People around the world face violence and inequality—and sometimes torture,

even execution—because of who they love, how they look, or who they are.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are integral aspects of our selves and
should never lead to discrimination or abuse.
https://www.hrw.org/topic/lgbt-rights

The Yogyakarta Principles, developed in 2006, proved to be an excellent

tool to demonstrate the enormous gap between universally recognized
human rights and the everyday realities experienced by LGBT people.
Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay took the lead in launching the Yogyakarta
Principles at the UN headquarters in New York in November 2007 – three
Latin American countries with strong Roman Catholic constituencies,
rather than the usual Western suspects.

At that UN launch, Mary Robinson, a former UN High Commissioner for

Human Rights, referred to article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and made a strong plea to treat LGBT people with dignity and
respect. This was the first event organized by a group of LGBT-friendly
countries at the United Nations. This informal UN network, co-founded
by Human Rights Watch, plays an important role in strategizing at the UN
how to improve the rights of LGBT people, counter violence and
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and
dealing with the opposition towards progress. And opposition there was.

In 2008, 57 countries led by Syria signed a petition against the rights of

LGBT people by claiming that non-discrimination of LGBT people could
lead to paedophilia and adultery. A driving force behind this statement was
the Holy See of the Catholic Church, the only religion with speaking rights
at UN meetings. Dismayed about how dangerous this hostility is to LGBT
people I negotiated with the Holy See to present their vision on sexual
orientation and gender identity in a public meeting at the UN. At the next

meeting in the UN in New York in 2009, the Holy See showed a different
face and delivered a statement opposing violence and “unjust”
discrimination against homosexual persons and denounced criminalization
of homosexual conduct. It was a watershed moment: Human Rights Watch
still refers to this statement in countries where homosexual conduct is
criminalized and there is a strong Christian influence ostracizing LGBT
people, such as in the eastern Caribbean.

However, even though the Holy See clarified its position, religion is often
the source of discrimination. In 2018, we published “All We Want is
Equality,” a report about how religious exemptions are used to discriminate
against LGBT people in the United States. I see the tension between
freedom of religion and the rights to equality and non-discrimination in
many countries.

Violence and discrimination can start early on: bullying at school because
of sexual orientation or gender identity is a nasty and persistent problem.
In 2001 Human Rights Watch published “Hatred in the Hallways,” a report
on LGBT youth in US schools subjected to daily abuse by their peers and
even by teachers and school administrators. These violations were
compounded, we found, by the failure of federal, state, and local
governments to enact laws protecting LGBT students from discrimination
and violence, effectively allowing school officials to ignore violations of
their rights.

Bullying can lead to students dropping out, self-harm or even suicide, so

Human Rights Watch has continued to investigate the right to education
and bullying. In 2016, “Like Walking Through a Hailstorm” revisited the
problem in US schools, finding that in many states and school districts
LGBT students and teachers lack protections from discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In others, protections that do
exist are inadequate and not enforced. We also reported on school bullying
in Japan and the Philippines. Our reporting in Japan prompted a change in
government policy and recently Japanese schools introduced uniforms
designed to respect gender expression by allowing students to choose their
attire.

The persecution can persist: in more than 70 countries same-sex sexual

intimacy is a crime. And in many countries where it is not expressly
forbidden, there are often laws or policies that make life for LGBT people
very difficult. In Russia, for instance, the anti-gay propaganda law is used to
impose fines against people who publicly display positive information on
homosexuality.

Fortunately, there are positive examples. Mozambique decriminalized

homosexual conduct in 2015. The Supreme Court of Belize declared the
sodomy law unconstitutional in 2016. And in Trinidad and Tobago the
High Court of Justice ruled in 2018 that the laws criminalizing same-sex
intimacy are unconstitutional. The Indian Supreme Court could soon strike
down a 158-year-old colonial-era law that makes “carnal intercourse against
the order of nature” illegal. This would be a huge step forward for a
country with more than 1.3 billion people that would, as a matter of law,
respect the dignity and the rights of LGBT people.

Some of these gains were supported by strong leadership at the UN from

then-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. He addressed sexual orientation
and gender identity prominently in speeches, becoming a staunch supporter
of LGBT rights. Even in meetings with homophobic African leaders he
talked about the need to decriminalize same-sex sexual activities. Under
Ban’s watch the UN Human Rights Council passed two resolutions in
favor of LGBT rights and created a new position of independent expert on
sexual orientation and gender identity.

