About 400 people attended the reception after all opposition party leaders signed up to the Equal Marriage Pledge.

The Scottish government, led by the Scottish National Party, concluded public consultation on equal marriage on December 9. It was the government’s largest ever public consultation, with over 50,000 responses.

(In the United Kingdom, a “public consultation” is a process to gain voter feedback on any legislation that would affect public policy.)

It will now analyze the feedback and publish their response in spring along with a draft bill, which will be open for expert consultation and voting by mid-2013, expected to pass as law by the end of 2013.

“This is the last piece of devolved legislation in Scotland that needs to be changed to introduce full equality for LGBT people in the law,” declared Hopkins.

This is in contrast to England and Wales, where the consultation process will only start in March this year.

Westminster “might move ahead at the same time scale as in Scotland, but if it doesn’t, the fact that it goes here will help campaigners in the rest of the UK” speculated Hopkins.

Speaking with LGBTQ Nation, out bisexual Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) Patrick Harvie, leader of the Green party stated: “This is a real opportunity to shift the argument not just here but in the rest of the UK. If we are to move on this quickly Westminster will be prompted to move on this issue faster”.

Opinion polls suggest a majority of Scots support equal marriage, including the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2010 which indicated 61% support versus 19% opposition. This included a majority of respondents following all the major faiths and political parties in Scotland.

Over 400 people attend the reception in support of same-sex marriage. The event, the biggest since the parliament was established, was hosted by leading MSPs from all five parties and was attended by guests including leading politicians, faith leaders, same-sex couples, trade unionists, and youth and student representatives.

Speaking with LGBTQ Nation, Rae Cahill MSYP, Deputy Chair, Scottish Youth Parliament said: “Our consultation showed that young people (16-25 years old) in Scotland overwhelmingly support marriage equality, the figures were 74%. Young people insist that full equality is right for Scotland, it is the future for this country and ourselves.”

Out gay MSP Joe FitzPatrick, member of the SNP, told LGBTQ Nation: “This is not just about marriage, its about equality, its about the Scotland we want people to live in. I want to live in Scotland that treats everyone in respect. We can be a beacon of progressive policy.”

Tim Hopkins continued: “This is a broad campaign supported across the country. There are many religious groups, the Unitarian Church, the Quakers, the Humanists (who conduct the second largest amount of marriages after the Church of Scotland) and many others in Scotland who unanimously support same-sex marriage.

“Many religious groups who want to conduct same-sex marriage should be to have the freedom to do so. Equality means equality, marriage should also be a religious ceremony.”

Joan Cook of the Unitarian Church said: “The Unitarians do not discriminate in any way LGBT people, many of our Ministers and office bearers are openly members of the LGBT community, including our current President, the Rev. Dr. Ann Peart.

“We have been conducting same-sex blessings, in our churches and elsewhere, for decades now, and look forward to solemnising same-sex marriages.”

Rabbi Mark L. Solomon, from Liberal Judaism said: “It isn’t just that if we as LGBT people are equal in the full real sense, our life will get better. We know that, we feel it deeply.

“But now we see marriage as a free and loving mutual commitment between equals, marriage has got better and we want to make it better still.

“It was feminism that set me free to come out as a gay man. I always believed that gay rights are the logical ethical offspring of women’s rights. And now the possibility that we can encourage two women or two men to be married, would mean not only that we are truly equal but the marriage itself is a relationship of true and full equality.”

The question of marriage equality will also affect transgender people.

Pietà and Susie Schofield, married as a husband and wife for over 25 years with three children, have been hitting a brick wall due to marriage inequality.

Pietà, a transgender woman, and Susie were told that if they wished to have their relationship recognised by law as between two women, they would to divorce and go through a civil partnership.

With the introduction of marriage equality they will simply be able to continue their marriage as a same-sex couple.

“Right now, a transgender man can marry a woman legally, so marriage equality will not merely solve our problem but also end inequality for all transgender people,” they explained.

Tim Hopkins said: “We can’t just sit back and wait for it to happen. There are strong bodies campaigning against marriage equality, including large religious bodies who have the ears of the media and a lot more funds than we have. It is really important for everybody to continue campaigning on this issue and state that there is majority support for equality across Scotland.”

Ban Ki Moon

More than 30 African heads of state and government sat silently during Ban’s speech, in which he chastised leaders, saying discrimination based on sexual orientation had been ignored or even sanctioned for too long.

