Historical gay sex convictions in New Zealand to be wiped

As we in Jamaica continue to quibble after decades about the definition of rape and whether or not to decriminalize buggery and such other jurisdictions are getting the job done in terms of fixing the breach to gay men over so many years in error.

It was just some days ago that the folks in the United Kingdom also pardoned men with buggery running into the thousands who will benefit from such an action.

Yet we want to hold on to a 486 year old legislation simply because politicians are afraid to do the sensible thing.

New Zealand has said it will move to quash historical convictions for consensual sex between men.

Amy Adams

Justice Minister Amy Adams said an application process will be introduced and cases will be judged individually.

In 1986 when the Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed, sex between men above 16 years old was decriminalised.

But convictions for consensual sex between men prior to that still appear in criminal history checks and may have to be disclosed in job applications.

Ms Adams said the government intends to introduce legislation to implement the scheme in the coming months. About 1,000 people could be eligible to apply, according to New Zealand media reports.
'Stigma and prejudice'

A petition was introduced to parliament last July, asking for a process to reverse those convictions brought before 1986 and for an apology from the government.

On Thursday, Ms Adams apologised while addressing reporters.

"Although we can never fully undo the impact on the lives of those affected, this new scheme will provide a pathway for their convictions to be expunged," Ms Adams said.

"It means people will be treated as if they had never been convicted, and removes the ongoing stigma and prejudice that can arise from convictions for homosexual offences."

Only convictions between consenting adult men will be quashed, Ms Adams said, not those where the acts are still illegal today.

Britain announced it would pardon thousands of men convicted of offences that once criminalised homosexuality last year and a 2012 bill allowed those with historical convictions for consensual gay sex to apply to have them disregarded.

meanwhile locally here is some of the nonsense we have to contend with for example some of the comments on just the mere suggestion by the UN that rape should be redefined to reflect anal sex than just mere vaginal penetration:

Observer poll results February 2017

It is a little heart rending to watch countries that once criminalised buggery or anal sex with consent now rightsizing their legislation and going further to quash convictions that qualify while we fiddle with buggery. As a gay man who has been burnt by this buggery act I know all too well the sensitivities involved.

I am happy for the men who will benefit from this quashing in New Zealand.

Peace & tolerance

H

also see:

Thousands of gay men in the UK pardoned for past convictions of gross indecency

J-FLAG call to broaden definition of sexual intercourse

Defintition of sex business back on the agenda again

On referenda, politicians, integrity & buggery

I stayed up all night glued to the BBC to hear the outcome of the referendum as promulgated by present Prime Minister of the UK David Cameron who won his present term by a convincing majority as whether to leave or stay in the European Union, EU. I like many others are wondering from the results which is to leave are actually so or am I in a daze of some kind? I never expected this seeing the Scotland vote some years ago to remain with England and Wales and also Gibraltar (61%) in the present state of affairs; with Scotland in this latest round they voted to remain in the EU and now I am wondering with Scotland have a second go round at independence so to speak given the outcome. The view is that older British both natives and immigrants with citizenship status are the ones responsible for the leave vote as younger persons who have not lived the pre-EU existence voted to stay as expected; that is all they would have known.

I am concerned as to the fallout with this departure though via an advisory referendum how will it affect the commonwealth and island developing states such as ours? Jamaica benefits from several grants over the years and in particular the LGBT component of it. The EU has a near full open borders policy and with the UK wishing via this referendum results wishes to remain insular or as an island empire it seems. The UK is not an easy ride in terms of asylum seeking for Caribbean LGBT applicants based on my over 15 years experience watching or providing information for support for some cases. We wait with baited breath to see what is next; what is clear is the intent of the Prime Minister to resign and rightfully so as he was the author of all this, despite going into this obviously unsure but seemingly misguided as to the feeling in the population. He like some other conservatives have concerns about their borders and the supposed boogieman of free loaders taking state resources and jobs despite the natives rejecting those very jobs that are seen as low paying.

There are too many uncertainties for me though; will other states as it now banded leave such as a Nexit in the form of the Netherlands or Frexit in the form of France. The sterling has been devaluing and speculation seems rife on trade and how that will be impacted by the leave EU referendum results. Do we need a Jamxit from CARICOM as recent issues have some uncomfortable and the tense relations with Trinidad. So much re-negotiations have to go into effect and what the Cotonou agreement which replaced the Lome convention now in place and ends in 2020 with the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific states if any changes will have to made is unsure. Some are asking if the relationship with the ACP countries is even relevant in today’s world. If the EU breaks up or loses more members will the grants still go to developing states and or trade or preferential treatment continue. What about what will DFID look like or constituted? What about the free movement of people/labour in so far as Schegen visas from the rest of the EU although one would also need a UK visa if entering from elsewhere? And of course there may be some opportunities if only for forward thinking and insight by some, but we are not known to have such virtues in abundance and if available not used with alacrity.

