Rilek1Corner

Tag: transexual

  • Singapore Voted Against UN’s Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity (SOGI) Mandate Safeguard

    Singapore Voted Against UN’s Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity (SOGI) Mandate Safeguard

    Eight Latin American Countries (LAC 8) countered an African Group’s hostile resolution on the United Nations Human Rights Council Annual Report (specifically targeted at the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Independent (SOGI) Expert Mandate) and submitted an amendment in supporting and preserving the mandate.

    84 countries voted in favour of the LAC 8 amendment leading to the failure of the hostile resolution and dissipation of the immediate threat against the establishment of the SOGI Independent Expert. 77 countries voted against the amendment and Singapore is one of them.
    1

    The following is a press release on the topic by Outright Action International.

    —
    21 November 2016 (New York) — The United Nations mandate of the Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) has been safeguarded despite hostile contestation at the 71st Session of the 3rd Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City.

    LGBTIQ activists and organizations around the world quickly mobilized to voice their concerns on the implications of the hostile resolution to national governments as well as at the United Nations headquarters in New York. A joint statement endorsed by 850 organizations from 157 countries around the world, highlighted the need for states to respect the authority of the Human Rights Council and to vote in favour of upholding the SOGI Independent Expert mandate.

    ‘A lot can be accomplished when forces join hands. We are encouraged by this voting result and in the confirmation that States believe in the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. It is vital that the integrity of the Human Rights Council remains intact and is not further undermined in the Third Committee,’ stated Jessica Stern, Executive Director, OutRight Action International, the only US based LGBTIQ organization with consultative status at the United Nations.’

    The SOGI Independent Expert position on the ‘Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation, and gender identity (SOGI),’ was mandated by the passing of a historic resolution A/HRC/RES/32/2 on June 30 of this year, and is held by Vitit Muntarbhorn, a human rights expert from Thailand. A campaign of 628 nongovernmental organizations from 151 countries advocated for the adoption of the resolution and for the establishment of the position.

    In early November, Botswana, on behalf of the African Group, presented a hostile resolution on the Human Rights Council Annual Report, specifically targeting the SOGI Independent Expert Mandate. The resolution contested the legality of the creation of the mandate, essentially arguing that SOGI are not universally recognized as human rights and are not codified in international law. The resolution called for an indefinite postponement of the mandate until consensus could be reached on the definition of SOGI and the legal basis to which the mandate was created, the African Group statement read,

    ‘We are alarmed that the Council is delving into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States counter to the commitment in the United Nations Charter to respect the sovereignty of States and the principle of non-intervention. More importantly, it arises owing to the ominous usage of the two notions: sexual orientation and gender identity. We wish to state that those two notions are not and should not be linked to existing international human rights instruments.’

    In response to the African Group resolution, submitted by Botswana, Monica Tabengwa, Botswana human rights activist and director of Pan Africa ILGA commented,

    ‘We are deeply disappointed that Botswana led this fallacious move by the Africa Group to remove gains at the HRC to include SOGI protections within the existing human rights framework. Let us remind everyone that the SOGI mandate is about real people and their right to secure lives, to be free of violence and discrimination and that these lives can’t be postponed or deferred indefinitely. We deserve more from our governments.’

    The SOGI Independent Expert was created after adoption of a resolution in the Human Rights Council in June 2016, initiated by seven Latin American countries, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Uruguay. They, plus El Salvador (LAC 8), countered the African Group’s attempt to postpone the mandate by introducing an amendment to the resolution deleting the hostile paragraph.

    An explanatory note provided by the eight Latin American countries on their submitted amendment in support of preserving the SOGI mandate and the integrity of the HRC reads,

    ‘The seriousness of the consequences (…) lies in the fact that never before has a country or group of countries attempted to challenge a special procedures mandate by the Human Rights Council with an appointed and fully functioning mandate holder. (…) If the General Assembly reopens the Council’s annual report and use a selective approach to which resolution it seeks to block or defer indefinitely it would fundamentally undermine the authority granted to the Council by the General Assembly, thus having far reaching implications well beyond the specific resolution under consideration.’

    While all 193 countries in the UN General Assembly had the right to vote, only 178 exercised their vote, resulting in the passing of the LAC 8 amendment, leading to the failure of the hostile resolution and dissipation of the immediate threat against the establishment of the SOGI Independent Expert. In total, 84 countries voted in favor of the LAC 8 amendment, 77 voted against the amendment, and 17 countries abstained from voting.

