne Paradis, ILGA-Europe’s Executive Director.
“The Court’s reaffirmation that same–sex couples are in a similar situation to different-sex couples as regards their need to recognition and protection is an important step forward; that fundamental human right principle should guide all European states in the future,” concluded Souhayr Belhassen, FIDH President.
The ICJ, ILGA-Europe and FIDH had submitted a joint third-party intervention
See also:
European Court of Human Rights’ press release
European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of Eweida and Others v. United Kingdom (Applications nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10) 15 January 2013
Dec 6, 2012 | News
On 6 December 2012, the ICJ and ICJ-Kenya convened a roundtable entitled “LGBT Human Rights” in Nairobi.
The event brought together members of the Kenyan bar with LGBT human rights activists for a full discussion of criminal and constitutional law and international human rights standards, as well as possibilities for reform through either judicial or parliamentary processes.
The event was opened by Lawrence Mute, a former national human rights commissioner, signatory of the Yogyakarta Principles, and winner of ICJ-Kenya’s Jurist of the Year award.
Nov 30, 2012 | News
The ICJ condemns the reintroduction of Anti-Homosexuality Bill in the Ugandan Parliament. The bill has passed out of committee and is expected to come to a floor vote in early December.
According to reports from civil society organizations in Uganda, the bill still contains the death penalty for acts of “aggravated homosexuality.”
In addition, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill criminalizes the promotion of homosexuality, which is defined to include all advocacy activities.
“Adopting the Anti-Homosexuality Bill would be a serious threat to the human rights and human dignity of LGBT individuals and organizations,” said Alli Jernow, Senior Legal Adviser at the ICJ. “Under the Bill, not only might someone face life in prison or the death penalty for being gay, but human rights defenders would also be prevented from speaking out to challenge the law.”
Under the Bill, anyone in authority, such as a teacher or medical professional, who fails to report an offence to law enforcement within twenty-four hours, is liable to three years’ imprisonment.
The ICJ says the bill is dangerous and deadly and urges Parliament to reject it.
Parliament must also reaffirm the rights to non-discrimination, privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of association for all Ugandans, the ICJ adds.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill has already been used to justify a general clampdown on civil society in Uganda.
Meetings and workshops have been disrupted and advocacy groups working on human rights have been threatened.
In February 2012, the Minister of State for Ethics and Integrity, Simon Lokodo, shut down a capacity-building session for LGBT activists organized by Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG) at a hotel in Entebbe and threatened to arrest FARUG’s executive director Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera (picture above).
In June 2012, police raided a workshop for East African LGBT human rights defenders that had been organized by the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project and they detained participants for several hours.
Minister Lokodo also told the press that he was going to ban 38 organizations that were “sympathetic to LGBT people.”
“If adopted, the bill would clearly violate the human rights of all Ugandans,” Jernow added.
International human rights law, including treaties to which Uganda is a party, prohibit the criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct and forbid the imposition of the death penalty for non-violent conduct, including sexual relations between consenting adults.
International human rights law also guarantees the right of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
Contact:
Alli Jernow, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor, t + 41 22 979 3823 ; e-mail: alison.jernow(at)icj.org
Nov 27, 2012 | News
The ICJ and ILGA-Europe welcome the historic decision by the UN Human Rights Committee in Irina Fedotova v. Russian Federation, which was released on 19 November.
“We are very pleased with the Committee’s Views in this case and in particular with the recognition that expressing opinions and information about same-sex sexual orientation cannot be limited in the name of public morality,” said Alli Jernow, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor.
In March 2009, Fedotova had displayed posters declaring “Homosexuality is normal” and “I am proud of my homosexuality” near a secondary school building in Ryazan.
The Ryazan Law on Administrative Offences prohibited “public actions aimed at propaganda of homosexuality among minors.” She was arrested, convicted, and ordered to pay a fine of 1,500 roubles.
Fedotova lost her appeal to the district court and the Constitutional Court ruled that the prohibition of information that was “capable of harming health, morals and spiritual development, as well as forming perverted conceptions about equal social value of traditional and non-traditional family relations” could not be considered a violation of the right to freedom of expression.
But the Human Rights Committee held that Russia had violated Fedotova’s rights to freedom of expression and to be free from discrimination.
These rights are guaranteed by articles 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“The decision is especially important because it effectively reverses the position taken by the Committee in the 1982 case of Hertzberg v. Finland, which upheld a ban similar to the one in the Fedotova case,” Jernow added.
The Human Rights Committee ordered the Russian Federation to reimburse the fine paid by Fedotova as well as her legal costs and to ensure that the relevant provisions of domestic law are made compatible with articles 19 and 26 of the Covenant.
Since the Ryazan law was adopted, a number of other regions in Russia have adopted legislation banning “homosexual propaganda.” Activists across the country, including in St. Petersburg, have been arrested and convicted under such laws.
In its decision, the Human Rights Committee emphasized that limitations for the purpose of public morals, which are derived “from many social, philosophical and religious traditions,” could not be based exclusively on a single tradition.
