In Japan, book criticising trans ‘craze’ sparks rare culture-war skirmish | LGBTQ News

Tokyo, Japan – When Japanese book publisher Kadokawa announced last year it would publish a translation of Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, it ignited a culture-war skirmish of the kind rarely seen in Japan.

Trans rights activists organised a protest in front of Kadokawa’s Tokyo offices, while social media users accused the publisher of acts of bigotry – from platforming a “trans hater” to “inciting discrimination through public relations.”

Within days, Kadokawa announced it had cancelled the planned publication and apologised for causing concern.

“We planned to publish the translation, hoping it would help readers in Japan deepen their discussions about gender through what is happening in Europe and the United States,” the publisher said in a statement in December.

“But the title and sales copy ended up causing harm to people directly involved.”

Shrier, a former opinion columnist for the Wall Street Journal, decried the move as an example of mob-driven censorship.

“Kadokawa, my Japanese publisher, are very nice people. But by caving to an activist-led campaign against IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE, they embolden the forces of censorship,” she wrote on X.

“America has much to learn from Japan, but we can teach them how to deal with censorious cry-bullies.”

When a rival publisher, Sankei Shimbun Publications, announced it would release the book instead, the firestorm raged on.

The publisher, which is known for its conservative editorial line, said it received an email threatening arson against bookstores that carried the title.

Refusing to cede to the activists’ demands, Sankei Shimbun published Shrier’s book earlier this month under the revised title Girls Who Want to Be Transgender: The Tragedy of a Fad Fueled by Social Networking, Schools, and Medicine.

The controversy around the book Irreversible Damage follows a script that has become familiar in the US and other Western countries, where factions on the left and right have been at odds over the line between protecting marginalised groups and upholding free speech.

But such culture war battles have until now been unusual in Japan, where companies are generally hesitant to get involved in politics or hot-button social issues, underscoring how national boundaries are increasingly blurred in the social media age.

“Some of the US’s obsession with culture wars and identity politics and representation is bleeding into Japan,” Roland Kelts, whose book Japanamerica explored the growing influence of Japanese culture in the US, told Al Jazeera.

“Japan has always had permissive attitudes toward gender and gender play. Now it’s rising to the surface of logic and meaning via a bilingual younger generation.”

“The mere existence of an East-West, Japan-US dialogue about sensitive contemporary matters is to me more important than the content of the dialogue or the platform for it,” Kelts added.

Japan has its own history of banning books and successful boycott campaigns.

From 1911 to 1945, the Tokko, dubbed the “Thought Police,” were tasked with suppressing political groups and ideologies that contravened the “national essence,” leading to the banning of literature such as Genzaburo Yoshino’s children’s novel How Do You Live?, which was considered subversive due to its anti-authoritarian messages.

More recently, books casting Japanese culture and history in an unsavoury light have struggled to land on bookstore shelves, including Iris Chang’s The Rape of Nanking, which was pulled by its prospective publisher, Kashiwashobo, in 1999.

Kelts said there was “no decisive superiority” between US and Japanese publishers when it came to upholding libertarian principles, despite US society’s strong emphasis on free speech.

“Japanese publishers fear right-wing retaliation and violence; American publishers fear left-wing cancellation,” he said.

“In this blinkered era, cancellation is becoming a badge of honour, partly because the offended parties are so poorly educated,” he added.

“If you are cancelling a work of art or entertainment, you are giving it a platform in a media world suffocated by content, and if your whining is ill-informed, all the better for your antagonist. That alone is good publicity.”

Though Japan has a history of transgender people in the public eye, including Aya Kawakami and Tomoya Hosoda, elected officials in Tokyo and Saitama, respectively, the country is not widely considered a bastion of LGBTQ rights.

But legal and social mores have gradually shifted towards greater acceptance.

The Supreme Court of Japan struck down a law mandating that transgender people undergo sterilisation surgery to have their gender legally recognised [Richard A Brooks/AFP]

In October, the Supreme Court of Japan struck down a law mandating that transgender people undergo sterilisation surgery to have their gender legally recognised.

Several lower courts have also ruled that the country’s ban on same-sex marriage is discriminatory, although the government has been reluctant to change the law.

Japan’s Diet, the lower house of parliament, is currently considering proposals for a revised law, including the possibility of compulsory hormone treatment, which has been advised against by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH).

In a poll by the NHK, Japan’s national broadcaster, last year, only 9 percent of Japanese people thought the human rights of sexual minorities were being protected.