“Let me mention one form of discrimination that has been ignored or even sanctioned by many states for far too long, discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” Ban said.

“This has prompted some governments to treat people as second-class citizens, or even criminals.

“Confronting this discrimination is a challenge. But we must live up to the ideals of the Universal Declaration.”

Homosexuality is illegal in many African countries — a situation which has drawn increasing criticism from activists and the West.

Several attendees at the summit expressed irritation at what they perceived as outside interference in African affairs.

According to a report by GayRussia.ru, internal sources at Aeroflot confirmed that 25-year-old flight attendant Maxim Kupreev was given the ultimatum late last year after he announced plans to establish an LGBT group within the airline in order to protect the rights of gay and lesbian employees.

At the end of 2011, Kupreev married his school friend Sofia Mikhailova so he could retain his job at Aeroflot. Mikhailova, in turn, received the right to fly Aeroflot for 10 percent of the fare – and other company privileges.

The boycott is set to be launched on Feb. 9 February at a rally outside the corporate offices of Aeroflot in Moscow, and activists said they will call upon air travelers to “condemn the discriminatory policies” of Aeroflot, and reject the airline until it creates equal conditions for LGBT workers.

According to one of the organizers, Nikolai Alekseev, Founder of Moscow Pride, “We have devised a series of slogans on the double meaning of the term ‘marriage,’ which we intend to convey to the public in the context of Aeroflot.”

Alexeyev said that the boycott will be launched “on a very symbolic day — February 9th is the birthday not only of Russian civil aviation, but the main carrier of the country, Aeroflot. It’s the perfect day to draw attention to their discriminatory policies.”

Protestors said they also plan for the exclusion of Aeroflot from the global airline alliance “Sky Team,” of which leading members include U.S.-based Delta Airlines, and European carrier Air France.

Their protest, signaled on social media to happen in another Moscow location, in fact occurred in front of the most famous location in all of Russia. Within seconds they were swarmed by police.

Watch:

A small group of activists within the past fortnight have protested a law passed in the northern city of Arkhangelsk which effectively bans all gay organizing. Supposedly to “protect children,” the law actually bans all LGBT public events and protests and the rhetoric surrounding it is explicitly against the emerging LGBT movement in Russia.

The dolls — Piggy, Stepashka, Fili and Karkushi — at the Red Square protest were from popular children’s TV shows and the banners said “Good night, kids!”

Two Russian regions have already adopted the same law, and the so called “liberal” city of St. Petersberg has voted in favor, but has yet to pass the law. It is reportedly under discussion in Moscow and Novosibirsk and some have suggested it may become a federal law.

Castro-Espín, daughter of President Raul Castro, who is also the director of the National Sex Education Centre told the magazine Cuba Si that the Cuban Justice Minister, Maria Esther, said civil unions is going to be discussed “in Parliament [and] is included in the legislative plan for 2012.”

Castro-Espín added:

“I believe that the Party Conference may help to define a policy explicitly prohibiting discrimination on sexual orientation and gender identity and, in turn, help to dismantle the prejudices that hinder its adoption. The purpose of these proposals corresponds to the need to recognize and protect the rights of our (LGBTQ) population.”

Cuba’s ruling Party will gather on January 28 for its first legislative conference in 2012 where the legislative measure for reform will be put to a vote.

Castro-Espín made these comments when she asked about the draft bill that seeks to modify the Cuban Family Code to legalize same-sex unions.

She also wrote in her blog that Cuba must facilitate “cultural changes” in its society to achieve “full justice” for LGBTQ people through educational, social programs.

Castro-Espín, a sexologist, is famous in the island nation for her stance on full legal equality for LGBTQ people.
Gay pride parades are now happening regularly across the island and the government recently started a national anti-homophobia campaign.

In 2008, the Cuban government provides free sex-change operations for transgender people by ministerial decree.

The 63-page report, “‘They Hunt us Down for Fun’: Discrimination and Police Violence Against Transgender Women in Kuwait,” documents the physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and persecution that transgender women – individuals who are born male, but identify as female – have faced at the hands of police.

The report also documents the discrimination that transgender women have faced on a daily basis – including by members of the public – as a result of the law, an amendment to penal code article 198.

Based on interviews with 40 transgender women, as well as with ministry of interior officials, lawyers, doctors, and members of Kuwaiti civil society, the report found that the arbitrary, ill-defined provisions of the law has allowed for numerous abuses to take place.

