Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld and Lisbeth Andersen.
Contact to Euro-Letter:
In this issue:
Next issue: 47
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in
Europe and guides to the structure of the European Union, the Council of
Europe and The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe can
be found on the home
page of the Gay and Lesbian International Lobby.
On 27 November, the Lower Chamber of Austrian Parliament debated and
voted on repealing the anti-lesbian and anti-gay articles in the
Austrian penal code: Article 209 - higher age of consent of 18 years for
male homosexual relations compared to 14 years for lesbians and
heterosexuals; Article 220 - ban on positive information about
homosexuality; Article 221 - ban on the founding of gay and lesbian
organizations.
The most far-reaching bills were introduced by the Social Democrats, the
Greens, and the Liberal Forum who proposed a total repeal of all three
articles. These three parties constitute the left spectrum in Austrian
politics, but do not have a majority in Parliament. The passage of these
bills needed the pro-active support of at least three MPs from the
conservative Christian Democratic Party or the right-wing Freedom Party
of Joerg Haider or the deliberate absence of six of them in order to
reduce the quorum. The government coalition partners (Social Democrats
and Conservatives) were not able to agree on a joint bill. They agreed,
however, to an open free vote, with MPs not bound (at least
theoretically) to the party-line - a very uncommon practice in
Austria. This was big step forward because the Conservatives had blocked
any vote for the last ten years.
The Conservatives not only called for keeping the discriminatory higher
age of consent for gay relations, but introduced their own bills calling
for an intensification (!) of articles 220 and 221. At the last minute,
the right-wing Freedom Party also introduced a bill proposing to fix the
age of consent for gay men at 16 as a compromise, to do some cosmetic
changes to article 220 but to keep it, and to repeal article 221.
After a very heated debate, the various bills were voted on each
separately. The vote on repealing the higher age of consent was a draw:
91 votes for, 91 votes against, and therefore failed. Only one MP from
the Conservatives and one MP of the Freedom Party dared not to follow
party line and to vote for the repeal of article 209. The other
proposals as mentioned above were also rejected. The existing
discriminatory age of consent law for gay men will, therefore, continue
to be in force in Austria.
The bill on completely abolishing article 220 got a bare majority of one
vote: 90 to 89. This, however, was an accident: two MPs from the
right-wing party were not in the plenary and missed the ballot.
The complete repeal of article 221 (ban on associations) passed by a
large majority (128 to 52) with only the Christian Democrats opposed.
On 12 December 1996, the Upper Chamber of the Austrian Parliament
passed, as expected, the Bill on some amendments to the Austrian Penal
code, including the total repeal of Articles 220 and 221 (ban on
pro-homosexual information and on lesbian/gay associations), which was
voted, as reported, by the Lower Chamber on 27 November 1996. The
reform, therefore, will come into force on 1 March 1997.
This development is at least a partial victory for Austria's lesbian and
gay movement which has been fighting for this reform for 17 years. And
of course, we will continue to struggle for total equality in the penal
code.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank all individuals, groups,
and organizations abroad who, in all these 17 years, have been
supporting us in our fight against discrimination of lesbians and gay
men in Austria. We also want to thank those who took part in this year's
campaign which we called for last April. Your support definitely made
the difference and was a great help in our struggle. Thank you all so
much for your solidarity! We will also need it in the future in our
fight for the repeal of Article 209!
On 3 December, the Austrian Parliament agreed and voted upon its
guidelines for the chapter on "Fundamental Rights" in the new EU
Treaty. In its statement, the Austrian Parliament urges the Federal
government to work within the IGC that the prohibition of discrimation
based on a series of grounds be included in the new EU treaty. The
Parliament listed the same non-discrimination categories as in the
Austro-Italian proposal presented in October 1996 by foreign ministers
Schuessel and Dini (see Euroletter 45) but
replaced "sexual preference" by "sexual orientation". While the
Schuessel-Dini initiative has a rather soft wording ("The Union shall
make sure that no discrimination ... occurs"), the Austrian Parliament,
however, formulated clearly: "The prohibition of discrimination ... be
included in the Treaty".