A Jiji Press poll that same year found that only 17 percent were against the passing of an LGBTQ rights bill.

Tokyo Rainbow Pride has also grown into one of Asia’s largest annual LGBTQ events, while the Kanayama Matsuri in Kawasaki, a popular festival where parishioners carry model penises on floats, has become a de facto celebration for Tokyo’s gay, drag and trans communities, attracting tens of thousands of visitors each year.

“Culturally, we don’t have any problem with accepting any kind of sexual orientation in Japan,” Yuko Kawanishi, a sociologist and researcher specialising in cross-cultural mental health issues and gender, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s because of our tendency to emphasise the collective – the nail that sticks out gets hammered down – that it’s a difficult country for anybody who is outside of the majority norm, not just members of the LGBTQ community.”

“Japanese are not historically confrontational,” Kawanishi added. “Most people still want to come to some kind of consensus.”

Jeffrey Hall, a lecturer in Japanese studies at Kanda University, said Kadokawa’s publication of Shrier’s book would have gone largely unnoticed if it had not been publicised on social media.

“[Kadokawa’s account] was posting strongly-worded endorsements of the book’s anti-transgender ideology,” Hall told Al Jazeera.

“It was through these posts that transgender rights activists became aware of the book and launched a protest campaign – an example of people exercising their right to free speech in a democratic society.”

Hall, whose research focuses on conservative activism in Japan, said he believed right-leaning publisher Sankei, as well as conservative commentators and influencers, had used the controversy to their advantage.

“The conservative activists involved in the importation of Western ‘culture war’ discourse are successfully making money with their own book sales and publication of articles attacking LGBTQ rights activists,” he said.

“With money to be made by igniting anger about this issue, do not expect it to go away soon.”



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Iraq criminalises same-sex relationships with maximum 15 years in prison | LGBTQ News

The law is backed mainly by Shia Muslim parties who form the largest coalition in Iraq’s parliament.

Iraq’s parliament has passed a law criminalising same-sex relationships with a maximum 15-year prison sentence, in a move it said aimed to uphold religious values, but was condemned by rights advocates as the latest attack on the LGBTQ community in Iraq.

The law adopted on Saturday aims to “protect Iraqi society from moral depravity and the calls for homosexuality that have overtaken the world,” according to a copy of the law seen by the Reuters news agency.

It was backed mainly by conservative Shia Muslim parties who form the largest coalition in Iraq’s parliament.

The Law on Combating Prostitution and Homosexuality bans same-sex relations with at least 10 years and a maximum of 15 years in prison, and mandates at least seven years in prison for anybody who promotes homosexuality or prostitution.

The amended law makes “biological sex change based on personal desire and inclination” a crime and punishes transgender people and doctors who perform gender-affirming surgery with up to three years in prison.

The bill had initially included the death penalty for same-sex acts but was amended before being passed after strong opposition from the United States and European nations.

‘A serious blow to human rights’

Until Saturday, Iraq did not explicitly criminalise gay sex, though loosely defined morality clauses in its penal code had been used to target LGBTQ people, and members of the community have also been killed by armed groups and individuals.

“The Iraqi parliament’s passage of the anti-LGBT law rubber-stamps Iraq’s appalling record of rights violations against LGBTQ people and is a serious blow to fundamental human rights,” Rasha Younes, deputy director of the LGBTQ rights programme at Human Rights Watch, told Reuters.

“Iraq has effectively codified in law the discrimination and violence members of the LGBTI community have been subjected to with absolute impunity for years,” the AFP news agency quoted Amnesty International’s Iraq Researcher Razaw Salihy as saying.

“The amendments concerning LGBTI rights are a violation of fundamental human rights and put at risk Iraqis whose lives are already hounded daily,” Salihy added.

Lawmaker Raed al-Maliki, who advanced the amendments, told AFP that the law “serves as a preventive measure to protect society from such acts”.

Major Iraqi parties have in the past year stepped up criticism of LGBTQ rights, with rainbow flags frequently being burned in protests by both governing and opposition conservative Shia Muslim factions last year.

More than 60 countries criminalise gay sex, while same-sex sexual acts are legal in more than 130 countries, according to Our World in Data.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

In Australia, a women-only app is latest front in the war over trans rights | LGBTQ News

Sydney, Australia – Sall Grover says she did not think twice when she blocked Roxanne Tickle, a transgender woman, from her Australian-based women-only app Giggle for Girls.

