Gay Rights - The Bad News

Unfortunately the news surrounding gay rights has not been entirely rosy. The West did appear to move forward together, the same cannot be said of other countries. The biggest anti-gay news came out of Russia and India which seriously disappointed gay rights activists. Africa and the Middle East continued their terrible reputation with gay rights.

Gay Rights – Russia

When the Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991 the new Russia seemed eager to show its progressive side on social issues. In 1993 gay sex was legalised, four years later transgender people could legally change their gender and in 1999 homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness. Then came Vladimir Putin, he rose to Prime Minister in 1999 and after only a few months became President following Boris Yeltsin’s resignation. Originally he did nothing to gay rights, but as the years progressed he began to ally himself with the homophobic Russian Orthodox Church. To help cement the support of the religious right, he (and his United Russia party) began hacking away at gay rights. Although homosexuality is still legal in Russia, a law was passed last year that made ‘homosexual propaganda’ illegal.

The law itself is truly terrible and stops any sort of gay pride event or meeting in which homosexuality is discussed positively. In Russia if you break the law as an ordinary citizen you are fined 5,000 Russian roubles (£93/$153/€110). For public officials the fine is 50,000 roubles (£932/$1,525/€1,102), the maximum fine for organisations is 1 million roubles (£18,631/$30,500/€22,037) and they must halt activity for up to 90 days. If you try and ‘promote homosexuality’ over the internet you can get fined 100,000 roubles (£1,863/$3,050/€2,204)! If you are a foreigner you can expect to get detained for 15 days before being deported, after paying your 100,000 rouble fine of course.

The disgraceful treatment of gays has resulted in people calling for a boycott of the Winter Olympics, which are to be held in Sochi, Russia later this year. Particularly vocal have been George Takei, an American actor, and Stephen Fry, a veteran British broadcaster. Both are openly gay and have drawn on their substantial fan base to call for a boycott of the games. In Fry’s letter to Prime Minister David Cameron he compared Putin’s treatment of gays to Hitler’s treatment of Jews in 1936, when the Olympic Games were held in Berlin. It is worth noting that Fry is of Jewish descent and had relatives die in the Holocaust.

 

Russian gay rights supporters being beaten by police
source: the Guardian

Gay Rights Elsewhere

India was the only other country to produce major anti-gay news. In 2009 the Delhi High Court ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional and that all prohibitions on consenting sexual activities between adults that did not involve a commercial transaction were also unconstitutional. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was passed in 1860 by the ruling British government. Unfortunately the Supreme Court of India decided in December that the colonial era law was actually constitutional. This meant that gay sex was once again illegal in India.

It is a bit ironic when you think about it: When this law was passed in 1860, Britain was highly homophobic whereas India was not. Fast forward 160 years and you find a homophobic India and Britain leading the pro-gay rights charge!

Uganda has been at the centre of attention for several years now in relation to gay rights. Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda, being found guilty of it could result in up to seven years of imprisonment. Yet for some that is not enough! In 2009 MP David Bahati introduced a bill that would call for the death penalty for people who had gay sex on multiple occasions. It was dubbed the ‘kill the gays bill’ and got immediate international attention, which resulted in it failing. Then last year the Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, introduced a new bill that was not quite as harsh as the original bill, but still demanded the death penalty for ‘aggravated’ homosexuality. That bill passed Parliament last month and new awaits President Yoweri Museveni’s signature.

More minor bad news for gay rights came out of Croatia, Zimbabwe and Australia. In Zimbabwe a referendum was held at the same time as other elections that banned same-sex marriage constitutionally. Considering Zimbabwe was never going to legalise same-sex marriage, this has little affect. Similarly Croatia had a referendum in which marriage was defined as being between one man and one woman. The result was 66% against marriage equality. It wasn’t entirely bad news though as the government immediately announced that it would try and pass a civil union bill this year. In Australia the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra) became the first Australian jurisdiction to legalise same-sex marriage! Hurray! Not so fast, unfortunately the federal government challenged the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage law, the court unfortunately ruled in the government’s favour. This means that gay marriage will not be becoming legal any time soon in Australia.  