The immigration argument for to leave is a hypocritical stance in my view, the UK/England came to the Caribbean, colonized it and then took back not only ours and other small state wealth and even asked said countries to rebuild after the world war. Then the UK via the voters are upset and complaining about immigrants! The voters who stayed away must be up in arms in a sense now seeing the aftermath.

We need a free trade area of the commonwealth to include the fast rising India, maybe Africa and Australia possibly, we cannot continue to rely on spaces like the EU and what about the preferential treatment of bananas as sugar does not really get that anymore in large numbers. How will our bilateral relations change and the CARI-forum economic partnership agreements look like in the future. How can we position ourselves in the obvious interregnum that is to come as the withdrawal goes into effect? Will remittances get affected our immigration policy? There is talk of sports being impacted such as the Holy Grail football in terms of buying players and the associated costs.

Just days ago (June 20) we saw this development:
28 EU member states reach consensus on LGBT rights for first time, what will become of this?

Referenda is the way these days as only yesterday as well we saw Bermuda had their referendum on gay marriage with a no result and the Bahamas had theirs on three items to include an amendment to marriage where fear mongering religious voices pushed hard against to allow. I am sorry our Bermudan friends did not succeed as I had hoped but at least in the UK the Prime Minister recognized his outcome and saw himself as unfit to continue to in steering the country in the new direction away from the EU. We know full well that had this been Jamaica and it required a leader to walk away that would not be even considered. Probably the closest thing to some decency in that regard was when former Prime Minister Bruce ‘not in my cabinet’ Golding was effectively forced to leave office after the Manatt Phipps saga and the botched policy issues with an incursion in Tivoli with lives lost in the process. Instead we are or have allowed leaders over the years to play on us time and time again but the maturity of David Cameron should be noted. We have leaders instead who use homophobia to gain political capital in the form of former PM P. J. Patterson in 2002 where he despite his public persona being pigeon holed as gay on the down low by the Jamaica Labour Party in a near nasty election campaign he responded with a sleek campaign strategy employing murder music typed songs much to the support of an enthralled public including gays bizarrely. 

When Norman Manley for example ran the referendum on Federation on September 19, 1961 he took a gamble and lost then he called an election to seek another mandate but only to loose; hence the near trepidation in Jamaica ever since on referenda.

Remember the suggested (seen as a promise for some) conscience vote in December 2011 with then opposition leader Portia Simpson Miller which has turned out to be a fluke and prior to the last elections on February 29, 2016 and flip flops by key Ministers, namely former Justice Minister Mark Golding who despite his supposed personal position on the buggery law is it should be amended was quite prepared to tell the nation and the world after the UN periodic review in 2015 that there would be no change to the law in parliament during the sexual offences bill review. 

also see:

New opposition spokesman on Justice says referendum not needed to amend Buggery Law

Buggery law referendum baiting by JLP in #Javote2016 campaign

Minister Golding trying to manipulate anti-gay sentiments (Jamaica Observer Editorial) .....

Justice Minister (Golding) exploits homophobia to gain CCJ support

The line in the sand for the PNP part 10 : Buggery referendum & more CCJ

No Buggery Law Removal says Justice Minister, Gay Marriage parachuted in yet again

Justice Minister reiterates his personal position on the Buggery Law, Anal Intercourse

There has been some talk of a referendum on buggery and the Caribbean Court of Justice, CCJ as our final court to a lesser extent in months hence of the aforementioned Bahamas, Bermuda and now the UK referenda anti gay voices feel emboldened to push for a mostly buggery law referendum. The Bermuda referendum yesterday saw 69% of voters saying no to gay marriage and 63% saying no to civil unions which have some antigay groups rejoicing. The aforementioned mentioned Mark Golding was quite prepared to almost gay bait the Privy Council in order to give support to saying yes to the CCJ. Talk about integrity or the lack thereof and unwillingness to dispense of political capital on perceived politically explosive but urgent matters. Groups such as Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS, Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, LCF and Jamaica CAUSE have jumped on the announcement by present Prime Minister then opposition leader on a referendum on buggery which was also included in the JLP manifesto for 2016.