“It did not register, as we get men trying to enter all the time. Mr Tickle passed our AI facial recognition test, which was deliberately set at 94 percent accuracy, meaning that some men will get through,” Grover, who refuses to refer to transgender women as women, told Al Jazeera.

“The rest we remove manually.”

“When he contacted me by phone and I heard a man’s voice, I hung up, but again, this was not unusual,” Grover added.

Grover’s decision to restrict her app to “cisgender” women – women whose birth sex aligns with their gender identity – has not only put her at the centre of the culture war over gender, but in the legal crosshairs as well.

As someone who identifies as a woman, Tickle argues that she is legally entitled to use services meant for women and has been discriminated against on the basis of gender identity.

In a case being watched around the globe, Tickle is suing Grover under Australia’s Anti-Discrimination Act, relying on a 2013 amendment that added gender identity to the list of protected categories.

At stake are contested definitions of sex and gender and, ultimately, the very question of what it means to be a woman.

For trans activists, a ruling in favour of Tickle, who is seeking 200,000 Australian dollars ($128,320) in compensation, would be a vindication of their long struggle to be treated just like other women.

For so-called gender-critical feminists, a win for Grover would affirm the need for female-only spaces that take into account the essential differences between men and women.

After hearing several days of arguments by the two sides at the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney earlier this month, a judge is expected to hand down his decision in Tickle v Giggle in three to six months.

Grover created Giggle in 2020 upon returning to Australia after a stint working as a screenwriter in Hollywood, where she says persistent social media abuse by men landed her in therapy.

“I wanted to create a safe, women-only space in the palm of your hand,” Grover who spent 500,000 Australian dollars ($320,800) on building the site, said.

As far as Grover is concerned, “women-only” spaces should not include trans women like Tickle.

Tickle, who has undergone vaginal and labial surgery and changed her sex to female on her birth certificate, joined the app in 2021 after her application was accepted by gender recognition software designed to screen out men.

Tickle’s account was restricted about six months later after manual screening.

“The evidence will show that Ms Tickle is a woman,” Tickle’s barrister Georgina Costello told the court, according to local media reports.

“She perceives herself as a woman. She presents herself as a woman.”

Costello also told the court that Grover had mounted a “global campaign” against Tickle, including persistently misgendering her in public statements and selling offensive merchandise featuring her image.

“We say because of the way Grover views transgender women, she was unable to see that a transgender woman is a woman,” Costello said.

Tickle’s lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.

Hilary Kincaid, principal solicitor at Sydney firm Kincaid Legal, said the case is complicated for multiple reasons apart from its contentious subject matter.

“It would be far more clear cut if there were physical premises,” Kincaid told Al Jazeera.

Kincaid said Australia’s arcane laws and regulations for community and sporting clubs will be among the relevant considerations in the case.

“Speaking very generally, you can exclude someone from private premises, depending on the terms of the admission,” she said.

“So if there’s a sign up in a club, saying you have the right to refuse admission at the club’s discretion, that can be allowed.”

The case has drawn significant international attention, particularly through social media, not least because of Grover’s openness to giving media interviews and her efforts to raise funds for her legal defence.

Grover said she has raised about 546,000 Australian dollars ($350,314) so far but initially struggled when she was kicked off a number of fundraising platforms.

“Luckily we had the skills, so we were able to build our own platform,” she said.

The Australian legal stoush is seen as a test case by gender-critical feminists, also known as Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERF), both at home and in other countries such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

They argue that businesses and organisations should be able to exclude transgender women for reasons including safety and fairness.

“Gender identity is overriding sex and nobody’s explained why,” Angela Jones, a women’s rights activist and supporter of Grover who co-hosts the TERF Talk Down Under podcast, told Al Jazeera.

“Women’s rights have been taken away, and this has impacted women who are in the lowest socioeconomic background or victims of domestic violence or whatever. We always thought ‘that the rules are reasonable’ and our rights would be granted but in the last three or four years we have found we have no rights at all. We have no single-sex spaces”.

ACON and Transgender Victoria, two of Australia’s leading trans activist groups, declined to comment on the case.

Grover accused trans activists of doing “everything they can” to shut her business down.

“They have taken away not just a valuable service for women, but my livelihood,” she said.

“But if I was just in it for business, I would let others in, it’s important to me that the space is female only. I am in fact the one here who is suffering financial loss.”