The Rainbow Wave

It has been an extraordinary year for gay rights, particularly when it comes to gay marriage. Unfortunately there have been set backs, most notably in Russia, which I will come to later. Earlier last year I made a prediction that the total population of countries and jurisdictions that have passed same-sex marriage before 2013 would be less than the population of those who passed it in 2013 and 2014. My prediction was true, just a bit conservative. Before 2013 363,310 people lived in places that had legal same-sex marriage, whereas last year places with an additional 37,806,000 people being added in 2013 alone!

Marriage Rights

The first gay couple to get married in France (Montpellier)
source: standard.co.uk

The expanding of marriage rights took place across four continents and seven different countries. Brazil, France, New Zealand and Uruguay legalised it nationwide, taking the total to 15 countries. The UK government also legalised same-sex marriage but it only applies to England and Wales as both Scotland and Northern Ireland have the power to define marriage devolved to them. Scotland is making good progress when it comes to same-sex marriage, a bill that would legalise it has passed the first reading in the Scottish Parliament and awaits another vote. In Northern Ireland there are no plans to extend marriage rights at the moment.

Same-sex marriage seemed unable to stay out of American news this entire year, every few weeks there was something new to celebrate, or be sad about. In total nine states started to issue same-sex marriage licences. Five legalised it through their legislatures (Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota and Rhode Island) whilst the other four legalised it as a result of court rulings (California, New Jersey, New Mexico and Utah). There are many other court cases pending across the country. In addition, six tribal jurisdictions began allowing same-sex marriage. They were the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Santa Ysabel Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, and the Leek Lake Band of Ojibwe. In 2013 Colorado started offering civil unions to same-sex couples and Oregon began recognising same-sex marriages performed out of state.  

USA Supreme Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage

The biggest boost for gay rights campaigners in the US came in June last year when the Supreme Court sided with them in two landmark cases. The court finally put to rest the fight over same-sex marriage in California that has been going on for a decade. Under Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger the Democratic controlled legislature passed same-sex marriage, which he vetoed. A challenge was brought to the constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage ban which resulted in the Supreme Court of California ruling that the ban was unconstitutional. This was rapidly overturned by Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman and received the backing of 52% of the public vote in the 2008 referendum. A suit was then filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 did run contrary to the US constitution and hence would have to go. As the state of California refused to defend the law, it was the original organisers of Proposition 8 which then appealed the ruling in court.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to take up an appeal, when the court ruled in February 2012, it ruled in favour of the gay rights side. So the Proposition 8 proponents had no choice but to go to the US Supreme Court or abandon altogether, naturally they appealed.

The ruling later came on the 26^th of June and the results were rather surprising. The court did not rule based on whether or not Proposition 8 was constitutional, but rather whether its opponents had a right to defend it in federal court. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that Proposition 8 opponents were not able to appeal and so the original district court ruling stayed. What is more surprising is how each justice ruled. It is widely recognised that the court is split along political lines. There are four liberal justices; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Opposing them are conservative justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Finally there is the swing justice who is viewed as a moderate, Anthony Kennedy. You would be forgiven for thinking that it was the four liberal justices plus Kennedy that enabled same-sex marriage to return to California, but you would be wrong. Instead it was Roberts, Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer and Scalia that ruled against the Proposition 8 proponents. Kennedy, Sotomayor, Alito and Thomas dissented. Scalia is the most shocking vote as not only is he one of the most conservative justices on the court, he is one of the most conservative men in the country.

The other major case heard by the Supreme Court on gay rights in 2013 concerned the federal Defense of Marriage Act (aka DOMA). The Act was passed in 1996 by a strong bipartisan majority and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law basically barred federal recognition for same-sex couples. Section 3 stated that the federal government could not provide benefits to same-sex couples, even in states that had legal same-sex marriage. In 1996 this was of little consequence as no state allowed same-sex marriage, and it wouldn’t matter for another eight years until Massachusetts became the first US state to legalise same-sex marriage in 2004. In 2010 several plaintiffs filed in New York calling Section 3 unconstitutional. The case was called United States v. Windsor and dealt primarily with the case of Edith Windsor who had been taxed on the inheritance she received from her spouse, Thea Spyer. If the federal government had recognised her marriage then she would have been exempt from the tax. By the time the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, eight other states and DC had already legalised same-sex marriage and several more were planning on legalising it in the coming months. The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that Section 3 was indeed unconstitutional as it violated states’ rights and individual rights. The way the justices ruled was entirely as expected; the four conservative justices opposed gay rights and the four liberal justices (joined by Kennedy) backed gay rights.