“No one – regardless of his or her gender identity – deserves to be arrested on the basis of a vague, arbitrary law and then abused and tortured by police,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

“The Kuwaiti government has a duty to protect all of its residents, including groups who face popular disapproval, from brutal police behavior and the application of an unfair law,” she said.

Human Rights Watch documented that transgender individuals were being arrested even when they were wearing male clothes, only later to be forced by police to dress in women’s clothing, who claimed that they arrested them in that attire.

In some cases documented by Human Rights Watch, transgender women said police arrested them because they had a “soft voice” or “smooth skin.”

Speaking with Gay Middle East, a transgender Kuwaiti activist pleaded, “The situation in Kuwait is horrible for us, just intolerable. There are at least thirteen transgender women in jail right now.”

Attempts to interview the prisoners were denied by the Kuwaiti authorities.

Despite an official recognition of gender identity disorder (GID) by the Kuwaiti Ministry of Health as a legitimate medical condition, the law criminalizing “imitating the opposite sex” makes no exception for people who have been diagnosed with GID.

General Mohammad Javad Larijani allegedly made these remarks in Tehran during a visit by German Tom Koenigs, who chairs the human rights committee in Germany’s parliament, according to a report by Radio Free Europe.

Mohammad Javad Larijani

“The West says that the marriage of homosexuals should be allowed under the human rights charter, however, we think it is sexual immorality and a disease,” he was quoted as stating to his German counterpart, in Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency.

This statement is consistent with the harsh sentences and treatment of LGBT people in Iran that enforces and enacts the death penalty for same-sex acts.

In 2007, during a visit to Columbia University, USA, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded to reports of human rights abuses of LGBT people that “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” he said. “In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who has told you we have that.”

Speaking with LGBTQ Nation, Gorji Marzban, Chairperson of the Oriental Queer Organisation (ORQOA), stated:

“The Iranian High Council for Human Rights is a governmental body and part of the Ministry of Justice in Iran. So in this context, Larijani is trying to separate LGBT rights as being part and parcel of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

His offensive views clearly reflect the homophobic attitudes of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

“At any rate, it seems that Mr. Larijani accepts for the first time officially that homosexuals exist as a ‘disease,’” added Marzban.

“Here he contradicts not only the official logic of the president but also the point for punishment by law — sickness cannot be immoral or punishable by death. Yet Iranian LGBT people exist everywhere, we are not sick or sinners nor is the issue of our Human rights one of disease,” he said.

Activists are concerned for the safety of a 30-year-old man arrested by the religious police in Saudi Arabia for using Facebook to date other men.

The man, whose exact identity is not known, was arrested on Dec. 23, 2011, but full details of the incident are only now becoming clear after a detailed investigation by Gay Middle East.

Experts warn he may face blackmail and/or corporal punishment.

He is being held in custody in the Dammam Police Department awaiting the Dammam’s General Attorney office for prosecution. The case has been reported to Amnesty International, while Facebook declined to comment.

The report by Sabaq electronic journal mentions that a Saudi citizen reported an unnamed 30-year old man to the Religious police in Saudi Arabia, known as the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, which proceeded to apprehend the man who finally confessed that “the Facebook profile is his and that he had been using it for obscenity acts with other men.”

KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) law is not strictly codified and its implementation, in either a lenient or severe manner, depends mostly on religious Sunni judges and scholars, as well as royal decrees (and thus subject to extreme variability).

Generally speaking, punishments for homosexuality range from imprisonment and/or flogging, to the death penalty. Conviction and severity of punishments depends on the social class, religion and citizenship of the accused, whereby non-western migrant workers receive usually harsher treatment than upper class Saudi citizens.

Sami Hamwi, Syria Editor of Gay Middle East, and former Saudi resident explains:

“Native born Saudi citizens who are Suni or from the Bedouin tribes in the country are often let off, while punishment are severely executed against minorities like Shiites and or newly naturalised citizens.

“Punishments regarding homosexuality are also held against expatriates working in Saudi Arabia, especially those coming from Asian, African and Arab countries. Dammam is a largely Shiite area and if the 30 year old aforementioned man is a Shiite, he is likely to be trailed and sentenced harshly.”

