UK Foreign Office Actively Promotes
Gay Human Rights
Attention must be paid to the Foreign Office in London and its inclusion of gay human rights in annual reports, and comments earlier this year from the minister responsible for all human rights matters.
I applaud such efforts by the UK government to address human rights violations against LGBT people, and any advances on our behalf, because any time a foreign ministry puts a focus on global gay issues it brings light to the problems many gay are facing today.
Two items really caught my gay American eyes’ attention. The first is the extensive section about legal efforts in the USA to win gay marriage equality in the 2005 report. Seeing how another government views gay marriage through the prism of a human rights agenda was an eye-opener.
The second item is the assertiveness of the Foreign Office in stating its commitment to advocating for gay human rights, mentioned in the 2006 report:
"Many governments do not share our views on the rights of the LGBT community, making it difficult to discuss the issue either bilaterally or in international for a. However, states have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all people without discrimination – it is a question of justice and rights, not opinion and morals. To this end, the FCO will continue in its efforts to defend the right of people not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexuality or gender identity."
Of course, the Foreign Office must be pressed to do more for gays, such as speaking out now about Iran’s execution last week of 21-year-old Mr. Makvan Mouloodzadeh for sex with other boys, and activists must continually monitor the agency’s reports and remarks year-round.
At the same time, as an American, I call upon my State Department to express outrage at the killing of gays in Iran, and to also forcefully publicly commit to fighting for full protection of all human rights protections for gays across the planet.
Excerpts from various pages at the Foreign Office web site:
Citation Number 1
We need to confront the persistent discrimination against people worldwide based on their sexual orientation – a discrimination all the more invidious through being often concealed behind some other, more common prejudices. As we mark the fortieth anniversary of the Sexual Offences Act in the United Kingdom, we pause to remember that the majority of gay people around the world still live in countries where simply being themselves is a crime. Human rights belong to everyone. Sexual orientation cannot be a qualifying factor.
Citation Number 2
FCO Human Rights E-Newsletter, November 2006:
At a Unison Conference in Manchester on 18 November, Ian McCartney pledged that the Government would help to promote the human rights of LGBT people abroad. In the past 10 years, the Government had done more than any other in British history to implement these within the UK. The need for such work abroad was even starker: nine countries still imposed the death penalty for consensual same sex relations, ten countries had criminal penalties up to life imprisonment. In many countries, persecution, violence and even murder, with impunity, were the norm for LGBT people who dared to manifest their sexuality. It was a clear issue of fairness, equality and justice and there was a need for Government and civil society to act.
Citation Number 3
FCO Annual Human Rights Report, October 2006, Pages 259-260:
Non-discrimination is one of the basic tenets of international human rights law; yet all over the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people suffer human rights violations. These violations are not limited to restrictions on same-sex relations (although these remain illegal in many countries and punishable by death in some); often, sweeping laws – for example, against indecency – are used to criminalise the LGBT community. This discrimination means that they are also often seen as legitimate targets for abuse by their governments and the wider population.
In January 2006, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on homophobia in Europe, strongly condemning all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The resolution also calls on member states to protect LGBT people from homophobic hate speech and violence and to ensure that same sex partners enjoy the same respect, dignity and protection as the rest of society. This resolution will help further combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation throughout the EU.
In the same month, the UN's NGO committee voted to deny accreditation to two LGBT NGOs – the International Lesbian and Gay Association and the Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians. In May, a further two LGBT organisations were denied. The UK and the EU are concerned that they are being unfairly discriminated against. The EU has been lobbying to try and improve the situation.
Also in January, Nigeria put forward a bill outlawing public advocacy and associations supporting the rights of lesbian and gay people, as well as same sex relationships and marriage ceremonies. We are concerned that the proposed legislation will stop Nigeria meeting several of its international human rights obligations, including the right to privacy, the right to association and the principle of non-discrimination, and criminalise the country's LGBT community. It will also criminalise NGOs and human rights defenders who work on behalf of the community, whether directly or indirectly (for example, in the field of HIV/AIDS), and lawyers called on to defend clients accused under the new law. Along with our EU partners, we have discussed the issue with Nigerian NGOs campaigning against the proposed bill and plan to raise our concerns with the Nigerian authorities.
Over the past year, gay pride marches in Poland, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and Romania have faced obstructions and, in some cases, outright bans. All these countries have made an international commitment to protect their citizens from discrimination; yet they permit and in some cases lead the stigmatisation of the LGBT community by opposing marches designed to increase the visibility of LGBT communities and promote equality, tolerance and human rights. We are pleased to note that, ultimately, several of the marches were allowed to go ahead. In February 2006, former FCO Minister Ian Pearson gave a speech during the TUC's LGBT history month event on promoting LGBT rights overseas. His key message was that human rights violations against people from the LGBT community are still shrouded in silence and stigma, and that we should all be willing to speak out on the issue.
Many governments do not share our views on the rights of the LGBT community, making it difficult to discuss the issue either bilaterally or in international fora. However, states have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all people without discrimination – it is a question of justice and rights, not opinion and morals. To this end, the FCO will continue in its efforts to defend the right of people not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexuality or gender identity.
Citation Number 4
FCO Human Rights Report, July 2005
There have been dramatic developments in the US on the right to marriage for same-sex couples. A number of jurisdictions decided that their constitutional guarantees of equality and due process required them to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as well as to heterosexual couples.
The first place to do so was San Francisco, which from 12 February 2004-11 March 2004 issued 4,037 marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state supreme court subsequently invalidated all of those licenses on 12 August 2004, ruling that the mayor had exceeded his authority in issuing them before the state courts had reviewed the constitutionality of the law limiting marriage to different-sex couples only (though not ruling on the constitutionality of a same-sex marriage ban itself).
A similar situation occurred in Sandoval County in New Mexico and Multnomah County in Oregon. Again, both were followed by a court-ordered freeze on the practice pending a legal decision. In November 2004 Oregon, Oklahoma, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Utah, Mississippi and Arkansas backed state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to different-sex couples only, following a vote in Missouri during the summer in which the public overwhelmingly voted in favour of banning same-sex marriages. However, the trend is not all one way.
A ruling in November 2003 by the Massachusetts state supreme court in favor of same-sex marriage has been upheld and reaffirmed. This position is now established law, as all avenues of appeal have been exhausted after the US supreme court declined to hear the case.
There are also some similar state supreme court cases concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in New York, California, New Jersey and Washington, following rulings by the lower state courts that a prohibition on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
No comments:
Post a Comment