Saturday, August 15, 2009

Gay and lesbian Zimbabweans push for constitutional equality
By staff writers
10 Aug 2009
Human rights campaigners in Zimbabwe believe they have a 50:50 chance of seeing the rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual people protected in the country's new constitution. This would overturn existing Zimbabwean law.

Sexual acts between men are currently prohibited in Zimbabwe. While sexual acts between women are not mentioned in law, all forms of homosexuality have been denounced by the country's president, Robert Mugabe.

However, it is thought that the Movement for Democratic Change, which now shares in government, may be willing to consider a major change as part of the country's current constitutional review.

“We live in hope,” said Keith Goddard, director of Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ), which has around 400 members.

He told Britain's Guardian newspaper that “we've probably got a 50:50 chance”. He hopes that the National Aids Council's recent call for the decriminalisation of homosexual practice will assist their campaign.

The influence of South African television on Zimbabweans is also thought to be helping to change attitudes. South Africa was the first country in the world to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in its constitution.

However, Goddard suggested that there was an atmosphere of “hysterical homophobia” in the country, due in part to Mugabe's rhetoric. He said that the network of people supported by GALZ includes many who are “very hidden and very scared”.

Mugabe has repeatedly attacked homosexuality as a Western import, although gay, lesbian and bisexual Africans are keen to disagree.

The gay Nigerian Christian activist, Davis Mac-Iyalla has insisted that “homosexuality has existed in Africa from the beginning”. He suggests that it was homophobia, not homosexuality, that was introduced into Africa by Western colonisers and missionaries. Digg it Tailrank Reddit Newsvine Now Public Technorati StumbleUpon Facebook
Keywords: bisexual | gay | homophobia | human rights | lesbian | sexuality | zimbabwe
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales License. Although the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Ekklesia, the article may reflect Ekklesia's values. If you use Ekklesia's news briefings please consider making a donation to sponsor Ekklesia's work here.
email this page | printer friendly version

Friday, July 3, 2009

Indian Court Overturns Gay Sex Ban.

NEW DELHI —In a landmark ruling Thursday that could usher in an era of greater freedom for gay men and lesbians in India, New Delhi’s highest court decriminalized homosexuality.

“The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognizing a role in society for everyone,” judges of the Delhi High Court wrote in a 105-page decision, India’s first to directly address rights for gay men and lesbians. “Those perceived by the majority as ‘deviants’ or ‘different’ are not on that score excluded or ostracized,” the decision said.
Homosexuality has been illegal in India since 1861, when British rulers codified a law prohibiting “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.” The law, known as Section 377 of India’s penal code, has long been viewed as an archaic holdover from colonialism by its detractors.
“Clearly, we are all thrilled,” said Anjali Gopalan, the executive director and founder of the Naz Foundation, an AIDS awareness group that sued to have Section 377 changed.
“It is a first major step,” Ms. Gopalan said during a news conference in Delhi, but “there are many more battles.”
Thursday’s decision applies only in the territory of India’s capital city, but it is likely to force India’s government either to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or change the law nationwide, lawyers and advocates said.
Outside the hall where the Naz Foundation news conference was held, dozens of young men and women gathered to celebrate, along with a group of hijras, men who dress and act like women who classify themselves as belonging to neither gender. “It is a victory of human rights, not just of gay rights,” said one 22-year-old man who only identified himself as Manish.
Gay men and women have rarely been prosecuted under Section 377 in India in modern times, but it has been used to harass, blackmail and jail people.
Britain legalized homosexuality in England and Wales in 1967, but many of its former colonies, including Singapore, Zimbabwe and Malaysia, still retain strict laws against same-sex relations.
India’s society is generally unwelcoming of homosexuality except in the most cosmopolitan circles. It is not uncommon for gay men and women to marry heterosexuals and have families, while carrying on secret relationships with members of the same sex.
In their decision, Chief Justice A. P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar declared Section 377, as it pertains to consensual sex among people above the age of 18, in violation of important parts of India’s Constitution. “Consensual sex amongst adults is legal, which includes even gay sex and sex among the same sexes,” they said.
The old law violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees all people “equality before the law;” Article 15, which prohibits discrimination “on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth;” and Article 21, which guarantees “protection of life and personal liberty,” the judges said.
Acceptance of homosexuality has thawed somewhat in recent years in some urban areas. Gay pride parades in Indian cities last weekend attracted thousands of marchers, and several recent Bollywood movies, like “Dostana,” have included gay themes and characters, often played by Bollywood’s biggest heterosexual stars.
Still, the decision was condemned from many corners in India. “This is wrong,” said Maulana Abdul Khaliq Madrasi, a vice chancellor of Dar ul-Uloom, the main university for Islamic education in India. The decision to bring Western culture to India, he said, will “corrupt Indian boys and girls.”
The High Court’s decision should be overturned, said Murli Manohar Joshi, the leader of the main opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. “The High Court cannot decide all things,” he said.
The ruling comes after a decade-long, broad-based campaign organized by gay rights advocates, authors, celebrities, lawyers and AIDS awareness groups from around the world. India has one of the world’s largest populations of people with AIDS, and Section 377 was viewed by many advocates as a hurdle to education about safer sex.
Now that the High Court has ruled against Section 377, some say the next step is a change in the way that society views gay people.
“The real problem is still the stigma attached,” especially outside big cities, said Ritu Dalmia, one of India’s best-known chefs, who lives with her girlfriend in New Delhi.
Change particularly needs to happen in rural India, she said in an e-mail message Thursday afternoon. “I have met women who were forced to sleep with men so that they could be ‘cured’ of homosexuality,” she said.
“Today is a historical moment where at least some tiny steps have been taken, but there is still a very, very long road ahead,” she said.