A British Foreign and Commonwealth spokesperson told Gay Middle East, “We are aware of the reports and seeking further information. The UK opposes all discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people in all circumstances. We are committed to combating violence and discrimination against LGBT people as an integral part of our international human rights work. We believe that human rights are universal and that LGBT people should be free to enjoy the rights and freedoms to which people of all nations are entitled.”

Condemnation of this case has been forthcoming from non-government organizations:

A spokesperson for Amnesty International said that “Amnesty International is seeking more information on this case.”

“If the man reported in the Sabq story has been arrested and charged with homosexuality, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience and call for his immediate and unconditional release. Saudi Arabia has sentenced people convicted of homosexuality and ‘sodomy’ to a range of penalties including corporal punishment and even the death penalty. The criminalization of homosexuality encourages the dehumanization of lesbians, gay men, bisexual people and transgender people (LGBT) as their very identity is criminalized,” the spokesman said.

“Amnesty International considers the use of ‘sodomy’ laws to imprison (usually) men for same-sex relations in private to be a grave violation of human rights, including the rights to privacy, to freedom from discrimination, to freedom of expression and association, which are protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The Lesbian & Gay Foundation also voiced concerns:

“It is extremely worrying to hear that that the Saudi police have entrapped this man when we know that Saudi-Arabia is one of the remaining countries in the world where homosexual acts are punishable at worst Death, but also by severe corporal punishment and imprisonment.”

“We understand that because of the very nature of the country’s Draconian anti LGBT legislations there exists, by necessity, an underground gay scene, and if people are discovered to have fallen foul of official prohibitions they risk such entrapment, jail and flogging.”

“The Lesbian & Gay Foundation would like to see the UK government do whatever it can to make sure that LGBT issues across the region are seen as a significant human rights problem and we would urge all those concerned to put pressure on authorities such as The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the US State Department and others to be vocal in their condemnation of such acts which ignore the most basic of human rights.”

Peter Tatchell, Director of the human rights lobby, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, said:

“I urge the Foreign Secretary William Hague, and the EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton, to make representations to the Saudi government to secure the release of this man. His detention violates all the norms of international human rights law. In the longer term, Britain and US must stop colluding with the Saudi royal dictatorship. Sanctions should be imposed against the regime until it ensures democracy and human rights for all its citizens.”

A British Foreign and Commonwealth spokesperson told Gay Middle East:

“We are aware of the reports and seeking further information. The UK opposes all discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people in all circumstances.

“We are committed to combating violence and discrimination against LGBT people as an integral part of our international human rights work. We believe that human rights are universal and that LGBT people should be free to enjoy the rights and freedoms to which people of all nations are entitled.”

Gay Middle East sent and email to the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in London which was read and ignored.

To the knowledge of Gay Middle East, this is first known reported case of entrapment for homosexuality via Facebook in the KSA. Gay Middle East therefore thought that a user of any social networking site has a right for privacy and asked Facebook for their comments on the case and its possible ramifications. Despite an email and a phone call, Facebook refused to comment on the issue.

While this case may seem to Western readers as breaching the privacy rights, Saudi Arabia does not provide the right to privacy.

In fact the religious police encourage reporting of any “deviant” behaviour and deliberately entrap a person for homosexuality — for example, a British male Nurse who was recently entrapped via fake SMS sent by the religious police.

Entrapment by the religious police does not necessarily lead to prosecution, but often results in life-long financial and/or sexual black-mail.

“Sexual blackmail and abuse by the Religious Police is unfortunately quite common,” said Hamw. “When I lived in Medina, a neighbor who was a member of the religious police raped my neighbor’s son, a 12 year-old boy, at that time. The same man entrapped and arrested a Pakistani national for homosexuality; the guy was whipped 80 times and before being deported. Such a sentence often applied when a sexual intercourse cannot be proven.”

If a person is outed by the religious police via a trail the consequences can be severe not only in terms of punishments, but lifelong ostracising by the family, the community and reduced or almost no job prospects.

“The person may simply become a social outcast,” adds Hamwi. “It is a kind of a social-death or in some cases may lead to persecution by the family until the person is killed to save the so-called ‘honour’ of the family.”

Private communication is also not subject to what ordinarily would be considered in the West as the right for privacy. All communications (including electronic) can be seized by the government for evidence in criminal trials; previously men have been arrested for homosexuality via paltalk (a social networking site popular in the Gulf), and gay-dating sites.