The opportunistic anti gay groups know full well that such a referendum in the face of a largely ignorant nation on sexuality as evidenced in the recent rainbow flag fiasco starring no less the chief legal adviser to the government (with no public reprimand by the PM) the Attorney General would be a full NO. Given the closeness of the seats in the house, the desperation being displayed by the opposition in light of the soon to be announced local government elections such a referendum may not come to light maybe for the CCJ. Such referenda may be seen as a reflection of the political climate instead of the actual item(s) on the ballot for consideration; hence maybe that might be the fly in the ointment causing a delay, as a party leader will have to consider how the administration and indeed the party will look like afterwards. Some political pundits say as we politicize nearly everything we do then such politicization can have an impact on the life of an administration one way or another.

We have hypocritical senators such as former Information Minister Sandrea Falconer claiming homosexuality is a sin but should not be criminalised and in principle she is entitled to that; similar sentiments were expressed in the house of lord in the lead up to the 1967 decriminalization of sodomy in the UK by no less a person than the Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey. Where Falconer fails to deliver is to say it when she was on the administration side before the election loss she has not expressed that so much during the last sexual offences bill review that includes the ‘buggery law’ neither has she moved a bill or private members motion to begin the legislative change discourse. Then we have a mayor of Kingston who claims she is concerned about homeless msm and transgender but is quite prepared to also tow the party/administration line despite her appearance at JFLAG’s Pride event in 2015 for a photo op had not moved a bill or private members motion to such effect. She went on to say recently she was issued threats after she said she is supportive but I am not impressed with her just spectator support when she and others have the powers to make the change or start the process legislatively.

Call me skeptical but I have always said that political parties have used the homo-negative climate for political gain; even during the expectant conscience vote period we saw PNP powerhouses coming out in opposition and Councillors openly defiant to the suggestion then by Portia Simpson Miller, the denial by the PNP that they were not going to repeal buggery as was misconstrued by some is one such defence in order not be seen as too gay friendly. Referenda can be used as a last resort in our scenario if the JLP with a fragile seat count advantage can play into the no buggery law change mantra out there. An administration who takes the chance and runs a conscience on buggery are almost guaranteed a no change in the results and will remind everyone that they are proven right and then be hailed as doing the right thing by antigay voices. I would NOT recommend any referendum on buggery; if not a referendum on the CCJ prior to such at least so as to acquaint the population as to what the experience would be like.

More anon

Peace & tolerance

H

also see previous posts from here and sister blog:
Opposition Leader sides with antigay groups on Referendum on The Buggery Law 2014


Promised (I mean suggested) Conscience vote on Buggery law not a priority right now 2014

PNP’s Bobby Pickersgill differs on Conscience Vote route to decide on Buggery Law 2013

Foreign Affairs Minister (Nicholson) says Govt should be cautious on gay rights issues in Jamaica

Golding, Buggery And The CCJ

Hardened Positions by Religious Fanatics & Their LGBT Detractors Will Only Leave More Blood on the Floor 2013

and from the Jamaica Observer: God sent the rainbow sign (no more water the fire next time)

How the EU can promote LGBT rights in the ACP group

also see: Despite opposition, EU Parliament votes for LGBTI rights/trans identity depathologization in gender equality strategy from sister blog GLBTQJA, I however came across this publication excerpted below sent to me via email.

The Cotonou Agreement, the core of political and trade relations between the European Union and the group of African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) states revealed a major issue related to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights. In more than half of ACP states (49 out of 79) homosexuality is illegal and is punished with up to 14 years in jail. In five countries, it warrants the death penalty. 

view here

Promoting democracy and respect for human rights, the EU has immediately expressed concern regarding the dissimilar views and practices between the agreed parties. Although member states differ in particular legislation, all 28 recognise homosexuality and LGBT rights, which are protected under the EU treaties. Capital punishment is prohibited in the EU, per Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Any partnership between EU and ACP states cannot be legitimised without consensus regarding essential human
 and therefore LGBT rights. 

To this end, the EU strives to affect change in the domestic policies of its Cotonou partners which would elevate the legal status and norms regarding their LGBT communities. One way in which the EU could promote its values beyond its borders is through positive conditionality within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement. Political dialogue benefits all parties involved and is the surest approach to foster acceptance of the LGBT community in the ACP group. The message promoted by EU representatives did not resonate with the heads of ACP states, especially in the case of Uganda and Nigeria, which recently adopted new anti-LGBT legislation, expanding the criminalisation of it, and obliging anyone who might be aware of a LGBT person to report it to the authorities.

“Human rights and minority rights are universal, and we cannot accept these laws. It is time for the EU to look at the restrictive measures available under the Cotonou Agreement. Trampling human rights should come with economic consequences.” 

Olle Schmidt MEP, Member of the ACP-EU delegation and Member of the LGBT Intergroup.

Should the EU use sanctions?