Published: July 2, 2009

Monday, January 26, 2009


Nigeria: 'Same Gender Marriage (Prohibition) Bill' violates ConstitutionAmnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Nigerian Bar Association Human Rights Institute (NBAHRI) and Nigerian human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are deeply concerned by the 'Same Gender Marriage (Prohibition) Bill 2008', currently before the Nigerian National Assembly. The Bill would introduce criminal penalties for marriage ceremonies between persons of the same sex as well as for persons witnessing or helping to formalize such a marriage. This is in contravention of the Nigerian Constitution and inconsistent with Nigeria's obligations under international and regional human rights treaties which the country has ratified. We therefore urge the National Assembly not to pass the Bill.Under Nigeria's criminal code and penal code, consensual same sex conduct between adults is already punishable: chapter 42, section 214 of Nigeria's criminal code provides a sentence of fourteen years' imprisonment for 'carnal knowledge against the order of nature.' This Bill aims to outlaw, including through criminal sanctions, marriages between persons of the same sex or gender and does not recognize the union of people of the same sex married outside Nigeria. Provisions in the Bill violate sections 37, 38, 40 and 42 of Nigeria's Constitution and the analogous provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (i.e. articles 2, 3, 11, and 28) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (i.e. articles 2, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 26). The Bill singles out one group of people to be deprived of rights that all people enjoy as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution and international human rights treaties to which Nigeria is a state party. In particular, the Bill violates the right to freedom from discrimination as recognized in section 42, 1, of the 1999 Constitution:
A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person –
(a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject . . . .The Bill defines "Same Gender Marriage" as "the coming together of persons of the same sex with the purpose of leaving together as husband and wife or for other purposes of same sexual relationship. " Under the Bill, any person who "entered into a same gender marriage contract" would be subject to up to three years imprisonment. This is in contravention of section 37 of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of private and family life and to freedom of association. The expansive clause extending the definition of "Same Gender Marriage" to other same sexual relationships, could lead to arbitrary arrests on the basis of allegations about sexual orientation, rumours of sexual behaviour or objection to gender presentation. Another clause provides a sentence for any person who "witnesses, abet and aids the solemnization of a same gender marriage" of five years' imprisonment and/or a possible fine of N2,000 [US$14]. Any priest, cleric or other religious actor found to have aided or abetted such a union would be subject under this new law to a prison term. Such measures violate the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion as recognized in section 38 of the Nigerian constitution. State intervention in the decisions of religious bodies is in breach of their freedom of religion or belief, as protected by Article 18 of the ICCPR. A state should not obligate, nor prevent, a religious institution to conduct a marriage ceremony between individuals of the same sex. Nigeria acceded to the ICCPR without reservations in 1993.
A group of people who witness such a marriage could, according to the draft Bill, be sentenced to a fine of N50,000 [US$340]. The higher penalties for anyone convicted of witnessing, aiding or abetting a marriage, suggests a further implication of this Bill – the targeting of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, organizations and events. This violates the freedom of association as recognized in section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution.
The Bill, if passed, could lead to the imprisonment of individuals solely for their actual or imputed sexual orientation or gender identity on the basis of assumptions or allegations about their consensual sexual conduct between adults in private. In addition, we fear that the Bill may allow for homophobic and transphobic individuals or groups to target lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, organizations and events and suggests a further implication of the Bill –to incite hatred and specific acts of discrimination, harassment or violence against anyone suspected of being `lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
According to the Federal Government in their National Report to the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) – which is due to examine Nigeria's report at its next session in February 2009, – "Sexual minorities are not visible in Nigeria, and there is no officially registered association of gay and lesbians. … The laws of Nigeria recognize marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. However, like every democracy, those who want a change in the existing laws have to come out and lobby for the change they desire." However, if this Bill is passed, it could seriously restrict essential freedoms as well as the activities of human rights defenders and members of civil society, such as the freedom of association as recognized in section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution. Without the protection of fundamental freedoms, it is impossible for activists to form organizations and campaign for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, same-sex practicing and transgender people, or even to meet in public. If this Bill is passed, it can be dangerous for them to meet even in private.
The Nigerian government has an obligation to promote and protect the human rights of its population without distinction of any kind, including sexual orientation or gender identity. As a member of the UN Human Rights Council, Nigeria is required to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights of all people regardless of their sexual orientation. We therefore urge the National Assembly not to pass this Bill.
Amnesty International, United KingdomCentre for Democracy & Development (CDD), Nigeria Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD), NigeriaCentre for Law Enforcement Education (CLEEN Foundation), NigeriaChanging Attitude Nigeria, United KingdomCivil Liberties Organisation (CLO), NigeriaCivil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), NigeriaGirls' Power Initiative (GPI), NigeriaHouse of Rainbow Metropolitan Community Church (HRMCC), NigeriaHuman Rights Law Service (HURILAWS), NigeriaHuman Rights Monitor (HRM), NigeriaHuman Rights Watch (HRW), United StatesInternational Centre for Reproductive Health and Sexual Rights (INCRESE), NigeriaInternational Resource Network for Africa, United StatesLegal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP), NigeriaLegal Resources Consortium (LRC), NigeriaMetropolitan Community Churches (MCC), United StatesNigerian Bar Association Human Rights Institute (NBAHRI), NigeriaNigerian Humanist Movement, NigeriaPartnership for Justice (PJ), NigeriaPrisoners Rehabilitation and Welfare Action (PRAWA), NigeriaSocio-Economic Rights & Accountability Project (SERAP), NigeriaThe Independent Project for Equal Rights, NigeriaWomen Advocates Research and Documentation Centre (WARDC), NigeriaYouths 2gether Network, NigeriaEND/ __._,_.___