Other positive moves on gay rights

One fundamental part of the family life is children, so naturally being allowed to adopt is important to gay people who want a family. There are two types of adoption here; joint adoption and step-child adoption. Joint adoption is when both partners adopt a child that is not the biological child of either of them. Step-child adoption is when one partner is the biological parent of one and the other partner adopts the child as their own. In 2013 France and New Zealand both began allowing joint adoption as a result of legalising same-sex marriage. In Northern Ireland and Gibraltar courts ruled that their respective jurisdictions had to allow joint adoption. Tasmania also legalised joint adoption. In 2013 step-child adoption was legalised in Austria and Germany.

Despite plenty of good news for gay rights in the West, less good news came from other areas of the world. I will be addressing that in the next post. 

Massive Rifts Opening Up in Tory Ranks

The current coalition government of the United Kingdom is known to be divided, which is to be expected as there are two different parties in power. We know there are rifts between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives over social and economic policies, but what is usually less visible is the rift within the Conservative Party.

The rift in the Conservative Party is quite surprising considering that it was only two years ago in which they placed first in a general election. Most people would expect, at this stage, for the Labour Party to be rife with divisions and the Conservatives to be putting on a united front. Yet the Tory Party has shown time and time again that there are massive divisions in the party that are threatening to tear the party apart. HS2, the high speed rail link between London and cities in the north of England has angered a lot of the Tory MPs from the rural regions through which the new route will pass. There are also large divisions over the possibility of building a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Europe has always been a headache for Tory Party leaders, David Cameron is no exception. Many within the party demand a referendum on whether or not to stay in the European Union, much of the party is euro-sceptic and would rather we leave the EU altogether.

The most recent issue to create a colossal divide within the Conservative Party is that over gay marriage, the proposals have been supported by Cameron and much of his cabinet ministers for many years. The proposals also have support of the ascendant Boris Johnson and both the opposing parties. Yet there is increasing anger amongst many Tory backbenchers who are opposed to gay marriage and believe that the government has no mandate to pass it since it was not in the Tory Party manifesto or the coalition agreement. (I don’t see how 70%-80% public support for a policy isn’t a mandate)

All this makes things very difficult for the government, there are rifts opening up everywhere and over every issue. If the coalition survives until the 2015 general election I will be very impressed and very surprised. 

The Death Penalty - Why it Should Not Exist

Amnesty International calls it the “ultimate denial of human rights” but many believe that it is a powerful deterrent that stops people committing violent crimes such as murder.

This is simply not true, if the death penalty is such a good deterrent, why does a country, such as the USA (which has the death penalty), have a much higher homicide rate than other developed nations who do not have the death penalty.

This graph clearly illustrates just how significant the difference is, the United States has over four times the homicide rate of the UK, Germany, Australia and Canada. Considering that the US executed 43 people in 2011, criminals know that they can be executed. It is simply not the deterrent people think it is.

Yet I think one of the most important rebuttals of the death penalty is the chance of convicting innocent people. In the United States, of the 1,300 people executed, 142 have been exonerated since their execution (11% of the total). Considering how difficult it is to get someone exonerated and the fact that in the early years there was no DNA evidence or such, the true figure of innocent people executed must be higher. With this in mind there is no way the death penalty should exist as there is too high a chance of innocent people being executed.  

There are many people, like myself, that are opposed to the death penalty in principle, as well as practice. I simply believe that nobody, not a government, not a judge and not a jury can decide who lives and who dies. No matter what somebody has done, no matter what horrific crime they have committed, the death penalty should never be an option. Nobody has the right to control whether someone lives or dies. I believe that life is the most fundamental human right, it goes above and beyond everything else, and human rights are something that every human has, regardless of gender, race, religion or criminal conviction.