Sanctions are used in the belief that economic restrictions weaken target regime access to the vital resources necessary to sustain their political power and domestic order.
When the regime’s coercive power is undermined by public opinion and contested by elites who benefitted from the status quo ante,it is expected that human rights conditions will improve.

The overwhelming majority of sanctions research concludes that sanctions are a largely ineffective policy tool of compelling compliance. Outlined in “Basic Principles on the Use of Restrictive Measures (Sanctions)”, the EU identifies sanctions as a last-resort instrument to ‘name and shame’ its targets. The EU takes care to minimise public suffering by issuing ‘smart’ sanctions targeting individuals wielding political or economic power. However, these elites are able to evade the costly effects of sanctions by deflecting them downward, funnelling the burden disproportionately upon average citizens.

Sanctions would undermine the Cotonou Agreement

A fundamental principle of the Cotonou Agreement is recognition of equality of partnership among EU and ACP countries.

Dictating terms and punishing non compliance neither serves European interests nor aspirations. Public opinion in ACP countries is resolutely in opposition to LGBT rights. They will, in time,come to accept the LGBT community as equal citizens not by force, but of their own volition. The EU cannot expect ACP governments to adhere to foreign demands that are unpopular among their domestic constituencies. Economically punishing ACP countries for human rights violations will impede and reverse progress toward the Agreement’s objectives of eradicating poverty and integrating those countries into the global economy. Sanctions yield an array of unintended and damaging consequences, including an increase in poverty and unemployment as well as deterioration of public health.
Sanctions increase human rights violations.

Political leaders in targeted states perceive and publicly represent sanctions as an affront to sovereignty and national unity. Facing an external threat, they are able to divert public attention and rally it against the sender. Under these conditions, leaders are able to exploit sanctions to broaden their base of support and justify further crackdown against the domestic opposition minority.

A study of the human rights effects of economic sanctions from 1981 to 2000 finds that so-called ‘smart’ human rights sanctions increase the rate of disappearances, extra-judicial killings, political imprisonment, and torture; the scope of the sanctions is positively correlated with the harm caused. Additionally, sanctions produce even more harmful effects when issued multilaterally.

Sanctions would not improve LGBT status

For the use of sanctions to be justified, the EU needs to have a reasonable probability of success. There is little reason to believe that sanctions would stimulate recognition of LGBT rights. The EU must wrest with the fact that regimes discriminating against the LGBT community are reflecting the broad popular sentiment. A 2014 Pew survey finds that 98% of Ghanaians, 93% of Ugandans, 88% of Kenyans, and 85% of Nigerians consider homosexuality immoral.

An ACP government that caves to sanctions would galvanise a majority of the population against the regime. Sanctions undermine the political stability necessary to affect human rights conditions.

For the human rights status to improve for LGBT people in
ACP countries, the people’s hearts and minds must first be won. Economic punishments and threats thereof will not attract any audience to European values and norms.

Conclusions

Before levying sanctions, the EU should thoroughly assess the extent by which LGBT rights violations impede collaborating to attain the objectives of the Cotonou Agreement. Furthermore, the Article 8 of the Agreement clearly specifies a dialogue, which implies a positive level of negotiation that may not result in tangible policy change.

The main risk of applying sanctions is creating a hostile environment for cooperation, which could produce results on the opposite spectrum of those anticipated. It can be expected that, although sanctions would have immediate, short-term results, they would fail to produce significant social change in the long run, since they would be addressing (i) political institutions, not society as a whole, and (ii) the result of certain social prejudices and tensions, not their cause. It should also be seen what the outcome of applying sanctions in other fields was (e.g. arms trade, drugs,organised crime), in contrast to positive conditionality. 

As a solution, EU actions in the fight against sexual and gender discrimination would be more successful by appealing to dialogue. In this manner, the level of the approach would be enlarged, incorporating the engagement with not only the governments, but also with civil society actors and NGOs.

“Recent moves to criminalise homosexuality and to impose severe prison sentences on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people constitute an unacceptable violation of the basic rights of individuals. Additionally, appropriate measures should be taken against countries who continue to criminalise homosexuality or pass even more repressive laws. LGBTI rights are human rights!”

Martin Schulz, European Parliament President, Fourth EU-Africa Summit, 2014

Some Previous posts:
African, Caribbean & Pacific Countries refuse to include declaration of gay rights in Brussels. 2010

African, Caribbean & Pacific issue declaration to EU "To refrain from any attempts to impose its values which are not freely shared"  2010

European Parliament consents to EU-ACP partnership with reservations on missing sexual orientation discrimination clauses 2013

Historic EU-Africa Summit overshadowed by anti-LGBT laws 2014

EU Parliament human rights report addresses LGBTI criminalisation, trans rights and same-sex unions worldwide

Uganda and Nigeria: European Parliament calls for targeted sanctions over new laws

European Parliament: Include LGBT non-discrimination clause in future agreement with African, Caribbean & Pacific States

Historic EU-Africa Summit overshadowed by anti-LGBT laws

The fourth EU-Africa Summit is taking place in Brussels since yesterday, and although not officially on the agenda, extremely harsh new anti-LGBT laws are on leaders’ minds.