Friday, January 16, 2009

Reps vote against gay marriage in Nigeria

http://www.sunnewso webpages/ news/national/ 2

Reps vote against gay marriage•To enact law against same sex unionsFrom JAMES OJO, AbujaFriday, January 16, 2009
Photo: Sun News Publishing
More Stories on This Section
House of Representatives yesterday unanimously voted for outright ban of same sex marriage anywhere in the country, as the Bill “for an Act to prohibit marriage between persons of same gender, solemnisation of same and other matters related therewith” scaled through without any opposition.Sponsored by Hon. Mayor Eze, deputy chairman, House Committee on Steel, all the lawmakers who spoke in favour of the Bill demanded for an outright ban on such acts.Hon. Abike Dabiri-Erewa, chairman, House Committee on Diaspora, Hon. Igo Aguma, chairman, House Committee on Gas Resources, Hon. Aminu Shehu Shagari, chairman, House Committee on Steel, Hon, Chinyere Igwe, deputy chairman, House Committee on Human Rights and Tahir Monguno, all condemned such marriage, saying that it was immoral, against African tradition and God designs for human being.Hon. Tahir, for instance, noted that the act depicts moral decadence in any given society and a digress from God’s purpose of creating marriage institution, stressing that such act as stated in both Islam and Christian religions remain ungodly act.For Hon. Igo Aguma, he argued that “it is against my faith to have same sex marriage. It is against our penal code to even engage in activities that are as quarrelsome as this between man and man, as well as women and women.“It is time for us at this point in time to think back and look at the scourge of HIV/AIDS. The greatest means of transmitting this disease is through the act of ‘sodomy’. Young children are already victims of been lured into this cruel and unimaginable act. It is an act of perversion.”Also speaking in favour of the Bill, Hon. Dabiri-Erewa noted that the Bill was extensively considered at public hearing before the expiration of the last administration.She added that a public hearing had been organized to collate peoples’ views and opinion, adding that it was a general view that “the act should not be encouraged in Nigeria,” while calling for the reports of the public hearing to be a guide in the final decision of the House.Speaker Oladimeji Bankole put the Bill to vote to be read for the second reading, it was carried and the Bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Justice and Women Affairs.