I thought it interesting to make up the following graph to show which type of countries typically use the death penalty. I used information from Freedom House, which categorises countries as free, partly free and not free. I then compared it to nations which use the death penalty. You can make your own conclusions!

*this excludes countries that have the death penalty but have not used
it in the past 10 years.

The Death Penalty - The Facts

Last year over 4,000 people were executed across the globe, many of these were executed for petty reasons and many will also be innocent.

The following map shows the extent of execution in our world, red indicates that the country retains the death penalty; orange indicates the country retains the death penalty but has not used it in over ten years. Green indicates that the country has abolished the death penalty except for exceptional circumstances (such as war) and blue indicates that a country has abolished the death penalty in all circumstances.

 This map gives an indication over where we’re at in the world. Europe has the best record on execution; Belarus is the only country in Europe that still executes prisoners. One of the reasons that Europe has such a good record on execution is that both the Council of Europe and the European Union require members to abolish the death penalty before they are admitted.  The Americas is another continent with a good record, the majority of countries have not used it in the past ten years. Only three countries still actively use the death penalty, the USA, St Kitts and Nevis and Cuba. Australasia has mostly abolished the death penalty, with only a few (very small) states still actively using it.

Asia is the worst offender when it comes to execution: of the 21 nations that performed executions (officially) in 2011, 15 of the states were Asian.  The top four states by number of people executed were also Asian.  China carries out more executions that all other nations combined, it is thought that in 2011 China executed up to 4,000 people. Although there have been moves in China to reduce the amount of crimes that result in execution. 

Syrian Conflict Continues

The violence in Syria is worse than most people realise according to a new report from Human Rights Watch. Research by the organisation has found that people detained by the Syrian government were tortured extremely harshly, detainees were beaten, burned with acid and sexually abused. The report also claims that torture in institutional, sanctioned by the highest levels of the Syrian government. The organisation is calling for the International Criminal Court to call for the arrest of top level Syrian officials, in a similar style to what it did for Colonel Gaddafi and his family. The only problem with this is that Russia, Syria’s ally, could (and would) block any attempt to do so.

To anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention to the Syrian conflict, this will come as no surprise. But nonetheless it helps to apply pressure to Syria’s few remaining allies to abandon the Assad regime and back Arab and Western Nations proposals for regime change.

I still believe that the best thing that the UN could do, would be a UN peacekeeping mission that would try and reconcile both sides, this could plausibly get Russia on side and would be appealing to the West. Although I believe regime change is inevitable, a peacekeeping force would be the first step towards such an event.

Syrian Conflict has destroyed the country
Source: Wall Street Journal

Policing Board's Annual Human Rights Report

Yesterday the Northern Ireland Policing Board launched their seventh annual human rights report in Derry/Londonderry. The occasion was styled as a “let’s talk” event with a panel of representatives from the Policing Board and Matt Baggott, the chief constable for the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland). During the debate, Baggott defended the intelligence services when a Republican on the panel and a few members of the floor called them the “dark side” of policing. Baggott repudiated with the statement that “If it hadn't been for intelligence, we would have had cases of mass murder in Northern Ireland [in 2011]”. This is a frightening idea as the only bomb in 2011 to claim a life was that of police officer Ronan Kerr. The rest only caused inconvenience and minor damage. It is scary to think that there are still people who want to return Northern Ireland to the violence and fear of the Troubles. I agree with Baggott in that people should not compare the intelligence services to the dark side as it does not help anyone and only increases resentment in communities (particularly nationalist ones) towards the police force. As Mick Fealty said on Twitter “The last 25 minutes have been brought to you by Star Wars…”

The issue around “punishment” attacks also arose during the debate and, as the Republican representative rightly pointed out, we should not call them “punishment attacks” as the word punishment implies that the person has done something to deserve the attack, which is not true. Another issue brought up was that of the re-hiring of retired RUC officers, Baggott said that ex-RUC officers who refused to co-operate with investigations into the past should not be re-hired.

The PSNI has come a long way in the past decade, but there is still plenty of work to be done to truly bring the two communities of Northern Ireland together into one.