"Within the scope of application of the Treaties on which the Union is
founded and without prejudice to any special provisions contained
therein, any discrimination on grounds of race, sex, national or ethnic
origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, social origin
[...] shall be prohibited."
"Within the scope of application of this Treaty and without prejudice to
any special provisions contained therein, the Council, acting
unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the
European Parliament, shall take the necessary measures to prohibit any
discrimination on grounds of race, sex, national or ethnic origin,
disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, social origin [...]."
Unfortunately, at some stage during November, the Presidency was obliged
by some member states to go a good way backwards from this position. The
proposal which will come to the European Council this weekend is much
more limited than the October text:
NO general non-discrimination provision is now being proposed for
Article F. Thus, non-discrimination is no longer a common provision
with the nature of a general principle upon which the Union is
founded. There is still a reference to the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but, as we know,
this is not explicit on the question of sexual orientation.
As far as the EC Treaty is concerned, some significant changes have been
made to the proposed new article 6a: (changes in capitals):
On the positive side, the Italo-Austrian proposal seems still to be on
the table - but it is now clear that their main concern is freedom of
religion - they may, therefore, be content with the current draft.
ILGA, a worldwide federation of more than three hundred homosexual
organizations and individuals, deplores the fact that the heads of state
did not pay attention to human rights during their
meeting. Nevertheless, ILGA considers it a positive step that the Irish
presidency had included sexual orientation in its proposals.
ILGA hopes that in the coming months of the new Dutch presidency of the
E.U. that country will also support human rights concerns - including
prohibi- ting discrimination based on sexual orientation - for inclusion
in the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) negotiations on the Treaty
revision, as has already been recommended by the European Parliament and
Council.
"ILGA will continue in 1997 to campaign for the recognition of gay and
lesbian rights in the European Union," declared Petit.
On 29 March 1996, the Council of Ministers reached political agreement
on the Parental Leave Directive. The Directive has an unhappy history -
it was first proposed in 1983, then resubmitted by the Commission as an
amended proposal in 1984, but met with deadlock in the Council of
Ministers. Progress was finally facilitated through utilisation of the
Agreement on Social Policy attached to the Treaty on European Union,
allowing the other 14 Member States to proceed without the UK.
On 31 January 1996, the Commission published its new proposal for the
Parental Leave Directive, based on an agreement reached between European
employers and trades unions in November 1993. (COM (96) 26) The
Directive creates two new rights for European employees: firstly, the
right for men and women to take three months unpaid leave upon the birth
or adoption of a child, and secondly, the right for all workers to take
time off from work on the grounds of "urgent family reasons". The
"urgent family reasons" are cases of "sickness or accident making the
immediate presence of the worker indispensable." However, also
significant was the proposal from the Commission that Article 2(3) of
the Directive should state that "when Member States adopt the provisions
to implement this Directive, these shall prohibit any discrimination
based on race, sex, sexual orientation, colour, religion or
nationality." (emphasis added).
Not only was the anti-discrimination provision of considerable symbolic
importance, it also promised to be influential in securing a generous
interpretation of the provisions of the Directive. Nowhere does the
Directive actually define who qualifies as a "parent". Thus, would a
lesbian be entitled to parental leave upon the birth of a child to her
partner? The issue of leave for "urgent family reasons" also raises the
questions concerning the recognition of same-sex couples: would a gay
man be entitled to claim the right to leave in the case of accident or
illness affecting his partner and necessitating his immediate presence?
Given the inclusion of the anti-discrimination provision, the answer to
both these questions would surely have been `yes'.
When the proposal came before the Council of Ministers, the Council
amended the text to delete the anti-discrimination provision, and
instead inserted a clause in the preamble stating "whereas the Community
Charter on the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers recognises the
importance of the fight against all forms of discrimination, especially
based on sex, colour, race, opinions and creeds". (OJ 1996 L 145/4) Not
only is that clause not binding upon the Member States, but it
conspicuously excludes any reference to sexual orientation. The decision
by the Council to reject the reference to sexual orientation is a
significant set-back for all those campaigning for equal treatment of
gay men and lesbians by the European Union, and illustrates the weak
nature of the Member States' commitment to combating all forms of
discrimination, as stated in the preamble of the Social
Charter. Moreover, for once the decision cannot be simply blamed on
British intransigence - suggesting that the obstacles to progress m this
sphere of social policy extend far beyond the shores of the British
Isles.
