Gay Rights Are Human Rights: Advancing LGBT Protections At The UN
 A Landmark occasion for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights.
Guest post by Peter Dunne, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission Â
At the United Nations Human Rights Council March 2012 meeting in Geneva, an expert panel was convened to discuss the first-ever UN report focused on violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity: “Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity,†( A.HRC.19.41.)
Navi Pillay, High Commissioner for the Human Rights addresses during the Panel discussion on the issue of discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, 19th Human Rights Council. Room XX, Palais des Nations, Geneva. Wednesday 7 March 2012. Photo by Violaine Martin (UN Photo/Violaine Martin)
The document, published by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the close of 2011, identified widespread and systematic rights violations that LGBT individuals are subject to around the world. Given that less than ten years ago much of the UN was silent on even the most extreme atrocities committed against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people, this event represents a truly historic moment.
The High Commissioner’s Report presents significant opportunities for advancing human rights as well as raising important questions.
First, what role should international law play in protecting LGBT individuals? The report clearly refutes arguments that international human rights do not apply to violations committed on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. At the same time, it might also serve as a guide to those countries that seek to achieve change through bilateral channels.
In October 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the U.K would consider conditioning foreign budgetary aid on the repeal of anti-gay laws. His comments were criticised as an example of neo-colonialism and as a failure to appreciate the sensitivities of sexual politics in the Global South. In some countries, homosexuality is seen as a ‘western’ idea, imported by the United Kingdom and the United States to undermine local values.
The new report illustrates that international law is a viable and perhaps more neutral alternative to bilateral diplomacy. Resulting from a South African-led resolution (Res. 17/19), the report challenges the suggestion that homosexuality is a ‘western’ notion. The many references to sexual orientation and gender identity in the official documents of the UN Treaty Bodies and of the UN Special Rapporteurs are evidence that LGBT rights are now firmly established within the international human rights framework.
Second, what is the importance of decriminalization in any LGBT rights strategy? Today, seventy-six countries worldwide apply criminal penalties to same-sex conduct. Criminalization leaves LGBT persons vulnerable to State persecution and legitimises other forms of abuse, such as social stigmatization and hate crimes. While the repeal of discriminatory laws must be a long-term aim, can there be a justification for focusing resources on short-term goals which do not reach the level of full decriminalization?
According to some governments, homosexuality and transgenderism are seen as being in fundamental conflict with cultural and religious traditions. In such environments, it may be counterproductive to prioritize full decriminalization. Where a societal framework does not permit even the mention of homosexuality, can one actually begin to debate anti-gay laws?
In many countries, it is not only the existence of homophonic laws but the discriminatory manner in which they are applied that affects people’s daily lives. In such circumstances, it may be most effective to focus immediate resources on working at the local level, within the existing legal framework, to ensure the greatest possible security for LGBT communities.
Finally, what are the needs of LGBT people beyond decriminalization?
In 1996, South Africa became the first country in the world to constitutionally prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, despite legal protection, LGBT individuals in South Africa continue to experience discrimination and violence. In March 2006, Zoliswa Nkonyana, a nineteen-year old lesbian, was stoned to death by a Cape Town mob who accused her of being a “tomboy†who “wanted to be rapedâ€. Nkonyana’s killers were finally brought to justice six years later, with four men each receiving prison sentences for the killing.
Zoliswa Nkonyana’s story illustrates that even where legal protections have been introduced public education is critically important. By courageously taking the lead at the UN and making LGBT rights a priority in its foreign policy, the Government of South Africa has struck a blow for LGBT equality that hopefully will encourage a level of social acceptance domestically and globally which mirrors its own existing legal protections.
The frank and open discussion of LGBT rights in Geneva supported by South Africa’s lead and fed by the High Commissioner’s report were indeed historic…but only if the messages and lessons learned are carried forth to positively impact the day-to-day lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people around the world.
Images:
Top: UN 19th Human Rights Council - Human Rights Council – 19th Session
The Panel discussion on the issue of discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, 19th Human Rights Council. Room XX, Palais des Nations, Geneva. Wednesday 7 March 2012. Photo by Violaine Martin
(UN Photo/Violaine Martin)
and Navi Pillay
Â
Peter Dunne (image, left,) is Harvard Law School Kaufman Fellow, and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Comisssion 2011-2012 Global Advocacy Intern.
Â
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.
 |
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