“The use of internet in Saudi Arabia is subject to monitoring, censorship and restrictions,” explained Hamwi. “Most online dating and social media website are blocked under the current Saudi laws. When trying to access banned or blocked websites users usually get screens stating ‘Sorry, the requested page is not available.’ However, Saudis manage to override the Saudi proxy settings and access the websites they need.”

Hamwi interviewed several men living in the KSA about the situation for gay men in the kingdom.

Ahmad, a 37-year-old Saudi engineer, mentioned that he is concerned with using online dating services and websites. “Anyone from the “Hay’ah”, (the religious police) can use those websites to entrap gay men. This is not common, but it happened before and I don’t want to be socially humiliated.” Ahmad affirmed that non-Saudis and Saudi Shiites are more likely to be subject to the legal Islamic penalties than the Sunni Saudis.

Munir, a 29-year-old Syrian graphic designer working in KSA, said that the situation in Saudi Arabia is dangerous for gay men. “You see, when you are not Saudi, they can arrest you, put you in jail, lash you, and deport you. It is easier to be sexually deprived than having to face all the dangers coming from online dating.”

Fahad, a 42-year-old Saudi citizen, said that he rarely uses the online dating websites while in Saudi Arabia. “The situation here is complicated because of all the religious, social, and legal restrictions. Gay men in Saudi Arabia prefer not to have to struggle with the laws, since the media can easily raise a social anger when they expose their cases. This happens a lot.”

Now a feature documentary is being produced with parents of LGBT children.

“My Child” is being produced with the group LISTAG (Families of LGBT in Istanbul), a solidarity and support group for friends, families and especially parents of LGBT individuals established in 2008.

LISTAG has worked with LGBT organizations, released public statements and engaged with politicians. It has actively been working against homophobia, transphobia, discrimination and hate crimes, being a source of inspiration and strength for LGBT individuals, by reminding them that it is not impossible to come out to their families.

The movie tells that story as well as about how they found out about their child’s sexual orientation, and how they learn to accept and embrace them. Some of them describe the experience as traumatic but how it has “led to their own rebirth, as they have been questioning what it means to be an individual, to be true to oneself, and to be a parent.”

The film is the first time the parents have “come out” themselves, having previously hidden their identity.

For more information about the film, see their website.

The statement comes in response to a controversy that erupted earlier in the day in what appeared to be a reversal of the Canadian marriage law, revealed in legal filing in a Ontario court brought by a lesbian couple seeking a divorce.

Legally wed in 2005 under the statue in Toronto, the couple were informed they cannot seek or obtain a divorce because an opinion by a Canadian Department of Justice lawyer stated their marriage is not legal under Canadian law since they could not have lawfully wed in Florida or England, where the two partners reside.

The attorney had taken a legal position that same-sex marriages involving non-residents are invalid – and cannot be dissolved – unless they are recognized as legitimate in the couple’s home country.

His opinion quickly sparked confusion in the United States and overseas by same-sex couples who worried that their marriages performed in Canada would no longer be valid.

Speaking to reporters from an event in North Vancouver, B.C. on Thursday afternoon, Canada’s Tory Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, “We’re not going to reopen that particular issue. This is a complicated case and the minister of justice, I think, has put out a statement clarifying the government’s position on that.”

“This, I gather, is a case before the courts where Canadian lawyers have taken a particular position based on the law and I will be asking officials to provide me more details,” Harper said.

The Globe and Mail reported that former Prime Minister Paul Martin, who brought in the law allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, called the government’s position in the Toronto divorce case is “absolutely ridiculous.”

“We validated those marriages and you cannot retroactively invalidate marriages that you validated,” Martin said.

The federal position is based on two central propositions. First, couples who came to Canada to be married must live in the country for at least a year before they can obtain a divorce. Second, same-sex marriages are legal in Canada only if they are also legal in the couple’s home country of state.

Legal experts and politicians are seriously at odds over how residency requirements ought to apply to foreigners who were not warned that they might be unable to divorce.

Gay activists warned Thursday that their formidable lobby will mobilize to fight any attempt by the Harper government to push back hard-won rights.

“Have thousands of same-sex couples been misled by Canadian officials for nearly eight years?” said Helen Kennedy, executive director of the gay rights group, Egale Canada.

It also emerged that the Toronto case was the second time in the past year that Justice Department lawyers have intervened to raise obstacles in a same-sex divorce case.