While many corporations have expressed their support for trans rights amid growing public acceptance of LGBTQ people in recent years, businesses have also faced blowback for associating themselves with the issue.

Last year, Bud Light suffered a plunge in sales after a conservative backlash to a brief partnership with trans activist and TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney had a partnership with Bud Light [Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP]

In the US, Republican-led states have introduced dozens of laws to curtail trans rights, many of them aimed at restricting trans women’s participation in women’s sports and gender-affirming care for minors.

In Australia, the debate has also been polarised, as evidenced by the background of Grover’s lawyer, Katherine Deves, a former parliamentary candidate for the main conservative party.

But while conservative-run businesses pushed back against having to serve LGBTQ people in years gone by – such as, for example, refusing to cater to same-sex weddings on religious grounds – the fight over trans rights has followed a less predictable ideological script.

Many of the critics of trans activism are not religious, or even necessarily conservative, with radical feminists among those leading the charge.

Kincaid, the lawyer, said Tickle v Giggle has parallels with a recent case involving a man who took legal action after being denied entry to an art installation where women are pampered by male butlers and served champagne.

The Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled that the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) had discriminated against patron Jason Lau and that men should be allowed to view the installation.

“If MONA had created the Ladies Lounge as a club, the result may have been different,” Kincaid said.

Still, even if the court finds in Tickle’s favour, the level of compensation she might receive is unclear.

“If you are successful under the Act, you are compensated for loss, yet it would be difficult to make an argument that she [Tickle] suffered a specific financial loss,” Kincaid said.

Whatever the outcome of the case, it is all but certain to inflame the acrimonious debate over trans inclusion versus sex-based rights.

Grover said she is ready for any outcome and prepared to fight the case all the way to the High Court of Australia if necessary.

“But if we lose eventually, I will have to reincorporate the business somewhere else,” she said.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

‘No good evidence’ for gender care for youth, landmark UK review finds | LGBTQ News

Study commissioned by England’s health service says hormones should only be prescribed to teens with ‘extreme caution’.

The evidence behind medical intervention for youth questioning their gender is “remarkably weak”, with some doctors abandoning “normal clinical approaches” to prescribe hormones to teens, a landmark review in the United Kingdom has found.

The long-term health effects of masculinising and feminising hormones on teens are “limited and need to be better understood” and such interventions should only be taken with “extreme caution”, the long-awaited review commissioned by England’s National Health Service (NHS) said on Wednesday.

Puberty blockers, which are given to pre-teens to delay puberty, were not found to relieve gender dysphoria or improve “body satisfaction” and evidence about their effects on psychological wellbeing, cognitive development and fertility was insufficient or inconsistent, the review said.

There was also no evidence that puberty blockers “buy time to think”, since the vast majority of young people on them proceed to hormone treatment, according to the review.

Hilary Cass, the paediatrician who led the review, said that while doctors were usually cautious about implementing new research findings in fledgling areas of medicine, “quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children”.

“Based on a single Dutch study, which suggested that puberty blockers may improve psychological wellbeing for a narrowly defined group of children with gender incongruence, the practice spread at pace to other countries. This was closely followed by a greater readiness to start masculinising/feminising hormones in midteens, and the extension of this approach to a wider group of adolescents who would not have met the inclusion criteria for the original Dutch Study,” Cass said in a foreword to the report.

“Some practitioners abandoned normal clinical approaches to holistic assessment, which has meant that this group of young people have been exceptionalised compared to other young people with similarly complex presentations. They deserve very much better.”

Cass also expressed concern about the “exceptional” toxicity of the public discussion about transgender and gender-questioning youth.

“I have faced criticism for engaging with groups and individuals who take a social justice approach and advocate for gender affirmation, and have equally been criticised for involving groups and individuals who urge more caution. The knowledge and expertise of experienced clinicians who have reached different conclusions about the best approach to care are sometimes dismissed and invalidated,” Cass said.

“There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media, and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour. This must stop.”

Cass said that studies were “exaggerated or misrepresented” on all sides of the debate despite this being an area with “remarkably weak evidence”.

“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” she said.

The NHS commissioned the review in 2020, amid a sharp rise in the number of young people questioning their gender identity and concerns that some minors were being inappropriately identified as transgender.

The NHS last month announced it would no longer prescribe puberty blockers for children and young people outside of clinical research trials.