    LGBTIQ civil society in the Asia and the Pacific region have vocalized their support for the SOGI Independent Expert, hoping that a representative from the region would help progress protections for people of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity. In response to the voting, Ryan Silverio, Regional Coordinator for the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus said,

    ‘Today we are reminded of the fundamental mission of the Council, and the UN’s commitment to promote human rights and equality for all. We are encouraged by the open dialogue with ASEAN member states in the lead up of the vote, and are particularly thankful to Thailand for showing leadership to protecting this mandate,’

    The failure of the proposed hostile resolution is significant not only because it reinstates the authority of the Human Rights Council, but it also allows forward movement on the work of the SOGI Independent Expert- a crucial stride in the UN’s commitment towards protecting the universality of human rights, especially for vulnerable communities. It reinforces the notion that people cannot be left behind and states must protect all people from discrimination and violence without exception.

    ‘The SOGI Independent Expert position is vital in bringing to light the horrific acts of violence and discrimination many people face because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. These abuses happen everywhere; no region or country is immune to them. Having concrete documentation showing the consequences of homophobia and transphobia on the lives of people and recommendations on how to address these challenges from an HRC Special Procedure mandate holder will help states take responsibility to protect LGBTIQ persons. It will be much harder to ignore the facts,’ commented Micah Grzywnowicz, trans activist and international advocacy advisor at RFSL, the Swedish Federation for LGBTIQ Rights.’

    While the hostile resolution did not pass today, civil society has warned that future attempts to stop the progress of the SOGI Independent Expert are not out of the question.

    The Expert will be tasked with assessing implementation of existing international human rights law, identifying best practices and gaps, raising awareness of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, engaging in dialogue and consultation with States and other stakeholders, and facilitating provision of advisory services, technical assistance, capacity-building and cooperation to help address violence and discrimination on these grounds.

    ‘As always, the fight continues to ensure that States don’t cherry pick which human rights to protect. We must continue to be vigilant and to mobilize to ensure that universality and non-discrimination triumphs at all levels. We must also ensure that we are working together to create change which will benefit all LGBTIQ people. Safeguarding human rights principles remains prime to peace and security for all people everywhere, anytime,’ said Steve Letsike, Director of Access Chapter 2, a South African LGBTIQ human rights organization.’

     

    Source: http://theindependent.sg

  • Cape Town’s Gay Mosque Provides Rare Haven

    Cape Town’s Gay Mosque Provides Rare Haven

    CAPE TOWN — Friday prayers at the People’s Mosque in Cape Town looks like any other around the Islamic world, except in this South African city the imam is openly gay and the teaching promotes homosexual rights.

    It is a stance that provokes outrage from many Muslims, but Mr Muhsin Hendricks has built up a small, loyal congregation by helping worshippers try to reconcile their sexuality and their religion.

    “There is this love-hate relationship from the Muslim community,” Mr Hendricks told AFP.

    “Sometimes they feel that I should be thrown from the highest mountain, and sometimes they appreciate that there is one imam who is willing to work with people who they are unwilling to work with.”

    Cape Town has an active gay scene, and is often described as the “gay capital” of Africa, with a district of gay-friendly restaurants, bars, guesthouses and clubs near the city centre.

    In 1996 Mr Hendricks founded “The Inner Circle”, a support group for Muslims living in Cape Town who felt rejected due to their sexual orientation, which led to him setting up the mosque five years ago.

    In contrast to the emotions that surround the explosive topic of Islam and homosexuality, the mosque offers a calm and open place for gay Muslims to worship together.

    “I got divorced at the age of 29 after being married (to a woman) for six years,” Mr Hendricks, 48, said.

    “That was the point where I just felt — no more double life. I needed to be authentic with myself, and part of that process was to come out.

    “This is who I am and if that means I am going to be killed because of my authenticity, then that is how I choose to meet God.”

    ‘HOMOPHOBIC MESSAGING’

    Today the mosque, located at the Inner Circle offices, has about 25 regular worshippers, and even offers a marriage blessing to gay couples.

    South Africa’s 1996 constitution was the first in the world to protect homosexuals’ rights, and the country is the only one in Africa that allows same-sex marriages.