Over this past decade I have seen transgender activists become more vocal
and influential, especially around getting governments to recognize gender
without imposing harmful requirements. At the request of Dutch activists,
Human Rights Watch undertook research on the legal situation for trans
people in the Netherlands, which is often praised for being at the forefront
of LGBT rights. We found that Dutch law forced transgender people to
undergo sex-reassignment surgery, hormone treatment and psychiatric
evaluation before being allowed to obtain identification documents
reflecting their gender identity. In 2011 we presented our report to
the Dutch government, highlighting a new Argentinean gender
recognition law as a great example. Three years later, the new Dutch law
doing away with these requirements came into effect.
And intersex activists have pushed a new human rights issue on to the
policy agenda: of medically unnecessary surgery performed on intersex
children without their consent. Together with InterAct, a US group, we
investigated this practice in the US in a 2017 report “I Want to Be Like
Nature Made Me.” Such medically unnecessary surgery occurs in many
countries. On August 28, California’s legislature passed a resolution that
supports the autonomy of intersex people and their right to decide about
cosmetic surgical alteration.

And who could forget the incredible developments towards marriage

equality? As a member of the Dutch parliament in the 1990s, my
resolutions to legalize same-sex marriage were adopted by the majority in
parliament. It took seven years, but in 2001 the Netherlands became the
first country in the world where same-sex couples could get married.
Seventeen years later, 25 countries have marriage equality and Austria and
Taiwan are expected to follow in 2019.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/09/04/future-not-front-us-its-inside-us

When two same-sex couples went to the civil registry in the city of Cuenca,
Ecuador to get married last April, they were refused. The registry argued
no Ecuadorian laws would permit their marriage. The couples went to
court.

An appeals court is set to rule on these cases in the near future. The
waiting and the uncertainty may be agonizing, but there is also real hope.

The registry’s refusal to marry the couples was no surprise. Until now, the
government has only allowed same-sex couples to enter into civil unions.
These do not grant them all the same rights enjoyed by married couples.

In July, two Cuenca lower courts ruled in favor of the same-sex couples,
arguing that the civil registry had violated their rights to equal treatment
and nondiscriminationprovided for in Ecuador’s Constitution and in the
American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), to which Ecuador is a
party. Both courts ordered the civil registry to register the marriages and
publish the decision. On the same day, the civil registry filed appeals before
the Provincial Court of Cuenca.

A 2017 advisory opinion by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,

citing the ACHR, said countries should recognize same-sex couples as
having the same rightsrelated to family relationships as heterosexual
couples, and that governments should ensure these rights in their domestic
laws, including the right to marriage.

he court’s opinion leaves no doubt the ACHR does guarantee the right to
marriage to same-sex couples. Ecuador and other state parties need to take
the court’s opinion into consideration when developing their own laws and
policies.

Ecuadorean courts appear to be taking notice. In May 2018, Ecuador’s

Constitutional Court ruled a girl born in Ecuador with two British mothers
should be registered as an Ecuadorian citizen and the registry office should
record the names of her two mothers.

As Ecuadorean society continues to engage in a healthy and responsible

debate on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights, it is
important for authorities to remember that, regardless of their personal
positions on these matters, Ecuador is bound to enforce rights provided
for in the ACHR. These include the rights of LGBT people to civil
marriage equality.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/09/04/opportunity-lgbt-rights-ecuador

India’s landmark Supreme Court decision that criminalizing consensual

same-sex conduct is unconstitutional is a major victory for human rights
and the LGBT people’s rights to privacy and non-discrimination in the
world’s second most populous country
The decision on September 6, 2018 strikes down language in Section 377
of India’s penal code, a relic of British colonial rule that punishes “carnal
intercourse against the order of nature” with 10 years to life in prison.
“The Supreme Court decision means that at long last same-sex relations are
no longer a criminal offense in India,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia
director at Human Rights Watch. “The court has affirmed that no one
should be discriminated against for whom they love or what they do in the
privacy of their bedroom.”

The judges unanimously ruled that consensual same-sex relationships are

no longer a crime, deeming Section 377 “irrational, arbitrary and
incomprehensible.”

The court’s ruling affirmed that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) people in India are entitled to the full protection of both India’s
constitution and international human rights law, and that laws that treat
people as second-class citizens based on their real or perceived sexual
orientation have no place in modern India.