The UK’s first gender identity clinic for children, operated by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, closed last month after years of criticism that it rushed minors into changing their gender.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Fears of discrimination in Thailand despite looming same sex marriage bill | LGBTQ News

Bangkok, Thailand – Thanadech Jandee is thrilled that Thailand’s marriage equality bill, allowing same-sex couples to marry, is moving closer to becoming law.

Thanadech, who was born biologically female and had gender reassignment surgery to identify as male last year, lives with his girlfriend and her son from a previous relationship.

“I want the equal marriage law to be passed. It will make my family complete like any other family of men and women,” the 34-year-old Grab delivery driver in Bangkok told Al Jazeera.

But along with many LGBTQ activists, Thanadech worries about the bill’s terminology.

Activists say using “parents” and “mother and father” in legal terms will affirm those who identify as LGBTQ on equal terms with other couples.

But efforts to get the wording into the bill have so far been unsuccessful.

The proposed marriage equality law will label marriage as a partnership between two individuals, instead of a man and a woman or a husband and a wife. Couples will have full rights, including receiving medical treatment, tax initiatives, inheritance rights and the right to adopt children.

“I just want to do whatever it takes to have rights that normal men and women have,” Thanadech said.

Thailand’s parliament moved closer to legalising same-sex marriage after the Senate approved the bill at its first hearing on Tuesday. The previous week, Thailand’s lower house approved the bill nearly unanimously – only 10 of the 415 sitting lawmakers did not vote in its favour.

The marriage equality bill passed the lower house with almost unanimous support. It also passed its first reading in the more conservative upper house with the next readings scheduled for July [Manan Vatsyayana/AFP]

The bill will be examined by the Senate vetting committee before two more readings, scheduled for July. The final step is for Thailand’s king to sign and approve it.

“It’s a cause for celebration,” Mookdapa Yangyuenpradorn, a Thailand human rights associate at Fortify Rights, told Al Jazeera.

“[But] it is important to ensure that the more inclusive and gender-neutral language “parents” is included in future revisions to prevent any discriminatory application of the Civil and Commercial Code. We remain steadfast in our call for full protection and recognition of LGBTI+ rights,” Mookdapa added.

In contrast to many other Asian countries, Thailand has long allowed for same-sex celebrations, including Pride. It also holds international transgender beauty pageants and is a global leader in gender reassignment surgery. In 2015, it passed the Gender Equality Act, aiming to protect all people from gender-based discrimination.

But despite having one of the most open LGBTQ communities in the Asian region, Thailand still provides no legal protection to transgender people.

Ariya Milintanapa was born biologically male but identifies as a trans woman. The 40-year-old is a parent to two boys with her husband Lee, whom she married in the United States in 2019. Ariya was the guardian for her younger brother and because of her birth gender as male, was allowed to adopt her now eight-year-old brother as his “uncle”. Their eldest son is a 10-year-old from her husband’s previous relationship.

She says the law makes it “difficult” for them to live as a family.

“It causes a lot of problems like travelling and insurance. We applied for one school but they kept asking for [legal proof] that we were “mum” and “dad”. Even bullies say [to our children] that their mum is different,” Ariya told Al Jazeera.

“We hope to hear the next move where the focus is mainly about the child’s benefit more than the concern of birth gender,” Ariya added.

Bullying risk

Without identifying same-sex and LGBTQ couples as “parents”, there could be a rise in discrimination and bullying between children, according to Nada Chaiyajit, a LGBTQ advocate and law lecturer at Mae Fah Luang University.

“If the law does not recognise “parents” status, it would potentially create discrimination in a form of social bullying,” Nada told Al Jazeera. “Your mother is not your real mother and is a f*****, something like that.”

Nada says it is unclear what other legal rights those who identify as LGBTQ will receive if they are not legally identified as parents and campaigners remain determined the term be described in the law.

“A lot of work is needed to be done. At least we still have some chances to work with the Senate to bring back the word “parents” to complete our rights to family establishment. We will keep pushing,” Nada added.

Thailand has one of the most open LGBTQ communities in the Asian region, hosting Pride parades and transgender beauty pageants [Chalinee Thirasupa/Reuters]

Emilie Palamy Pradichit, the founder of the Manushya Foundation, a human rights organisation in Bangkok, say the wording means the proposed law is not truly for marriage equality.

“It means only people of the same sex recognised as father or mothers will be allowed to marry, because it is a same-sex bill, not a truly marriage equality bill. For example, if a transgender woman wants to marry a non-binary person… they won’t be able to. Thailand does not have a legal gender identity law – that’s a core issue,” she told Al Jazeera.