Several months ago, it launched a legal intervention in the case of a Canadian man, Wayne Hincks, and his partner, who had obtained the status of a civil partnership in Britain.

The Crown contended that a civil partnership obtained in Britain is not equal to marriage under Canada’s Divorce Act – notwithstanding the fact that Britain considers a civil partnership tantamount to marriage.

The Globe and Mail

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one official with the Canadian Department of Justice told LGBTQ Nation Thursday evening that the problem stems from the fact that there were no divorce provisions built into the law, nor were there clarifications that should allow for same-sex marriage in a more definitive sense for non-residents, thus creating what amounts to a legal anomaly.

Back in the U.S., LGBT advocacy groups sought to reassure the estimated 5,000 couples in the U.S. and abroad that their marriages were not in danger of being invalidated.

The following joint statement was released by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD):

We write to respond to a news report from Canada that a lawyer in the current government has taken a position in a trial-level divorce proceeding that a same-sex couple’s marriage is not valid because the members of the couple were not Canada residents at the time that they married, and the law of their home jurisdiction did not permit them to marry at the time.

No one’s marriage has been invalidated or is likely to be invalidated. The position taken by one government lawyer in a divorce is not itself precedential. No court has accepted this view and there is no reason to believe that either Canada’s courts or its Parliament would agree with this position, which no one has asserted before during the eight years that same-sex couples have had the freedom to marry in Canada.

Canada permits non-residents to marry and thousands of non-resident same-sex couples have married there since Canada first began recognizing the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in 2003. Indeed, Canada’s Parliament codified the equal right to marry for same-sex couples in 2005.

Notwithstanding, the groups advised all legally married same-sex couples, whether married in Canada or in the U.S., to “take every precaution you can to protect your relationship with legal documents such as powers of attorney and adoptions, as you may travel to jurisdictions that don’t respect your legal relationship.”

Update:

The Canadian government “has quelled a growing controversy with a declaration that all same-sex marriages performed in Canada are legal,” reported The Globe & Mail, Canada’s national newspaper, on Friday.

In Ottawa, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson issued a statement Friday that reversed the department’s earlier legal opinion that same-sex marriages performed in Canada were legal only if they are accepted as such in the home nation of the same-sex marriage couples.”

According to the paper, Nicholson announced that a “legislative gap” that caused the confusion will be closed.

“The confusion and pain resulting from this gap is completely unfair to those who are affected,” Nicholson said. “I want to make it clear that, in the government’s view, those marriages are legal.”

Yeni Akit printed an article titled “Üskül prefers perverts,” regarding Zafer Üskül, the then head of Turkish Parliamentary Human Rights Commission who attended an “International Anti-Homophobism Meeting” organized by KAOS GL, a leading support organization for Turkey’s LGBT community.

The article, written by columnist Serdar Arseven, described Üskül as “an AKP [Justice and Development Party] member who gave assurances to she-males” in reference to his statement during the meeting that the government guaranteed that LGBT would not be segregated due to their sexual orientations. “[Üskül] went on and attended a meeting by sexual perverts! A meeting of [gays],” Arseven wrote.

KAOS GL filed a lawsuit against Yeni Akit and Arseven, seeking compensation for the headline and the related piece. The lawsuits, however, were rejected by two Ankara courts on the grounds that the newspaper was “within the limits of criticism.”

The High Court of Appeals overruled the judgements of the two courts, saying, “The freedom of the press does not encompass the freedom to insult the personal freedoms of individuals.”

The court stated that Yeni Akit insulted people with different sexual orientations in a way which could not be considered criticism and passed a sentence; the paper has been ordered to pay 4,000 Turkish Liras while Arseven has been sentenced to pay 2,000 liras in damages.

Portia Simpson-Miller

Simpson-Miller, leader of the People’s National Party (PNP) also pledged to review the country’s criminalization of homosexuality, and stated she would not forbid gays and lesbians from taking office in her new cabinet.

“No one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation,” Simpson-Miller said in the debate last month against outgoing Prime Minister, Andrew Holness, leader of the Jamaican Labor Party.

“Government should provide the protection,” she added, and said that her administration should review the law criminalizing homosexuality and allow a free vote on the matter at the Jamaican parliament.

In contrast, Holness, accepted that Jamaica should adhere to Human Rights laws while saying that the Jamaican people ought to determine their own particular “civil rights” (i.e. exclusive of LGBT rights).