The ruling follows a long struggle for the decriminalization of same-sex

conduct in India. In 2001, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, an
organization working on HIV/AIDS and sexual health, filed a case before
the Delhi High Court, contending that Section 377 violated both the
Indian constitution and international human rights law, and that it impeded
the organization’s public health outreach. In 2009 the court issued a ruling
in support of the petitioners.

But the Supreme Court overturned that decision in 2013, ruling that
amending the law was the responsibility of the legislature. The reversal had
devastating consequences for LGBT Indians who had come out as a result
of the 2009 ruling. While it led to only a few documented arrests, LGBT
people in India continued to suffer widespread discrimination, sanctioned
by a discriminatory law. They remained vulnerable to violence and
extortion, including by the police.

Activists in India filed new petitions asking the Supreme Court to review
its ruling. In 2016, the court, after initially refusing to hear the review
petitions, admitted the curative petitions reviving the legal battle for the
repeal of the law. The petitions were referred to a five-judge Constitution
Bench for detailed hearing. In January 2018, after issuing important rights-
affirming rulings on privacy and on transgender equality, the
court announced that it would revisit the case. In July, a five-judge bench
began hearings that included new petitions filed by LGBT people.

The ruling also has significance internationally, Human Rights Watch said.
Section 377 of India’s Penal Code, first implemented in 1860, served as a
template for similar laws throughout much of the former British empire.
Colonial governors elsewhere in Asia and Africa used the language of
Section 377 in dozens of statutes criminalizing so-called “unnatural
offenses” – generally understood to mean anal sex, or sodomy – while in
the Caribbean, the British used different language, imposing laws against
“buggery.”

Over 70 countries, including many in the Commonwealth, still criminalize

consensual same-sex relations. Kenya and Botswana, both of which
inherited versions of the Indian penal code during the colonial period,
currently have cases pending before their courts that would also strike
down laws outlawing consensual same-sex conduct. Other countries in
which courts have struck down sodomy laws in recent years include
Trinidad and Tobago (2018), and Belize (2015).

The decriminalization of same-sex conduct will not immediately result in

full equality for LGBT people in India, Human Rights Watch said.
Transgender people in particular, including hijra communities, face
discrimination in employment, housing, and health care. A draft law on
transgender persons, introduced in 2016, does not go far enough in
protecting trans people’s rights to legal recognition according to their
gender identity.

“Striking down Section 377 is a momentous step that will resonate around
the world in communities that are fighting for equality,” Ganguly said. “But
like other countries, India has significant work to do to ensure that the
rights of people who have been long marginalized on the basis of their
sexual orientation or gender identity are fully protected.”
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/09/06/india-supreme-court-strikes-down-sodomy-law
In contrast to the still-sharp pessimism of many other Americans, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender community is notably optimistic about the U.S. economy and their own financial well-
being, according to a study released Thursday.

By almost all measures, gay Americans are financially upbeat, according to the Wells Fargo poll.

Nearly two-thirds of poll respondents said they’re confident about their financial futures. Among the
general population, a mere 52% report such confidence.

Nearly 60% of those polled described themselves as financially comfortable compared with a bit
more than half of all U.S. adults, the poll found. Two-thirds say they’re secure in their jobs versus
55% of the general population. And LGBT adults have higher median net savings than the overall
population, the survey found.

Why the optimism?

One possible explanation, said Kyle Young, a Wells Fargo investment officer, is that the LGBT
community’s political achievements in recent years, including more success in pushing for gay
marriage, have boosted overall sentiment.

“To be a part of the political discussion is empowering and creates a sense of engagement,
excitement and optimism that members of the community have never been able to experience in the
history of this country,” he said.

And fewer than 1 in 10 people in the poll reported having children, yielding greater ability to save and
invest.

“This family structure lends itself to higher savings rates, more financial flexibility and more
financial options for long-term planning,” Young said. “LGBT respondents consistently report larger
asset and portfolio sizes than the general public.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/21/business/la-fi-mo-economic-optimism-is-high-in-lgbt-
community-report-says-20130320

A few days ago there was speculation that President Obama would introduce two Cabinet nominees
last week -- Sen. John Kerry for secretary of State and former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of
Nebraska for secretary of Defense. But Kerry stood alone with Obama on Friday. Does that mean that
the president is caving to criticism of Hagel from supporters of Israel and, more recently, from gay-
rights supporters offended by comments Hagel made in 1998 about a gay nominee for an
ambassadorship?