That could change in the future though. According to one Thai MP, a draft gender recognition law is in the works.

“Draft gender recognition law… Intentional gender identity… I’m working on it. To allow people to define themselves in various ways to define their own gender. It is something that must be continuously pushed forward,” Tunyawaj Kamolwongwat, a lawmaker with the Move Forward Party posted on the X platform.

For now, Thailand’s focus remains on the marriage equality bill.

It has taken more than a decade of campaigning to get to this point and the draft legislation holds widespread political support. Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, who became leader after elections last year has championed it.

“It is considered the pride of Thai society that together [we] walk towards a society of equality and respect diversity,” the Thai Prime Minister wrote on Twitter, formerly X, last week.

If the bill does become law, Thailand will become the first country in Southeast Asia to legalise same-sex marriage – and the third in the wider Asian region after Taiwan and Nepal.

Thailand has a population of more than 71 million people and market research firm Ipsos Group says about 9 percent of Thai people identify as LGBTQ.

Since the first reading of the law in December, enquiries about wedding ceremonies by the community have surged.

“There’s definitely an increase of interest. So that would be about like 25 percent of all the bookings. A lot of couples are looking to celebrate,” Wannida Kasiwong, the owner of Wonders and Weddings in Thailand, told Al Jazeera earlier this year.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Thai parliament passes same-sex marriage bill | LGBTQ News

Pending final approval, bill will cement Thai credentials among Asia’s most liberal societies on LGBTQ issues.

Thailand is set to become the first Southeast Asian nation to recognise equal marriage after politicians passed a same-sex marriage bill.

The lower house of parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of the bill, with 400 supporting its passage and just 10 against it in a final reading on Wednesday. Should the bill take effect, Thailand would be just the third Asian country to legalise gay marriage.

The bill now requires approval from the country’s Senate, and finally endorsement from the king, before becoming law. More than a decade in the making, the legislation could take effect within 120 days of royal approval.

“I want to invite you all to make history,” said Danuphorn Punnakanta, chairman of the parliamentary committee, ahead of the vote. “We did this for all Thai people to reduce disparity in society and start creating equality.”

The legislation would change references to “men”, “women”, “husbands” and “wives” in the marriage law to gender-neutral terms. It would also grant LGBTQ couples inheritance and adoption rights equal to those of heterosexual marriages.

While Thailand enjoys a welcoming reputation for the international LGBTQ community, activists have struggled for decades against conservative attitudes and values.

The Constitutional Court in 2020 ruled that current matrimonial law, which only recognises heterosexual couples, was constitutional. But it also recommended legislation be expanded to ensure minorities’ rights.

In December, the parliament approved the first readings of four different draft bills on same-sex marriage and tasked a committee to consolidate them into a single draft.

On the news that the bill had been approved, one representative brought a huge rainbow flag into the chamber.

Across Asia, only Taiwan and Nepal recognise same-sex marriage.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Two bar workers arrested in Russia’s first LGBTQ ‘extremism’ case | LGBTQ News

The suspects will remain in custody until May 18 and face as long as 10 years in prison if found guilty.

A Russian court has ordered the arrest of a bar administrator and its art director, accusing them of organising an “extremist organisation” under new legislation criminalising the LGBTQ community.

It is the first criminal case launched since Russia banned the so-called “international LGBT movement” in November, amid an accelerating crackdown on LGBTQ people.

“The court chose a preventive measure for the art director and administrator of the ‘Pose’ bar,” the Orenburg tribunal said on Wednesday. The two will remain in custody until May 18 and face up to 10 years in prison, according to the court in southwestern Russia.

The tribunal earlier accused them of “promoting non-traditional sexual relations among the visitors of the bar”.

Police raided the bar earlier this month, and videos of the humiliating detentions of some of the club visitors circulated online.

“The accused, people of non-traditional sexual orientation, acted in premeditation with a group of people … who also support the views and activities of the international public association LGBT,” the court said on Telegram.

According to the Moscow Times, the independent news website Mediazona identified the manager as Diana Kamilyanova and the art director as Alexander Klimov.

‘LGBT as an extremist movement’

Russia has released publicly only a vague description of what it calls the “international LGBT movement”, which critics have said allows the prosecution of anyone protecting LGBTQ rights or simply identifying with the community.

