Connect with us

Stop The Violence – LGBT Rights Are Human Rights: An Historic US Sponsored Conference

Published

on

TIRANA, ALBANIA – This past week, dozens of LGBT activists from countries in and around southeastern Europe gathered at the Tirana International Hotel for a precedent-setting event: “Stop the Violence: LGBT Rights are Human Rights,” the first LGBT conference ever sponsored by the U.S. government in a foreign country. Over two and a half days filled with panels, meals, cocktails, and even an art exhibition in Tirana, Albania’s capital city, the activists, most of them young, shared stories and best practices on topics like engaging with law enforcement and using social media. They also talked with U.S. Embassy representatives from their respective countries about how the LGBT community and American officials can work together to advance the principle of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s now-famous statement “gay rights are human rights.” It was no coincidence that the second half of the event’s title echoed this statement, the essence of which often imbued the conference with an air of excitement, resolve, and joy.

But the first half of the conference’s title, “Stop the Violence,” was a reminder of the stark contrast between the event and the reality of life for many of the activists in their home countries, most of which are still working to transform into well-functioning, accepting democracies.

Consider Albania. In this small Balkan country, just two decades removed from the fall of a communist regime that was largely intolerant of difference, the LGBT movement is scarcely three years old, boasts only a few hundred active members, and faces continuous challenges. Rewind to March, for instance, when the country’s Deputy Defense Minister Ekrem Spahiu announced that, if the LGBT community in his country attempted to hold a Pride parade, “they should be beaten with truncheons.” Two months later, when a small group of activists staged a bike rally on the International Day Against Homophobia in heavy rain and Tirana’s chaotic traffic, their route was further disrupted when people waiting on the sidewalk threw homemade smoke bombs into the street.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the LGBT conference in Tirana, while not a secret, was also was not widely publicized. “I’ll be honest, most Albanians don’t know this conference is going on,” a representative of the U.S. embassy told me. “We didn’t push it. If we had, we might have faced some negative response.”

The same could have been said in most any country in the region if it had hosted the conference, as an image of Europe posted on the wall outside the event’s main room revealed. The “rainbow map,” prepared by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans Association (ILGA) earlier this year, indicates how well-constructed national laws are to protect and provide for the LGBT community. Generally speaking, as one moves east across Europe, the situation gets worse and worse. On a scale of -12 (terrible) to 30 (excellent), Albania receives only a 6, as do Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia. Kosovo, Poland, and Greece rank at a 2, while Russia, Macedonia, and Moldova are at -4 or lower.

But weak legal systems are only part of the picture. Homophobia driven by traditional norms, nationalism, and religion is an enormous obstacle for the inchoate LGBT communities. In 2008, for instance, activists who had gathered on a bus to stage a demonstration in Moldova were trapped inside by hundreds of angry, screaming protesters, many of them religious. (The vast majority of Moldovans are Orthodox Christian.) Nine phone calls to the police went unanswered. Since then, the LGBT community has focused more on unplanned demonstrations like flash mobs, which, according to one activist, only attract backlash afterward “from the bigots and homophobes who missed the party.”

Another activist, Zdravko Cimbaljevic of the group LGBT Forum Progress in Montenegro, one of the former Yugoslav republics, reported a beating based on his sexual orientation to a police officer who did not want to recognize that he was gay. In particular, although Cimbaljevic’s attacker had called him “faggot,” the officer did not want to put the word in his report. “‘Why do you need that?’” Cimbaljevic recalled the officer asking. “People don’t want to believe there is a LGBT community in Montenegro,” he added.

 

The law is not so omnipowerful,” one activist from Bulgaria told the conference. “Laws are written to European standards and implemented to Balkan standards,” noted another.

 

Then, there is the problem of LGBT rights being set aside or ignored with the excuse that a country is in a democratic transition and has bigger fish to fry. “‘There are so many problems in Albania. They are just a small group,’” said Delina Fico, a straight activist in Tirana, imitating many people’s reaction to the push for LGBT rights. Similarly, another human rights defender in Albania said people often tell her, “It’s too early. We are a poor country.”

To be sure, there have been improvements in the regions. The conference itself was an indication of the LGBT movement’s growing prominence and transnational cooperation. Activist organizations are growing in size, courage, and reputation in several countries: Albania, for instance, now has three groups, whereas up until 2009, it had none. (Xheni Karaj, executive director of one of these group’s, came out on national television not long ago in order to defend a gay friend to whom a government official had said, “If you were my son, I would put a bullet in your brain.” Karaj retorted, “It is because of people like you that we are still in the closet.) Moreover, earlier this month, the European Court of Human Rights, the continent’s premier judicial voice on human rights, ruled in favor of Moldova’s LGBT community, which was denied the right to stage Pride seven years ago. And broadly speaking, many countries have passed or are working on new anti-discrimination laws and penal codes to better protect the LGBT community.

Another problem, however, is the assumption by state authorities that adopting new laws will solve the problem of discrimination—or at the very least, quiet their critics. These critics include the European Union, which countries in the region either belong to already (Romania and Bulgaria, for instance) or aspire to join. Acceding to the EU comes with a set of requirements, including human rights protections. But many activists at the conference pointed out that their governments and even EU officials are often satisfied with the passage of laws, even if these laws are not implemented. “The law is not so omnipowerful,” one activist from Bulgaria told the conference. “Laws are written to European standards and implemented to Balkan standards,” noted Remzi Lani of the Albania Media Institute, which is sympathetic to the LGBT cause.

Then, there is the lack of communication between government and LGBT community members in the process of writing new laws. At the conference, an official from Montenegro announced that the government had begun working on a law to recognize same-sex partnerships. It was the first Cimbaljevic had heard of this, although his organization has been advocating for the same issue. “I’m really shocked that the government is working on a law for same-sex partnerships and we don’t know about it,” he said.

In short, then, LGBT work in this region is characterized by strides forward, shoves backward, and, often, disheartening sidestepping. Activists’ efforts certainly propel the movement forward in societies where being open about one’s sexual orientation can pose serious physical and emotional risks. (As Tudor Kovacs, a Romanian activist, put it, “We aren’t activists for ourselves. We are activists for those who will never be activists.”) Yet often, these efforts are stymied or forced to pause while governments consider what, exactly, they are prepared to do with regard to some of their most vulnerable citizens.

A brief conversation with a young Bulgarian activist neatly illustrated this situation. He had taken a break from helping plan the fifth Pride in his country’s capital, Sofia, to attend the Tirana conference. Just a week prior, the government had officially registered his organization. There was much to celebrate. Yet at the last Sofia Pride, five volunteers were followed home and beaten up. And to date, Bulgaria has not recognized sexual orientation as a possible motive for hate crimes. “This is what we are fighting for,” the young man said over lunch. “[The government] is revising the penal code this year.” Raising his glass and shrugging, he added, “So we’ll see.”

Image, top, via Facebook by U.S. Embassy-Tirana 

 

Seyward Darby is a freelance writer currently living in Kosovo. She is working for a local human rights group on LGBT and freedom of expression projects with support from the Coca-Cola World Fund and Kirby-Simon Fellowship Program at Yale University. Her organization receives some funding from the U.S. government. 

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

1 hour ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

4 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

News

‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Published

6 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.