The homosexual law reform mpaign moved beyond the gay muny to wir issu of human rights and discrimatn. Extreme viewpots ensured a lengthy and passnate bate before the Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed July 1986.
Contents:
- ‘OUR MERE EXISTENCE IS ILLEGAL.’ AS MOSW TOUGHENS ANTI-GAY LAW, LGBTQ RSIANS FEAR FOR THE FUTURE
- 'WE'RE NOT HIDG': GAY AND LBIAN RSIANS SAY A CULTURAL SHIFT IS UNRWAY
‘OUR MERE EXISTENCE IS ILLEGAL.’ AS MOSW TOUGHENS ANTI-GAY LAW, LGBTQ RSIANS FEAR FOR THE FUTURE
This report documents how Rsia’s “gay propaganda” law is havg a eply damagg effect on LGBT children. Human Rights Watch terviewed LGBT youth and mental health profsnals diverse lotns across Rsia, cludg urban and ral areas, to exame the everyday experienc of the children schools, hom, and public, and their abily to get reliable and accurate rmatn about themselv as well as unselg and other support servic. * homosexual law reform society *
However, many ( particular the Campaign for Homosexual Equaly and the Gay Liberatn Front) nsired that the new law did not go far enough and blamed the HLRS for what they saw as a weakeng of the Wolfenn Commtee's proposals, llg the HLRS/Albany Tst a nformist outf of "Uncle Toms". Sectn 28 of the Lol Government Act 1988 enacted as an amendment to the Uned Kgdom’s Lol Government Act 1986, on 24 May 1988 stated that a lol thory “shall not tentnally promote homosexualy or publish material wh the tentn of promotg homosexualy” or “promote the teachg any mataed school of the acceptabily of homosexualy as a pretend fay relatnship”.
And while Rsian ernment officials and parliament members claim that the goal of the “gay propaganda” law is to protect children om potentially harmful subject matter, the law fact directly harms children by nyg them accs to sential rmatn and creasg stigma agast LGBT youth and their fai. While some LGBT youth told that teachers had supported and protected them, many others said their teachers characterize LGBT people as a symptom of perversn imported om Wtern Europe or North Ameri, mirrorg the polil homophobia that motivated the passage of the “gay propaganda” law the first place. In le wh the June 2013 EU guil on promotg and protectg the enjoyment of all human rights by lbian, gay, bisexual, transgenr and tersex (LGBTI) persons, support iativ to provi assistance and redrs for victims of such vlence, civil society and ernmental monorg of s volvg vlence, and trag of law enforcement personnel.
The harng of negative social attus cis wh the creasg spread of hateful, anti-LGBT rhetoric, cludg by public officials the media, and the promulgatn of regnal and natnal anti-LGBT “gay propaganda” laws that prohib the “promotn” of “nontradnal sexual relatns to mors, ”[12] unrstood to mean the pictn of LGBT people anythg other than a negative light. While Rsian ernment officials and parliament members claim that the goal of the “gay propaganda” law is to protect children om potentially harmful subject matter, the law directly harms children by nyg them accs to sential rmatn and fosterg stigma agast LGBT children and their fai. ” He add: “Furthermore, laws such as Rsia’s propaganda law n have ser negative impact on the health and well-beg of homosexual youth and adults that the law creas and enshr stigma and prejudice, leadg to discrimatn and vlence, and, th, creasg risk for mental distrs and suici iatn.
'WE'RE NOT HIDG': GAY AND LBIAN RSIANS SAY A CULTURAL SHIFT IS UNRWAY
* homosexual law reform society *
Rearch other untri has found that lack of support ntribut to negative mental health out; one study, lbian, gay and bisexual stunts environments wh fewer supports like gay/straight allianc, clive anti-bullyg polici and clive non-discrimatn polici were 20 percent more likely to attempt suici than those more supportive environments. Siarly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe observed 2013 that “gay propaganda” laws “are at variance wh eedom of exprsn and the prohibn of discrimatn on acunt of sexual orientatn and genr inty [and] risk legimisg the prejudice and hostily which is prent society and fuellg a climate of hatred agast LGBT people. It is th not clear om the se law applyg the provisns, whether the terms “prohibn of homosexual propaganda” have to be terpreted rtrictively, or whether they ver any rmatn or opn favour of homosexualy, any attempt to change the homophobic attu on the part of the populatn towards gays and lbians, any attempt to unterbalance the sometim eply rooted prejudic, by dissematg unbiased and factual rmatn on sexual orientatn.
Rsia, the European Court on Human Rights asssed whether a ban on pri march and other public monstratns by LGBT activists was jtifiable on the basis that protected children om harm, ncludg, “There is no scientific evince or soclogil data at the Court’s disposal suggtg that the mere mentn of homosexualy, or open public bate about sexual mori’ social stat, would adversely affect children.... ”[275] A curriculum that ignor the needs of LGBT stunts “normaliz, stereotyp, and promot imag that are discrimatory bee they are based on heteronormativy; by nyg the existence of the lbian, gay, transsexual, transgenr and bisexual populatn, they expose the groups to risky and discrimatory practic. This re obligatn clus the obligatn to repeal laws—such as Rsia’s “gay propaganda” laws—that “obstct or unrme accs by dividuals or a particular group” to sexual and reproductive health rmatn, [289] and to ensure that everybody has “accs to prehensive tn and rmatn on sexual and reproductive health that are non-discrimatory, non-biased, evince-based, and that take to acunt the evolvg paci of children and adolcents.
To brg about change the law, the gay movement need a parliamentary champn. It found one Labour MP Fran Wil. * homosexual law reform society *
While there was a great al of mon ground and some operatn between the church and the groups the lead-up to the 1967 Act (ed, homophile mpaigng groups saw church support for homosexual law reform as val to their succs), tensn and uneass characterized their workg relatnships. Through the followg se study, we see that, shapg this nceptn of homosexualy as an ethil and subjective posn and providg moral jtifitn for reform, Christian mentators played an important role creatg the bary opposn between homosexualy and heterosexualy that emerged the postwar years.
While n be argued that the Church of England, through s epispal reprentativ the Lords, played a ccial role the mpaign for homosexual law reform, mt also be acknowledged that archbishops did not have the thory to le up their bishops to speak wh one voice on “an issue public affairs on which the Church, as such, has not, and nnot have, an official le. Even though epispal support for law reform was full of ntradictns and remaed a fairly limed exercise terms of radilly changg Anglin attus toward homosexualy, this strikg appearance of general agreement among the bishops was, perhaps unrstandably, terpreted as markg a signifint change church policy.