The director of the League of the Safe Internet and figurehead of the ultra-traditional faction pushing for repressive laws, Ekaterina Mizulina, hailed the criminal proceedings.

“This is the first criminal case in Russia after the decision of the Supreme Court to recognise LGBT as an extremist movement,” Mizulina said.

Mizulina said that “local activists” told the police about the club, amid a climate of denunciations of dissident voices.

“What LGBTQ persons and human rights activists have feared since the end of last year has finally come to pass,” Amnesty International said on Tuesday.

Lawmakers in 2013 banned people from promoting “non-traditional” relationships to children and since then have stepped up pressure on the remaining liberal corners of Russian society.

The Kremlin has further ramped up conservative rhetoric since launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, casting the conflict as a battle against the West and its liberal values.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Japan court rules ban on same-sex marriage is ‘unconstitutional’ | LGBTQ News

Japan is only G7 nation that excludes same-sex unions with conservative government criticised as stonewalling diversity.

A high court in Japan has ruled that the country’s ban on same-sex marriage is “unconstitutional” as pressure mounts for such unions to be legalised.

On Thursday, the Sapporo High Court said not allowing same-sex couples to marry violates their fundamental right to have a family, and called for urgent government action to address a lack of laws allowing same-sex unions.

A lower court in Tokyo issued a similar ruling earlier on Thursday, becoming the sixth district court to do so.

But the Tokyo District Court ruling was only a partial victory for Japan’s LGBTQ community calling for equal marriage rights, as it does not change or overturn the current civil union law that describes marriage as between a man and a woman.

Japan is the only member of the Group of Seven (G7) nations that still excludes same-sex couples from the right to legally marry and receive spousal benefits.

Support for marriage equality has grown among the Japanese public in recent years, but the governing Liberal Democratic Party, known for its conservative family values and reluctance to promote gender equality and sexual diversity, remains opposed to the campaign.

‘Groundbreaking’

Amnesty International said Thursday’s rulings were “groundbreaking”.

“The court decisions today mark a significant step towards achieving marriage equality in Japan. The ruling in Sapporo, the first High Court decision on same-sex marriage in the country, emphatically shows the trend towards acceptance of same-sex marriage in Japan,” said the group’s East Asia researcher Boram Jang.

“By recognizing that the government’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, these rulings make clear that such discrimination has no place in Japanese society,” the statement said, adding that the government now needs to be proactive in moving towards the legalisation of same-sex marriage so that couples can fully enjoy the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

The high court does not have the power to overturn the constitution.

Five previous courts delivered varying rulings in the past two years before Thursday with some upholding the current law – while raising concerns about protecting individuals’ rights – and others ruling against it.

Dozens of advocacy groups have pushed for anti-discriminatory laws. About 8 percent of the more than 120 million population in Japan identify as being a sexual minority.

Views about same-sex marriage in Japan have shifted in recent years, with some 68 percent of the population saying they favour a law legalising it, according to a 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Hundreds of municipalities throughout Japan allow same-sex couples to enter partnership agreements but their rights are limited.

Partners cannot inherit each other’s assets or have parental rights to each other’s children, hospital visits are not guaranteed, and spousal benefits cannot be collected.

Last July, the government passed a “fostering LGBTQ understanding” law that stipulates “there should be no unfair discrimination” against sexual minorities, but critics argue it is not strong enough.

“The law passed by the government last year to ‘promote understanding’ of LGBTI people is not enough,” Amnesty said. “There need to be concrete, legal measures in place to protect same-sex couples and the LGBTI community in Japan from all forms of discrimination.”



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Ghana’s parliament passes anti-LGBTQ bill | LGBTQ News

Rights activists condemn the law that would punish LGBTQ people as well as those who promote gay rights with years in prison.

Ghana’s parliament has voted to pass a controversial bill to severely restrict LGBTQ rights, in a move that has been condemned by rights activists.

A coalition of religious and traditional leaders sponsored the legislation that is favoured by most lawmakers and that passed in parliament on Wednesday.

The bill would punish those who take part in LGBTQ sexual acts, as well as those who promote the rights of gay, lesbian or other non-conventional sexual or gender identities with time in prison.

The bill, one of the harshest of its kind in Africa, still has to be validated by the president before entering into law, which observers believe is unlikely before a general election in December.

Activist groups have called the “Human Sexual Rights and Family Values” bill a setback for human rights and urged President Nana Akufo-Addo’s government to reject it.