MEPs demonstrating against anti-LGBT laws in Plenary

The summit brings together the heads of state and government from the European Union and the African continent, as well as EU and African Union leaders. They will discuss political and economic ties, as well as human rights.

However, discussions are overshadowed by anti-LGBT laws recently adopted in Ugandaand Nigeria, and currently discussed in the Ethiopian Parliament. National politicians are pushing to follow suit in Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kenya.

Anti-LGBT laws were also at the heart of the Pan-African-European Parliamentary Summit, on Monday and Tuesday. Speaking to the Parliamentary Summit, European Parliament President Martin Schulz called the new laws “a disgrace” and “an unacceptable violation of the basic rights of individuals.”

He also stressed “the need to redirect aid to civil society and other organizations that fight against exclusion and discrimination based on sexual preference.”

His statement was met with resistance by many African MPs. The outcome declaration of the parliamentary summit reveals the divergence on the issue.

Michael Cashman MEP, Co-President of the LGBT Intergroup, reacted: “The bushfire of anti-LGBT legislation that is spreading across Africa must be stopped. It is fuelled by the lies of US evangelical missionaries, repeated by some African leaders who seek to hide their own political incompetence and mask corruption scandals.”

Olle Schmidt MEP, Member of the ACP-EU delegation and Member of the LGBT Intergroup, added: “African leaders and politicians are still not respecting the fundamental rights of all their citizens, basing LGBT-hate on the false argument that homosexuality is not African.”

“Human rights and minority rights are universal, and we cannot accept these laws. It is time for the EU to look at the restrictive measures available under the Cotonou-agreement. Trampling human rights should come with economic consequences.”

European Parliament consents to EU-ACP partnership with reservations on missing sexual orientation discrimination clauses

Let's back track a bit in previous posts; in March 2010 we saw the African Caribbean and Pacific states refusing to include any remote look of gay rights in the agreement, then the 2nd revision in June it was again excluded. In November 2010 the ACP issued a declaration "To refrain from any attempts to impose its values which are not freely shared"

Fast forward to November 2011 in the revision for 2007 - 2013 the ACP still held out on any form of LGBT rights or discrimination due to sexual orientation. Now ............

Last week the European Parliament gave its legal consent to the updated Cotonou Agreement, a multilateral treaty between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific states. The Parliament expressed strong reservations about human rights in relation to sexual orientation.

Michael Cashman and Michèle Striffler MEPs

The Cotonou Agreement governs diplomatic, trade and aid relationships between the EU and 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific states.

The treaty was last amended in 2010, and all EU and ACP Member States must now ratify it, and the European Parliament consent to it.

Article 8.4 of the revised Cotonou Agreement newly foresees including “political issues of mutual concern or of general significance” in joint talks, including “discrimination of any kind”.

It reads as follows:

8.4. The dialogue shall focus, inter alia, on specific political issues of mutual concern or of general significance for the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement, such as the arms trade, excessive military expenditure, drugs, organised crime or child labour, or discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The dialogue shall also encompass a regular assessment of the developments concerning the respect for human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance. 

But the new list of grounds fails to mention sexual orientation, something the European Parliament had demanded.

In a resolution adopted Thursday, the European Parliament gave its legal consent to the amended treaty, but expressed “its strongest reservations about parts of the Agreement which do not reflect the position of the European Parliament and the values of the Union”.

The Parliament “urge[d] all parties to revise the unsatisfactory clauses” in the update due in 2015, ”including the explicit introduction of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”.

32.  Calls for negotiations to reinforce the principle of non-negotiable human rights clauses and sanctions for failure to respect such clauses, inter alia with regard to discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation and towards people living with HIV/AIDS;

Michael Cashman MEP, Rapporteur for the European Parliament on the subject, explained: “The article on political dialogue wasn’t reworded in accordance with the Parliament’s wishes. The ACP side opposed including sexual orientation in the treaty, which is worrying since 38 ACP states still criminalize homosexuality.”

“The European Commission must now use the next two years before the third revision of the text to make progress on this crucial point.”