Not necessarily. On Friday Hagel apologized for expressing concern in 1998 that James Hormel,
President Clinton’s choice to be ambassador to Luxembourg, was “openly, aggressively gay.”

“My remarks 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive,” Hagel said. “They do not reflect my views or the
totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who
may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and
committed to LGBT military families.”
Gay-rights groups seem to be mollified. A report in BuzzFeed quoted the Human Rights Campaign as
welcoming Hagel’s statement. "Sen. Hagel's apology and his statement of support for LGBT equality
is appreciated and shows just how far as a country we have come when a conservative former Senator
from Nebraska can have a change of heart on LGBT issues,” said Chad Griffin, HRC’s president. "Our
community continues to add allies to our ranks and we're proud that Sen. Hagel is one of them.”

Given the role of the secretary of Defense in overseeing a post-“don’t ask, don’t tell” military, Hagel’s
apology was the that minimum gay-rights supporters could expect. We can hope that it’s not just
politic but sincere. As Griffin said, mainstream opinion on gay issues has changed dramatically in
recent years.

Hagel’s comments about gays were arguably more offensive than the remarks that have led some
critics to portray him as anti-Israel if not anti-Semitic. Hagel’s comment that "the Jewish lobby
intimidates a lot of people up here” was inaccurate (not all advocates for Israel are Jewish), but it
wasn’t anti-Semitic. The phrase “openly, aggressively gay” was a slur pure and simple. Hagel’s
apology for it seems to have eliminated one roadblock in the way of his appointment.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/24/news/la-ol-obama-cabinet-hagel-defense-secretary-
gay-comments-20121224

n 18-year-old gay man from Texas allegedly slain by a classmate who feared a sexual advance. A 31-
year-old transgender woman from Pennsylvania found dead with a pillowcase around her head. A
24-year-old lesbian from Florida purportedly killed by her girlfriend's father, who disapproved of the
relationship.

The homicides are a sampling of 2010 crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people
compiled by a national coalition of anti-hate organizations.

The report, released Tuesday, showed a 13% increase over 2009 in violent crimes committed against
people because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation, gender identity or status as HIV
positive, according to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.

Last year's homicide count reached 27, up from 22 in 2009, and was the second-highest total since
the coalition began tracking such crimes in 1996. Of those killed, 70% were minorities and 44% were
transgender women.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/13/nation/la-na-lgbt-hate-crimes-20110713

A sweeping new study of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans finds that the
overwhelming majority believe society has grown more accepting over the last decade — and will
continue to do so in the decade to come.

Yet many said they had faced slurs, rejection or worse. Nearly a third said they had been threatened
or physically attacked at some time in their life, the Pew Research Center found. Only about one in
five said there was a lot of acceptance for LGBT people today.
For LGBT people, "these are the best of times — but that doesn't mean they are easy times," said Paul
Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center. "Many are still searching to find a
comfortable, secure place in a society where acceptance is growing — but still limited."

The findings were part of a vast trove of information gathered by Pew in its first such survey, one
of the most thorough studies ever done of the LGBT community nationwide.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/13/local/la-me-lgbt-poll-20130614

(MONTPELIER, Vt.) — Republican Gov. Phil Scott, despite a backlash from his
base over gun restrictions he supported, won his party’s primary to seek a second
term as governor and will face a former utility executive who on Tuesday became
the first transgender candidate to win a major political party’s nomination for
governor.

Scott defeated a challenge from Springfield businessman Keith Stern on Tuesday.

He will face Christine Hallquist, who won the Democratic primary to run for the
state’s highest office in November, when she would become the nation’s first
transgender governor if elected.

Scott, first elected in 2016, was facing a rebellion from his base due to his support
for a series of gun restrictions that, while mild by national standards, angered many
members of Vermont’s avid hunting community. The restrictions, which Scott
signed into law in April, came after the arrest of a teenager on charges he was
plotting a school shooting.

Those measures included raising the age to buy firearms from 18 to 21, restricting
the size of gun magazines and requiring background checks for most private gun
sales.
Scott will seek re-election in November by continuing his pledge to make the state
more affordable, not raise taxes or fees, foster a better environment for businesses
and attract newcomers to the state.