But the legislation is widely supported in Ghana, where Akufo-Addo has said gay marriage will never be allowed while he is in power.

Commonly referred to as the anti-gay bill, it received sponsorship from a coalition comprising Christian, Muslim, and Ghanaian traditional leaders, finding substantial backing among members of Parliament.

Gay sex is already illegal in the religious West African nation, but while discrimination against LGBTQ people is common no one has ever been prosecuted under the colonial-era law.

Under the provisions of the bill, those who take part in LGBTQ sexual acts could face imprisonment ranging from six months to three years.

The bill also imposes a prison sentence of three to five years for the “wilful promotion, sponsorship, or support of LGBTQ+ activities”.

Parliamentarians and members of the public listen as Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo delivers his annual state of the nation address to the parliament in Accra, Ghana, March 30, 2022 [Francis Kokoroko/Reuters]

‘Violates human rights’

A human rights coalition known as the Big 18, an umbrella group of lawyers and activists in Ghana, has condemned the bill.

“You cannot criminalise a person’s identity and that’s what the bill is doing and it’s absolutely wrong,” said Takyiwaa Manuh, a member of the coalition.

“We want to impress on the president not to assent to the bill, it totally violates the human rights of the LGBT community,” Manuh told the AFP news agency.

Opposition lawmaker Sam George, the main sponsor of the bill, called on Akufo-Addo to assent to it.

“There is nothing that deals with LGBTQ better than this bill that has been passed by parliament. We expect the president to walk his talk and be a man of his words,” George said.

Members of Ghana’s LGBTQ community are worried about the implications of the bill.

Founder and director of the organisation LGBT+ Rights Ghana Alex Donkor said, “The passing of this bill will further marginalise and endanger LGBTQ individuals in Ghana.”

“It not only legalises discrimination but also fosters an environment of fear and persecution,” he said.

“With harsh penalties for both LGBTQ individuals and activists, this bill threatens the safety and wellbeing of an already vulnerable community.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Greece first Orthodox Christian country to legalise same-sex marriage | LGBTQ News

Parliament voted 176-76 to pass the bill which also allows same-sex couples to legally adopt children.

Greece has become the first Orthodox Christian country to legalise same-sex marriage despite opposition from the church and some politicians.

The measure was passed by parliament late on Thursday with 176 lawmakers from across the political spectrum voting in favour, and 76 against. Two abstained and 46 were not present.

The bill required a simple majority to pass in the 300-member parliament.

The vote, which came after two days of debate and weeks of public reactions, will now legally allow same-sex couples to adopt children as well.

People in favour of the vote celebrated and cheered on the streets of the capital, Athens, while those opposed, including many identifying with the Orthodox Church, rallied in protest. They displayed banners, held crosses, read prayers and sang passages from the Bible.

Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who had championed the legislation, faced resistance from within his own centre-right New Democracy party but was joined by politicians from other parties in the vote.

“People who have been invisible will finally be made visible around us. And with them, many children [will] finally find their rightful place,” Mitsotakis told lawmakers before the vote.

“The reform that we are legislating today … will make the life of some of our fellow citizens that much better without – and I emphasise this – taking away anything from the lives of the many,” said Mitsotakis, adding that this would add Greece to the list of 35 nations that have already legislated on same-sex marriage.

But as well as some public backlash, political opposition to the bill was considerable, with former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras among the top critics. He had told parliament during debates that the “dangerous” law must not be passed.

Syriza, the main opposition left-wing party led by Stefanos Kasselakis, Greece’s first gay political leader, backed the bill, despite the fact that it maintained it does not go far enough.

Syriza has criticised that the legislation still bans same-sex couples from becoming parents through surrogacy – something Kasselakis has said wants to pursue with his own partner.

Mitsotakis posted on X after the vote that Greece was “proud” to become the 16th country in the European Union to legislate marriage equality.

“This is a milestone for human rights, reflecting today’s Greece – a progressive, and democratic country, passionately committed to European values,” he said.

Greece had until now lagged behind some of its European neighbours in the 27-member bloc, due to opposition from a portion of the socially conservative nation, especially from the Orthodox Church.

It has now become the first country in southeastern Europe to have passed legislation legalising same-sex marriage.

Protesters against the measure, which legalises same-sex marriage pray in front of the Greek parliament, ahead of the vote, in Athens, Greece, on February 15, 2024 [Louisa Gouliamaki/Reuters]



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version