Michèle Striffler MEP, Shadow Rapporteur for the EPP group and a member of the LGBT Intergroup, added: “Non-discrimination is absolutely essential to our relationship with ACP countries, including on grounds of sexual orientation. Recent arrests and homophobic laws in Nigeria, Cameroon or Uganda show once again that we cannot make any compromise in this regard.”

Landmark Strasbourg ruling: Religious beliefs are no reason to oppose rights of same-sex couples

The European Court of Human Rights on January 15, 2013 ruled that religious beliefs may not justify opposing the rights of same-sex couples. British laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation were upheld.

 

The Strasbourg court examined four cases brought by Christians, including two who argued their beliefs allowed them to refuse a service to same-sex couples.

In the first case, Lillian Ladele was a civil registrar in London. She was dismissed because she refused officiating at civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples after it became legal in 2005. She claimed she was discriminated because of her faith.

The Court ruled there had been no discrimination, and that British courts—who upheld her dismissal—had struck the right balance between her right to freedom of religion, and same-sex couples’ right not to be discriminated.

In the second case, Gary McFarlane was a counselor providing psycho-sexual therapy to couples. He was dismissed for refusing to work with same-sex couples, arguing this was incompatible with his beliefs. The Court ruled unanimously that there had been no violation of his right to freedom of belief.

Commenting this landmark ruling, Sophie in ‘t Veld MEP, Vice-President of the European Parliament’s LGBT Intergroup, said: “With this ruling, the court has established that freedom of religion is an individual right. 

It is emphatically not a collective right to discriminate against LGBT people, women, or people of another faith or life stance.”

“Religious freedom is no ground for exemption from the law. The court showed conclusively that the principle of equality and equal treatment cannot be circumvented with a simple reference to religion.”

Michael Cashman MEP, Co-President of the LGBT Intergroup, added: “British law rightly protect LGBT people from discrimination, and there is no exemption for religious believers. Religion and belief are deeply private and personal, and should never be used to diminish the rights of others.”

The ruling may be appealed within three months.

Read more:

Read the Court’s official blog post

Read the Court’s press release (PDF)

Read the Court’s full ruling (PDF)

Image credits: Flickr/Marcella Bona

Second revision of Cotonou agreement 2007-2013 financial framework of development assistance .... LGBT rights?

As the furor continues over the threat to deny aid to African countries who maintain anti gay positions the new Cotonou Agreement when fully perused seemed to have left out the whole business of LGBT rights, let us also not forget that the African Caribbean and Pacific ACP countries had strong opposition to any move that seemed as an imposition of attachments to benefits in exchange for some lgbt rights. 

In November last year they had issued a threat of sorts in the form of:

African, Caribbean & Pacific issue declaration to EU "To refrain from any attempts to impose its values which are not freely shared"

and in March they: African, Caribbean & Pacific Countries refuse to include declaration of gay rights in Brussels.

• Negotiations were concluded on 19/03/2010.
• Official signature ceremony took place in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, on 23/06/2010.
• Revised Cotonou agreement will be applicable on a provisional basis from 01/11/2010.

The Cotonou Agreement is the most comprehensive partnership agreement between developing countries and the EU. Since 2000, it has been the framework for the EU's relations with 79 countries from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) . The first revision took place in 2005 and prepared the ground for the

The second revision  adapts the partnership to changes which have taken place over the last decade, in particular:

• The growing importance of regional integration in ACP countries and in ACP-EU cooperation is reflected. Its role in fostering cooperation and peace and security, in promoting growth and in tackling cross-border challenges is emphasized. In Africa, the continental dimension is also recognized, and the African Union becomes a partner of the EU-ACP relationship.
• Security and fragility : no development can take place without a secure environment. The new agreement highlights the interdependence between security and development and tackles security threats jointly. Attention is paid to peace building and conflict prevention. A comprehensive approach combining diplomacy, security and development cooperation is developed for situations of State fragility.
• Our ACP partners face major challenges if they are to meet the Millennium Development Goals,  food security, HIV-AIDS and sustainability of fisheries. The importance of each of these areas for sustainable development, growth and poverty reduction is underlined, and joint approaches for our cooperation are now agreed.
• For the first time, the EU and the ACP recognize the global challenge of climate change as a major subject for their partnership. The parties commit to raising the profile of climate change in their development cooperation, and to support ACP efforts in mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change.
• The trade chapter of the Agreement reflects the new trade relationship and the expiry of preferences at the end of 2007. It reaffirms the role of the Economic Partnership Agreements to boost economic development and integration into the world economy. The revised Agreement highlights the challenges ACP countries are facing to integrate better into the world economy, in particular the effects of preference erosion. It therefore underlines the importance of trade adaptation strategies and aid for trade .
• More actors in the partnership : the EU has been promoting a broad and inclusive partnership with ACP partners. The new agreement clearly recognizes the role of national parliaments, local authorities, civil society and private sector.
• More impact, more value for money : This second revision is instrumental in putting in practice the internationally agreed aid effectiveness principles, in particular donor coordination. It will also untie EU aid to the ACP countries to reduce transaction costs. For the first time, the role of other EU policies for the development of ACP countries is recognized and the EU commits to enhance the coherence of those policies to this end.