ILGA was represented by John Clark, Tom Lavell and myself. ILGA
submitted a written presentation and gave two oral statements in Working
Group 1c (on 5 and 8 November; see Euroletters # 45 and 46). Human
Dimension Issues were discussed in the first two weeks of the
meeting. As far as I am aware of, the lesbian and gay issue was only
referred to in two statements of national delegations: The Statement of
Ireland on behalf of the European Union on tolerance on 8 November
mentioned "homosexuals" and "sexual orientation" three times. Romania
dedicated a statement on 13 November solely to the issue of Article 200
(Penal Code) and gave factual information about the law reform process
in Romania.
All working groups had rapporteurs who produced "official" reports which
were presented to the final plenary and annexed to the plenary's
minutes. The Canadian rapporteur of working group 1c included "our
issue" in his report - in the section on "tolerance":
"Many delegations stressed the importance of tolerance, not only as an
issue of human rights, but also as a matter of conflict
prevention. Intolerance existed in all countries. A group of States
noted that the problems of intolerance were not only those specified in
the work programme, but also arose from discrimination on other grounds,
such as gender or sexual orientation. Delegations and a large number of
NGOs mentioned specific situations in participating States which they
viewed as breaching OSCE commitments to tolerance and non
discrimination, while other delegations raised their own problems and
the programmes put in place to address these."
This inclusion in the report does, of course, not compensate for the
non-mention of "our issue" in the (binding) final document of this
review meeting which at the same time is the Lisbon Summit
Declaration. However, it would have been totally unrealistic to expect
non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation to be included
in the Summit Declaration. This became already very clear in my first
conversations with several delegations (I talked to delegates from the
USA, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Norway, Netherlands, and
Sweden). Therefore, I did not invest much time and energy in lobbying
the various delegations. The main reason is: Human Dimension issues have
been dealt with extensively both in Copenhagen in 1990 and in Moscow in
1991 and in the Paris Charter; these issues will not be revisited in
Final Documents anymore - and that's why "our issue" cannot be taken
into account and added. If the issue would be addressed now in a binding
document, it would be highlighted too prominently - and that would
certainly not be accepted in the context of the OSCE with its consensus
principle. Imagine a three pages declaration on the future security
policies in Europe of which one paragraph is dedicated to homosexuality!
Would be nice but is unrealistic. The format of the Lisbon Declaration,
however, was focussed on European security politics. The review
conference in Budapest two years ago was already going in this direction
and was probably our last chance (which, unfortunately, did not
materialise) to get our issue in a binding OSCE Document.
Another weak point is that the national OSCE delegations have not been
lobbied beforehand. Usually, they get instructed back home before
leaving for an OSCE meeting; when confronted at a busy OSCE meeting with
a new specific and particular issue for the first time, delegations tend
to be reluctant to take it up and contact their foreign offices in order
to get new instructions. More concerted lobbying of ILGA members in the
various OSCE countries before the start of any OSCE conference would be
needed to make lobbying at the meetings more effective.
>From this experience, I would, therefore, suggest that the ILGA working
party reformulate its goals and aims towards the OSCE; we should simply
forget getting non-discrimination based on sexual orientation in a
binding OSCE document. ILGA should rather use the Implementation
Meetings and the Review Conferences for two purposes:
1) lobby the delegations of countries with bad human rights records for
lesbians and gays; this may turn out not to be very easy because here in
Vienna, for instance, no delegation from the former Soviet republics in
Asia (which I would have liked to talk with about repeal of total bans
on homosexuality) attended the sessions of Working Group 1c;
2) highlight positive and negative developments in the OSCE in oral
statements and bring forward well-documented examples and cases of human
rights violations in OSCE countries; even Romania felt obliged to reply
to the meeting on Article 200!
It is unclear at the moment when and where the next implementation and
review meetings and summits will take place but it was obvious in Vienna
that many delegations pleaded for longer intervals between them. Turkey,
in any case, has offered to host the next summit in Istanbul. Denmark
will take over the function of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office for the
calendar year 1997, unfortunately not up until the next Summit because
this function is crucial in preparing the agenda and the draft wording
of the final document. But maybe Steffen/LBL nevertheless could
intensify his contacts with the Danish OSCE delegation in order to
promote "our issue". Poland will be Chairman-in-Office in 1998.