Furthermore, any such limitations “must be understood in light of universality of human rights and the principle of non-discrimination.” The Committee recalled that the “prohibition against discrimination under article 26 comprises also discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
The Committee stated that Russia “has not shown that a restriction on the right to freedom of expression in relation to ‘propaganda of homosexuality’ – as opposed to propaganda of heterosexuality or sexuality generally – among minors is based on reasonable and objective criteria.”
Fedotova’s actions were not aimed at involving minors in any particular sexual activity. Rather, “she was giving expression to her sexual identity and seeking understanding for it.”
“We hope this landmark decision will send a strong signal to Russia to reconsider such discriminatory steps and to abandon any legislative proposals criminalising ‘homosexual propaganda’,” said Evelyne Paradis, Executive Director of ILGA-Europe.
The ICJ had submitted a legal opinion, which the Committee excerpted in detail, arguing that the law was discriminatory and that limitations on rights could not discriminate. Earlier this year, the ICJ and ILGA-Europe published a briefing paper titled “Homosexual Propaganda Bans: Analysis and Recommendations.”
Contact:
Alli Jernow, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor, t + 41 22 979 3823
Juris Lavrikovs, ILGA-Europe, t + 32 2 609 54 16 and + 32 496 708 375
Nov 21, 2012 | News
The ICJ and other human rights groups celebrate historic first condemnation of killings based on gender identity.
An international coalition of organizations dedicated to human rights celebrated yesterday’s historic vote in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly to pass resolution A/C.3/67/L.36 condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.
The vote reversed the events of 2010 when the same body voted to strip the resolution of reference to “sexual orientation.”
The UNGA also expanded upon its commitment to the universality of human rights by including “gender identity” for the first time in the resolution’s history.
The resolution, which is introduced biennially in the Third Committee, urges States to protect the right to life of all people, including by calling upon states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds.
It was introduced by the Government of Sweden and co-sponsored by 34 states from around the world.
For the past 12 years, this resolution has urged States “to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including… all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation.”
Apart from Human Rights Council resolution 17/19, it is the only UN resolution to make specific reference to sexual orientation.
This year, the term “gender identity” was added to the list of categories vulnerable to extrajudicial killings.
At Tuesday’s session, the United Arab Emirates, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, presented an amendment that would have stripped the resolution of reference to “sexual orientation and gender identity” and substituted “or for any other reason.”
The UAE proposal was rejected in a vote with 44 votes in favor, 86 against, and 31 abstentions and 32 absent.
Another failed effort, led by the Holy See, would have stripped all specific references to groups at high risk for execution; however it was never formally introduced.
The Third Committee also retained language expressing “deep concern” over the continuing instances of arbitrary killing resulting from the use of capital punishment in a manner that violates international law, which some States led by Singapore attempted to have deleted. The Singapore proposal was rejected in a vote with 50 votes in favor, 78 against, and 37 abstentions and 30 absent.
The full resolution passed with 108 votes in favor, 1 against, 65 abstentions, and 19 absent.
Many governments, including Brazil, the United States and South Africa, among others, spoke out to condemn the proposed amendment to remove reference to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Government of Japan ended the silence that has often characterized the Asian Group’s participation on LGBT rights at the UNGA by stating: “we cannot tolerate any killings of persons because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Our delegation voted against the proposed amendment to this paragraph because we think it is meaningful to mention such killings from the perspective of protecting the rights of LGBT people.”
Some governments condemned the reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, including Sudan on behalf of the Arab Group, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
Trinidad and Tobago stated that specific reference to “gender identity” presented a “particular challenge” for the country.
Speaking frequently, the Government of Egypt stated that it was “gravely alarmed at the attempt to legitimate undetermined concepts like gender identity” by equating them with other forms of discrimination such as that based on race, color, sex, religion, and language. In reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, Egypt stated: “we are alarmed at the attempts to make new rights or new standards.”
The vote affirms the resolution’s dramatic conclusion in 2010. At that time, the Third Committee removed the reference to “sexual orientation” by a vote of 79 in favor, 70 opposed, with 17 abstaining and 26 not voting and was silent on “gender identity.”
However, in a remarkable turn of events, the resolution was later introduced before the full General Assembly, which voted to reinstate the language by passing it 93 to 55, with 27 abstentions and 17 absent or not voting.
The states’ decision on Tuesday to support the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and introduce “gender identity” into the resolution is one more in a series of positive developments the UN and in regional human rights systems where there is increasingly recognition of the need for protection from discrimination regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The successful expansion of the resolution to include “gender identity” on Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day dedicated to those murdered as a result of their gender identity or expression, was particularly significant.
Contact:
Allison Jernow, t +41 22 979 38 23, e-mail: allison.jernow@icj.org
NOTE:
The vote
- For a full vote on the Singapore Amendment, click here. For a photograph of the vote, click here.
- For a full vote on the United Arab Emirates Amendment to remove sexual orientation and gender identity, click here. For a photograph of the vote, click here.
- For a full vote on the passage of the Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions Resolutions, click here. For a photograph of the vote, click here.