Overview of ACP-EC-Partnership Agreement ("The Cotonou Agreement")

European Development Fund (EDF) is the main instrument for providing Community assistance for development cooperation under the Cotonou Agreement. The EDF is funded by the EU Member State on the basis of specific contribution keys. Each EDF is concluded for a multi-annual period.

The "Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part and the European Community and its Member States of the other part" was signed on 23 June 2000 in Cotonou, Bénin ? hence the name " ACP-EC Partnership Agreement" or "Cotonou Agreement". It was concluded for a twenty-year period from March 2000 to February 2020, and entered into force in April 2003. It was for the first time revised in June 2005, with the revision entering into force on 1 July 2008.

The Cotonou Agreement is a global agreement, introducing important changes and ambitious objectives while preserving the 'acquis' of 25 years of ACP-EC cooperation.

Compared to preceding agreements and conventions shaping EC's development cooperation, the Cotonou Agreement represents further progress in a number of aspects. It is designed to establish a comprehensive partnership, based on three complementary pillars:

• development cooperation,
• economic and trade cooperation, and
• the political dimension.

The objectives of the Cotonou Agreement
<>The partnership is centred on the objective of reducing and eventually eradicating poverty consistent with the objectives of sustainable development and the gradual integration of the ACP countries into the world economy (Art. 1 of Cotonou Agreement). The fundamental principles of the Cotonou Agreement

• equality of the partners and ownership of the development strategies;
• participation (central governments as the main partners, partnership open to different kinds of other actors)
• pivotal role of dialogue and the fulfilment of mutual obligations
• differentiation and regionalisation

The actors of the Cotonou Agreement

• The actors of cooperation are:
• States (authorities and/or organisations of states at local, national and regional level);
• Non-state actors (private sector; economic and social partners, including trade union organisations, civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics).

The implementation of the Cotonou Agreement
The 10^th EDF covers the period from 2008 to 2013 and has been allocated ? 22.7 billion; it was established between the EU Member States by Internal Agreement. In comparison to the 9^th EDF which covered the period 2000 to 2007, the initial amount available has increased by almost 65 % (the 9^th EDF was initially allocated ? 13.8 billion for 2000-2007).

The cooperation with the ACP States funded from the EDF is complemented by development cooperation funded from the EC budget, through budgetary instruments - the Development Cooperation Instrument, the Instrument for Stability, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the European Humanitarian Aid Instrument.

Revision clause:
The Cotonou Agreement provides for a revision clause which foresees that the agreement is adapted every five years till 2020.

In accordance with Article 95 Cotonou Agreement, the main reasons for the Second Revision of the Cotonou Agreement are:

• to preserve the relevance and the outstanding character of the Partnership between ACP and EU countries;
• to adapt the Agreement to recent major changes in international and ACP-EC relations;
• to further develop several themes that are essential for both parties:
• • the political dimension, institutional issues and sector specific policy issues;
  • economic cooperation, regional integration and trade;
  • development finance cooperation, including humanitarian and emergency assistance and new development advances in aid programming and management.

The contracting parties and the "ACP Group of States"
The Cotonou Agreement established a unique partnership between the ACP States on the one hand, and the European Community and its Member States on the other hand.

The notion of "ACP States" goes back to the "ACP Group of States", formally established in 1975 with the Georgetown Agreement , which was initially signed by 46 African, Caribbean and Pacific states. Today, the ACP Group of States counts 79 countries , 78 of them signatories of the Cotonou-Agreement (with Cuba being the exception). S outh Africa is a contracting party of the Cotonou Agreement, but not all the provisions apply to the cooperation between South Africa and the EC (see protocol 3 of the Cotonou Agreement).

The ACP Group of States has its own institutions and decision making processes. It relates with the European Community through the joint institutions of the Cotonou Agreement.

When the initial news of the intention as espoused by David Cameron on GLBTQJA Wordpress I had expressed my concerns about the perception of countries being forced to adopt gay rights, we saw what happened when out going Prime Minister Golding made mention of us not caving in to foreign imposition during the invented gay marriage debate and the Charter of Rights.  My two cents then was:

My two cents

But what will that do though in the long run if most states and including Jamaica outside of the region mentioned in the article have a strong beliefs or perception that homosexuality is an import and that actions such as this are forcing the hand of countries with “christian principles” and “high moral values” to capitulate to the powerful gay lobby from first world nations? yet The Prime Minister David Cameron is not gay as far as we know but could be viewed as a puppet in the scheme of this with the pressure coming and positions from the European Union side of things and other bodies such as the United Nations on sexual orientation.