The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) in
Warsaw, by the way, is taking lesbian and gay issues into account in
their reports. In October, 1996, ODIHR published background material for
the Vienna Review Conference. In the document with the title "Respect
for Civil Liberties in the OSCE Region", a sub-chapter is dedicated to
"Imprisonment/Detention on the grounds of homosexuality". It reads as
follows:
"There are three countries in the OSCE region, where homosexual
relations are still considered a criminal offence. Most available data
on related cases is dated from before September 1995, it is therefore in
our previous report, so it is not included here. However, it is possible
to say that at least in one of those countries people are actually
imprisoned and detained on the grounds of homosexuality. In one other
country, although decriminalisation of homosexual acts was rejected by
the Parliament together with a draft Penal Code at the end of 1995, a
Minister of Justice decision confirming decriminalisation of homosexual
acts put a stop to imprisonment. Thus, it is possible to say that the
situation has improved since the previous report and there is only one
country actually punishing people for a different sexual orientation."
On The Socialist Party (PSOE) has submitted to the Spanish
Parliament a draft for a partnership law which would grant
pension, inheritance, fiscal and other similar benefits to
heterosexual as well as to gay /lesbian partnerships.
Nevertheless, the right of adoption for unmarried couples has
been not incluided. On the other hand, at virtually at the same
time, the Party in Office, the conservative MP Bernarda Barrios,
member of the christian-based Popular Party (PP) has made public
that the Government and her party were ready to pass such a law,
though, like the socialist draft, his party stood against the
right of adoption.
Since the beginning of this legislature, at the beginning of
1996, when the socialist lost office after thriteen years, and
when the conservatives gained power, the Fundacion Triangulo has
already held talks with virtually all the parliament groups in
order to have a partnership law passed.
Hereinafter, the summary of such talks Izquierda Unida (mainly
communists and socialists) ERC (catalan leftist independentists,
Bloque Nacionalista GAlego (galician leftists independentists)
PNV (christian-democrat basque nationalists) and PSOE -
socialists formerly in office, were completely in favour.
CiU (liberal and christian democrat liberal catalans) and
Coalicion Canaria (Canary Islands Regionalists) said they were
in favor of having such a bill passed but, since they are a part
of the coalition in Parliament with the PP, the party in office,
said they would not vote such a bill inconditionally if the
government were to submit their own draft. They nevertheless
acknoweledged to representatives of the Fundacion they would be
voting in favor of the socialist bill should the governemt not
submit a bill of their own.
It should be stressed that the current government is in minority
and depends on the votes of CiU and Coalicion Canaria; such
votes added to those of the other parties in the oposition would
be enough to have the bill passed without the party in office
voting in favor.
So far, tne PP -the party in office- has held talks with the
Fundacion Triangulo at different levels: The General Secretary
for Social Affairs, Ms Amalia Gomez and the MP Maria J.
Camilleri. They both stated the Partnership Bill was no priority
to their government. However, on oct. 28, when it was clear the
socialists were to submit their own bill, Ms Barrios, a PP MP
said the media the Government was in favor of providing some
legal solution for partnerships, wether gay or straight. Ms
Barrios also said the Fundacion Triangulo the Partnership Bill
would be passed within this legislature, before year 2000.
Some Spanish lesbigay groups have jeopardized the partnership
bill when stating they would be dismissing any project not
including adoption; this even led the socialist to consider not
presenting their bill in order not to attract criticism from gay
groups. Such is not the position of the Fundacion Triangulo.
>From our point of view, passing such a Law -also without
adoptions- would be such a great step forward; The Fundacion
will increase their very best efforts to have such a law passed,
also trying the party in office not to vote against.
The great risk now is that parliamentary procedures take so long
we might be racing against time and loosing, as it already
happened when the Socialist Party was in office.
The Swiss Government presented on Thuesday November 21st 1996
its proposal for a new Swiss Constitution which is to be put
into force in 1998 at the earliest.