Hallquist has said she doesn’t want Vermont residents to elect her governor
because of her transgender status. Rather, she has said, she wants her candidacy to
rise or fall on her plans to help state residents get higher-paying jobs, provide
health care for their families and better educate their children.

She said she plans to appeal to voters with a progressive message that includes a
livable wage, Medicare for all, free public college education and high -speed
broadband access even to those who live on remote back roads.

Outside Vermont, though, she said she’s happy to carry the standard as the
candidate who, if elected, would be the nation’s first transgender governor.

Hallquist defeated environmental activist James Ehlers; dance festival organizer

Brenda Siegel; and 14-year-old student Ethan Sonneborn, on the ballot because a
quirk in state law doesn’t require candidates to be of voting age. Democratic state
Sen. John Rodgers, from Vermont’s remote and conservative Northeast Kingdom,
failed in his bid for a grassroots write-in campaign, largely motivated by his
displeasure with firearms restrictions.

http://time.com/5367685/vermont-transgender-christine-hallquist/

A gay couple was allegedly asked to give up their seats to accommodate a straight
couple during an Alaska Airlines flight from New York City to Los Angeles.
David Cooley, the owner of a popular West Hollywood gay bar The Abbey, shared
his story in a public Facebook post in which he alleged Alaska Airlines had asked
him and his companion to move seats.

“I have never been so discriminated against while traveling before,” Cooley wrote.
“I was removed from an Alaska Airlines flight # 1407 from John F. Kennedy
International Airport to LAX to give preferential treatment to a straight couple.”

A spokesperson for Alaska Airlines did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s

request for comment.

“After my traveling companion and I had been seated in our assigne d seats for a
while, we were approached by the flight attendant and my companion was asked to
move from his premium seat to coach, so a couple could sit together,” Cooley
continued.

“I explained that we were a couple and wanted to sit together. He was give n a
choice to either give up the premium seat and move to coach or get off the plane,”
he explained. “We could not bear the feeling of humiliation for an entire cross -
country flight and left the plane.”

“I cannot believe that an airline in this day and age would give a straight couple
preferential treatment over a gay couple and go so far as to ask us to leave,”
Cooley wrote. “We will never be flying Alaska Airlines or their recently
purchased Virgin Airlines Group ever again.”

Cooley did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.

While Cooley and his partner, who remains unnamed, were embarrassed by what
had occurred, they both managed to find another flight home.
“Thank you to Delta Air Lines for getting us home safe. If you are
an #LGBTperson, please spend your travel dollars with an LGBT friendly airline
like Delta. The Advocate magazine Equality CaliforniaGLAAD Delta Air
Lines Out Magazine David Cooley,” Cooley wrote.

The airline reached out to Cooley on Twitter in response to his tweet there about
the events that allegedly occurred.

“David, I’m so saddened to hear about this. Can you message me a good number to
contact you at?” an airline representative named Tara asked him on Twitter.

David, I’m so saddened to hear about this. Can you message me a good number to contact
you at? -Tara https://t.co/t4ooDR29zz

— Alaska Airlines (@AlaskaAir) July 29, 2018

We are truly sorry this event occurred. We mistakenly booked two people in one seat. I can
assure you we are an inclusive airline and hold a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination
of any kind in our workplace. -Dalce

— Alaska Airlines (@AlaskaAir) July 31, 2018

In another tweet by the airline, a representative named Dalce apologized on behalf

of their airline.

“We are truly sorry this event occurred. We mistakenly booked two people in one
seat. I can assure you we are an inclusive airline and hold a zero -tolerance policy
for discrimination of any kind in our workplace,” the representative wrote.

In a statement obtained by Fox News, the airline acknowledged the event did take
place.
“When boarding flight 1407 from JFK to LAX, a couple was mistakenly assigned
the same seats as another couple in Premium Class. We reseated one of the guests
from Premium class the main cabin,” the statement read.

It continued, “We are deeply sorry for the situation, and are investigating the
details while communicating directly with the guests involved to try and make this
right.

“Alaska Airlines has a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination of any kind, and
our employees value inclusion for our guests and each other.”

This article originally appeared on People.com.

http://time.com/5353669/alaska-airlines-gay-couple/

LAW

Article 2: Ban on discrimination

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the
country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other
limitation of sovereignty.

UNHR
http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_2.html

The European Convention on Human Rights - Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms
Section I
70

Article 14
71

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention
shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race,
colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-14-protection-
discrimination