The People’s National Party won 41 seats while the Jamaican Labour Party was left with the resting 22 seats of Jamaica’s 63-seat Parliament.

Voting turnout was a record low of below 50% as Jamaica is facing dire economic, social and high debt issues.

This advancement in raising LGBT rights positively in a political context “hasn’t come out of nowhere,” said LGBT rights activist Paul Canning:

“Jamaica has been positively evolving on LGBT rights for some time — perhaps unnoticed,” said Canning, who also cautioned, “Whether the PNP will deliver anything of consequence remains to be seen.”

Dane Lewis, the executive director of Jamaica’s LGBT Advocacy group, J-FLAG, said in a radio interview that the group expects the new Prime Minister to stick to her pledge.

Simpson-Miller served a previous term in the office of Prime Minister, from March 2006 to September 2007, and was the first woman in that role.

On January 1, a new homophobic constitution and law came into force in Hungary — the constitution now bans same-sex couples from marriage while the new “Family Protection” law defines the family as a heterosexual unit and stipulates that media services should broadcast programs that respect the institution of marriage and family.

The constitution that was voted on April 18 has thus now come into force; Article L of the constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, while Article XV.2 excludes sexual orientation from the protected grounds of discrimination (but does have provision for protection on the basis of race and gender).

In essence the new constitution would make it very difficult for LGBT people to gain marriage equality in the near future and provides no protection for LGBT people from unfair dismissal or hate crimes.

In addition, the power of constitution courts has been curbed — previously a law/act that might be argued as discriminatory could be annulled by petitioning to the constitutional courts via a non-governmental organization (NGO) or Civil Society Organizations.

Speaking with LGBTQ Nation, Tamás Dombos, from Háttér Support Society for LGBT People, said, “This is how we passed the law of cohabitation for same-sex couples in 1995 and equalized the age of consent in 2002. The new constitution will no longer enable NGOs or civil society organisation to launch such campaigns in the constitutional courts.”

The Family Protection Bill proposed by four Members of Parliament of the Christian Democratic Party, and voted as law on Dec.23, states:

“Art 7. (1) When applying this law family shall mean the relationship between natural persons in an economic and emotional community that is based on a marriage between a woman and a man, or lineal descent, or family-based guardianship.

“(2) Lineal descent is established by way of filiation or adoption.”

The law reiterates that the life of the fetus starts with the moment of conception, that preparing for family life should be part of school curriculum, and that media services should broadcast programs that respect the institution of marriage and family.

Dombos stated that “the Family Protection Bill basically excludes same sex couples, and makes provisions on inheritance which may result in registered same-sex partners losing their rights to inheritance.”

In addition Dombos stressed that: ”the law also states that all ‘media services should broadcast programs that respect the institution of marriage and family’, that ‘sounds’ neutral but we are concerned it would be used in the media and internet against any material that has a pro-LGBT point of view.”

Ten of thousands of people protested together, including from LGBT and opposition parties, such as the Socialist and Greens, against the new constitution and law.

“Despite such bad news”, remarked Dombos, “there is a ray of hope, LGBT rights is now a mainstream issue embraced by the opposition.”

In St Petersburg, Igor Kochetkov, Chairperson of the Vyhod LGBT Organization and the Russian LGBT-Network, was prevented by the opposition movement from speaking at the demonstration panel, according to reports by Kochetkov via his twitter account, later confirmed by Nikolai Alekseev, Chairperson and founder of Gay Russia and Moscow Pride.

Kochetkov was part of the St Petersburg’s organizing committee of the demonstration and was due to give a speech when he was told minutes before attempting to go on stage that the opposition, “is not supporting your movement and you won’t be allowed to speak.”

In Novasibersik, Russia’s fourth largest city, a protestor holding a rainbow flag was attacked by ultra right wing Russian Nationalists who tore the flag from his hand. In the city of Lipetsk a group of LGBT activists attempting to participate with a banner reading “gays and lesbians for fair elections” were intercepted by the police and told that their slogan is not “in accordance” with the aim of this event and prohibited from using it further.

Alekseev told LGBTQ Nation he was denied permission from speaking publicly in the initial demonstration of the opposition movement held Dec. 10 in Moscow. Alekseev also said that a lesbian speaker named Nadezhda Tolokno was jeered off the panel by Nationalists participants who attempted to attack her physically.