The proposal incorporates results of a public opinion poll. In
the process of this poll about two dozen organisations and
parties and nearly 400 citizens have requested an extension of
the Anti-Discrimination Article (Article 7 of the new
Constitution) in such a way as to include 'sexual orientation'
together with race, religion, gender, etc.
Unfortunately the government chose to disregard that claim.
Government is not prepared to recognize that g/l/b/t people are
in fact being discriminated as the government's proposal for the
wording of the Anti-Discrimination-Article does not mention
g/l/b/t people.
In a simultaneous press release Pink Cross (the national gay
organisation) and LOS (Lesbian Organisation of Switzerland) have
indignantly taken note of the government's decision. They have
pointed out the inconsistent attitude of the Government if its
'Eidg. Justiz- und Polizeidepartement' (Federal Ministry of
Justice and Police) merely wants to include so-called "real"
dicriminations in the wording of the Anti-Discrimination
Article, while at the same time disapproving of - and thereby
exerting dicrimination against - any constitutional protection
for lesbians and gay people, although it is a recognised fact
that g/l/b/t people are being disadvantaged in Swiss society and
force is being used against some of its members.
The government's proposal is now going to be debated by
parliamentary commissions and then by Parliament in 1997.
Pink Cros and LOS will fight hard on different levels for an
extension of the Anti-Discriminating Article to inlcude sexual
orientation as well.
Dutch lesbian and gay couples as well as straight couples will
get the opportuniy of legal registration of their relationship
in city halls. The Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament (the
House) agreed in principle on a bill with this intent.
The Dutch registered partnership will grant the same rights to
couples as matrimony, except for legal consequences towards
children. Delegates from the parties represented in the
coalition government of the social-democrat party (PvdA), the
right-wing liberal party (VVD)and the left-wing liberal party
(D66) welcomed the arrangement as an important step. This was
evident during the debate in parliament on the 4th of December.
"This is the first time that governement acknowledges that
same-sex couples and oppositie-sex couples have the same
rights," PvdA representative Van der Burg said. "This is a
milestone."
She told that their should be no mistake that she would also
strive at opening up civil marriage for gays and lesbians. Van
der Stoel (VVD) and Dittrich (D66) agreed completely about that.
Earlier this year it became evident that there is a majority of
delegates in the Second Chamber of Parliament in favour of
opening up civil marriage. In April the Chamber adopted a motion
by PvdA and D66 that called upon the government to abolish the
legal prohibition of same-sex marriage. 81 delegates were in
favour, 60 against.
Fundamental opponents of opening up civil marriage are to be
found in the christian democrat party and the small christian
(right-wing) parties. The christian democrats are in favour of
partnership registration, but do not think that this regulation
is necessary for couples of opposite sex. Christian democats do
not oppose to living-together, said their representative
Bremmer, but they think that straight couples will either marry
or stay unregistered.
The debate on opening up marriage will take place separately.
The situation is now that a special commission has been
appointed by the government to sort out the legal consequences,
especially for adoption from foreign countries. The commission
will sunmit its advice to the government in about half a year.
If the Second Chamber of Parliament would agree on opening up
marriage, the Senate would also have to approve legal changes
before they would become effective (as in every legal change).
It seems that the Senate is not as progressive as the Second
Chamber of Parliament is.
Eighty-six nations (or semi-independent states) ban gay-male
sex and 44 of those countries also prohibit lesbian sex,
according to data accumulated by the International Gay and
Lesbian Human Rights Commission in San Francisco.
Gay-male sex is illegal in Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua
& Barbuda, Armenia, Australia (Tasmania state only), Azerbaijan,
the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan,
Bosnia-Herzogovina, Botswana, Brunei, Burma, Cameroon, Cape
Verde Islands, Cayman Islands, Chile, Cook Islands, Cyprus,
Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Guyana, India, Iran,
Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgystan,
Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, Niue, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Puerto Rico,
Qatar, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa (which is also the only
nation in the world with a ban on anti-gay discrimination in its
constitution), Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan,
Tanzania, Togo, Tokelau, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, United
Arab Emirates, United States of America (21 of 50 states),
Uzbekistan, Western Samoa, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The states which ban gay-male sex but do not ban lesbian sex are
Antigua & Barbuda, Armenia, Australia (Tasmania), Azerbaijan,
Bahrain, Bosnia-Herzogovina, Botswana, Burma, Cayman Islands,
Chile, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Ecuador, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana,
India, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgystan,
Macedonia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Solomon
Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tokelau,
Tonga, Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda,
Uzbekistan, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
In most instances, lesbian sex is permitted because sexist
legislators didn't think to ban it rather than because of good
will toward lesbians.