Is forcing countries to comply the way to go?

Or hitting them economically?
Seems there is no choice as our leaders just can't get passed holding on to power by playing to the gallery in the so called anti gay majority.

continue HERE

Peace and tolerance

H

European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights hearing on LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex) rights in the world

On 30 June 2011, the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights held ahearing on LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex) rights in the world. Members of the European Parliament, European Parliament staff, European Commission staff, ambassadors and members of the public heard from human rights defenders, civil society and high-level EU civil servants about the human rights of LGBTI people worldwide.

Andrzej Grzyb MEP: Introduction from LGBT Intergroup on Vimeo.

Andrzej Grzyb MEP, acting Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights opened the event.

Ulrike Lunacek MEP: Introduction from LGBT Intergroup on Vimeo.

Ulrike Lunacek MEP, Co-President of the LGBT Intergroup, presented the hearing and explained why it was necessary to look at the rights of LGBTI people globally, citing work done recently by the European Parliament

Naome Ruzindana: Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi from LGBT Intergroup on Vimeo.

Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi
Naome Ruzindana from Rwanda presented recent developments for LGBTI people in eastern Africa, and notably Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi (including how these countries influenced each other).

The decriminalisation of homosexuality in India
A movie produced by the International AIDS Alliance showcased interviews with Indian activists commenting on the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 2009

Mauro Cabral: Trans and intersex rights from LGBT Intergroup on Vimeo.

Trans and intersex rights in the world
Argentinean activist Mauro Cabral explained the issues brought forward by a growing global movement for the rights of trans(gender) and intersex people, including trans murders and sterilisation.

Riina Kionka: The role of the EU from LGBT Intergroup on Vimeo.

The role of the EU
Riina Kionka is Head of Division for Human Rights Policy Guidelines in the EU’s External Action Service, and outlined positive action by the EU in several domains: in the EU legal and policy framework, the EU’s bilateral relationships, at the United Nations, and at regional and local level.

Jean-Louis Ville: The European Commission from LGBT Intergroup on Vimeo.

The European Commission
Responsible for Governance, Democracy, Gender and Human Rights at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation, Jean-Louis Ville outlined action and calls for funding at the European Commission that were likely to help LGBTI civil society in the Global South

Questions and answers

Questions and answers from LGBT Intergroup on Vimeo.

Ulrike Lunacek and Michael Cashman MEPs: Conclusion from LGBT Intergroup on Vimeo.

Ulrike Lunacek and Michael Cashman MEPs: Conclusion

European Parliament calls for special protection of LGBT asylum-seekers

Members of the European Parliament voted today to modernise the EU-wide system for examining asylum claims. Among the measures adopted today, groups of asylum-seekers with special needs were updated to include people fleeing persecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In a report drafted by French centre-left MEP Sylvie Guillaume (Socialists & Democrats), the European Parliament adopted a series of amendments to guarantee that lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people seeking asylum in the EU would receive particular attention.

Measures include providing expert advice to asylum officials on sexual orientation and gender identity; protecting claimants’ privacy; guaranteeing that physical examinations fully respect human dignity and integrity, for instance in cases involving minors or transgender people; and ensuring that applications by LGBT asylum-seekers are not ‘fast-tracked’ for removal to their country of origin.

Sirpa Pietikäinen, Member of the centre-right European People’s Party and Vice-President of the LGBT Intergroup, commented: “I am particularly proud that my centre-right colleagues agreed on the need for special protection, regardless of their general position on asylum. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people fleeing countries such as Iraq, Uganda, Honduras or Indonesia must receive particular protection taking into account cultural sensitivity. This is a major step towards fully complying with our engagements under international asylum law.”

Rui Tavares MEP, Civil Liberties Coordinator of the left GUE/NGL political group and Vice-President of the LGBT Intergroup, added: “The European Parliament is showing that asylum rules need updating to reflect reality: 76 countries criminalise homosexual acts, and 7 foresee the death penalty (maybe 8 soon with Uganda). I regret that other progressive provisions did not pass, but today’s text will ultimately bring more fairness for LGBT asylum‑seekers.”

The text adopted today is the European Parliament’s formal position at first reading. Asylum rules will effectively be amended once EU governments examine the text and conclude an agreement with the European Parliament.

Read more:

• Read the legislative resolution (not yet amended following today’s votes)