According to a source at the media outlet Russia Today, in a telephone conference call leaked to the press between Boris Nemtsov, leader of the Russian opposition movement and other high ranking anti-government protest organizers, Nemtsov, referred to her as “that dyke whore” adding that the “Nazis, rejects her!”

Nemtsov used homophobic remarks, saying that ‘faggots’ are all AIDS infected, and gays are Nazi swine, according to the source.

“I find it completely outrageous that the incidents happened during the opposition rallies and then not a single high ranking organizer of these events denounced these attacks and harassment of LGBT people,” Alekseev said, adding that organizers should be happy with the participation of the Russian LGBT community. “They should help and create a secure participation and atmosphere for LGBT people in such demonstrations.”

“I agree that the elections were not fair and new elections should be held. At the same time Gay Russia, the Organizing Committee of Moscow Pride and myself have decided that we are not going to officially endorse such demonstrations because the people who are organizing them are not any better than the current Russian government with regards to LGBT Rights,” said Alekseev.

Peter Tatchell, a leading LGBTQ activist in Europe with deep ties to Russia’s nascent LGBTQ activist community, told LGBTQ Nation that “the censorship and ejection of LGBT campaigners from the democracy demonstrations is shameful.”

“It shows that many of the so-called democracy leaders are not committed to universal human rights. They are Putin-lite. They want to moderate the Kremlin regime, rather than change it. If they came to power, LGBT Russians would gain little,” said Tatchell.

But the most organized and vociferous campaign against same-sex marriage has been headed by the Scottish Catholic Church — its leader, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, has recently said that same-sex marriage will be “forfeiting the trust” of the nation, and “shaming Scotland in the eyes of the world.”

O’Brien has further argued that “all children deserve to begin life with a mother and father, the evidence in favor of the stability and well being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal.”

Asked by Pink News UK to substantiate this “evidence,” the Catholic Church of Scotland provided discredited research studies propagated by anti-LGBT hate groups based in the USA.

One of the studies was by Paul Cameron, who argued in a 1998 paid for publication that same-sex relationships “lead to shorter life expectancies” which further compares homosexuality to “tobacco addiction” claiming it “damages health” in a similar way.

Cameron’s peculiar theories have been completely discredited as valid “research”. Cameron was deregistered and denounced by the American Psychological Association in 1983, by the Nebraska Psychological Association in 1984, and the American Sociological Association in 1985 and 1986. In 2007 the president of the Eastern Psychological Association publicly chided Cameron, who stated he “presented” a manuscript before their convention.

Patrick Harvie, Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) and co-convenor of the Scottish Green Party who is openly bisexual and longtime adovocate of LGBTQ Rights, told LGBTQ Nation he was disappointed that “the Catholic Church uses discredited research to back their view point.”

He added that the “Scottish government will discount evidence based on flawed research of this nature.” Such a campaign seems to have been imported from the U.S. where “there is a more long running anti-equality campaign, and it is puzzling to me that the Catholic Church of Scotland uses these arguments rather than philosophical or moral ones.”

“We know that a majority of Catholics are in favor of same sex marriage as this has been confirmed by two Scottish social attitude surveys (2006, 2010) sponsored by the Scottish Government,” said Tim Hopkins, Director of the Equality Network, a national organization working for LGBT rights and equality in Scotland.

“The surveys found that over 50 percent of Catholics support same-sex marriage and only 20-30 percent are opposed. So even within the Catholic Church in Scotland the majority of its followers do not agree with the position the Church and the Cardinal have taken,” Hopkins said.

The 2010 survey further found that 61 percent of the Scottish public at large support same-sex marriage.

Some leaders within the Catholic Church of Scotland have also threatened that parties who support of same-sex marriage will alienate Catholic voters, but according to Hopkins, this seems unlikely.

“The Catholic Church has had historically quite a strong influence on politics in Scotland, traditionally on the Scottish Labour Party,” he said. However, Glasgow City Council, largely controlled by Labour with a majority of councilors who identify as Catholics, has recently voted unanimously to support same-sex marriage.

Human Rights Campaigner Peter Tatchell said, “The Catholic leadership is actively seeking to maintain discrimination. It is out of touch with the majority of Scottish and UK people. Nearly two-thirds support marriage equality. Most ordinary, grassroots Catholics reject homophobic discrimination.”

The Scottish Government has completed its consultation and will now analyze the feedback and publish their response in spring along with a draft bill, which will be open for discussion and amendment until it put to vote probably at end of 2013.