Corrections to these lists should be sent to IGLHRC, 1360
Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103. Telephone: (415)
255-8680. Fax: (415) 255-8662. E-mail:
iglhrc@iglhrc.org.
LAW REFORM IN AUSTRIA:
PARTIAL VICTORY BAN ON INFORMATION AND ASSOCIATION REPEALED AGE
OF CONSENT LAW UNCHANGED
By Kurt KricklerAUSTRIA IN FAVOR OF EU TREATY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS
By Kurt KricklerBACKLASH IN EU TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
The Irish Presidency's draft framework for Treaty revision which was
being discussed in October/ November contained several useful provisions
from our point of view. Most notably, two revisions, one to Article F of
the Treaty on European Union and another to Article 6 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community contained provisions which would
have represented a significant step in guaranteeing equal rights for
gays and lesbians in the EU:
i) Supplement to article F:
This is a general provision on non-discrimination, which, although of
limited legal application, would be of immense symbolic significance, as
it would enshrine non-discrimination against gays and lesbians as one of
the common provisions fundamental to the Union.
ii) New article 6a:
This is the provision which would give teeth to the general provisions
of Article F. Article 6 is that which forbids discrimination on grounds
of nationality - extending this to other forms of discrimination would
have been a major step forward, and would have given the Community the
legal means to prevent discrimination in the fields of employment, free
movement of people, social policy etc.etc.(although the unanimity
principle could have been a problem). The wording OBLIGES the Council to
adopt measures - which again would have been important.
"Within the scope of application of this Treaty and without prejudice to
any special provision contained therein, the Council, acting unanimously
on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European
Parliament, MAY TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURES to prohibit any
discrimination on grounds of sex, race, ETHNIC OR SOCIAL ORIGIN,
RELIGIOUS BELIEF, HANDI- CAP, AGE OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION."
Within the context of the subtleties of such negotiations these changes
are quite significant. A footnote, in any case, indicates that this is
not a definitive list of grounds, and that the Conference will have to
have a more detailed discussion on this and the precise definitions
involved. The change from "shall take..." to "may take.." is important
because it removes from the Council the obligation to take measures - so
the Council has an excuse to do nothing if it wishes. The new order
within the list is also significant, with religious belief moving up and
sexual orientation down. If November's negative trend in the
negotiations continues , then the next step could be the removal of
"sexual orientation" from the list altogether.ILGA PRESS RELEASE
The Secretaries General of the International Lesbian and Gay Association
(ILGA), Jordi Petit and Inge Wallaert, denounce and regret the fact that
the European Union heads of state at their weekend meeting in Dublin did
not adopt the human rights proposals for the reform of the E.U. Treaty
of Maastrich that had been presented by the Irish presidency, which ends
at the end of the year. These proposals would prohibit discrimination
based on sex, ideology... and sexual orientation.PROBLEMS WITH THE PARENTAL LEAVE EU-DIRECTIVE
By Mark Bell, European University Institute, FlorenceREPORT ON ILGA'S ACTIVITIES AT THE OSCE REVIEW CONFERENCE,
VIENNA, NOVEMBER 1996
By Kurt KricklerSPANISH SOCIALIST PARTY HAS SUBMITTED A PARTNERSHIP LAW TO
SPANISH PARLIAMENT
By Cesar ClestonSWITZERLAND: GAY AND LESBIANS ARE SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS
By Marcel Ryser, Pink Cross and HABDUTCH SECOND CHAMBER OF PARLIAMENT AGREES ON PARTNERSHIP
REGISTRATION
By Michiel Odijk86 COUNTRIES BAN GAY SEX
By Rex Wockner
Page d'accueil ILGA Euroletter
|
Copyright ILGA, Gais et Lesbiennes Branchés, © 1996 |