    But many South Africans of all religious groups are less tolerant, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) people are often subject to discrimination and violence.

    There are about 300,000 Muslims in Cape Town and most mosque leaders in the city take a clear stand against homosexuality, even encouraging home imprisonment and “corrective treatment”.

    “Homosexuality is unacceptable and the punishment will be the fire,” Imam Pandy, leader of a mosque in Mowbray, a busy central district of Cape Town, told AFP.

    “How can you be homosexual? It is forbidden. And it is your duty as an imam or as a Muslim to go and speak to them and say ‘no, it cannot be’.”

    The Inner Circle group has worked for 20 years to support gay Muslims, often struggling to survive against overwhelming opposition from orthodox Islamic leaders.

    “The messaging that the Muslim community gets about queer issues comes from a clergy that is completely homophobic,” said Mr Abdul Karriem Matthews, programme manager at the Inner Circle.

    ‘PIONEERS OF CHANGE’

    For worshippers like Mr Zaid Philander, a local art teacher, the mosque provides a welcome refuge, as well as access to counselling after he endured a harrowing “corrective” ritual conducted by a quack “doctor” in Cape Town.

    “There are a lot of lives being destroyed based on sexuality and religion, and that needs to change,” he said. “Here they are the pioneers of this change, and this is a good place to start.

    “I choose to be in a place where I can have a healthy relationship with God, and the Inner Circle gives me the freedom to be the person I am.”

    At one recent Friday prayers attended by AFP a female visitor from the Middle East gave a sermon to about 30 people citing passages from the Koran to promote an accepting version of Islam.

    She asked not to be identified or quoted for fear of hostile reprisals in her native country, where open worship by gay Muslims would be unimaginable.

    Mr Hendricks, whose father was also an imam, travels worldwide to spread his message to other gay Muslims that the answer is to stay positive.

    “I want to… arrive at a point where we can include queer people,” he said. “I don’t see the Muslim community as the enemy.”

     

    Source: www.todayonine.com

  • Pink Dot Disappointed By New Ruling, Google Pledges Continued Support

    Pink Dot Disappointed By New Ruling, Google Pledges Continued Support

    In light of new rules that could curb foreign funding and involvement in events held at the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park, organisers of Pink Dot said they hope more Singaporeans and local companies will step forward to support them in 2017.

    Pink Dot, an annual non-profit event, organised in support of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, also said in a statement on Friday (Oct 21) that while it respects and understands the Ministry of Home Affairs’ position, it is “disappointed” by the latest clarifications from the ministry.

    “Pink Dot has always been a local movement dedicated to bringing LGBT Singaporeans closer to their friends and families and closer to Singapore society as a whole – a universal aspiration that we do not consider to be controversial or political,” said spokesman Paerin Choa.

    “We remain committed to organising and holding Pink Dot as we have done for the past eight years and we want to work closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs and other Government agencies to ensure that we remain within legal boundaries and keep the event safe for all participants, as we begin planning for next year’s Pink Dot event,” said Mr Choa.

    “As our society continues to evolve, we hope that this will be the start of an ongoing dialogue and we look forward to continue engaging with the various Government agencies to better foster understanding between the Government and the LGBT community in the long term.”

    The 2016 edition of Pink Dot had 18 corporate sponsors, including Facebook, Google, Barclays, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, BP, Bloomberg, and Twitter.

    The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) stated that foreign entities will have to apply for a permit to organise or assist in the organising of events held at the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park. This covers sponsoring, publicly promoting, or organising members or employees to participate in the event.

    Meanwhile, Singapore entities, such as local companies and non-governmental organisations, can organise or assist in the organising of an event, without the need for a permit. This is meant to “reinforce the key principle” that the Speakers’ Corner was set up primarily for Singaporeans, MHA stated.

    MHA also clarified that Singapore entities refer to those which are incorporated or registered in Singapore and controlled by a majority of Singapore citizens. This means many of Pink Dot’s foreign sponsors, which are registered and incorporated in Singapore, would not qualify as a Singapore entity, and would need to apply for a permit.

    GOOGLE BACKS PINK DOT

    At least one sponsor has committed to taking the extra step of applying for a permit in order to continue supporting Pink Dot.

    When contacted by Channel NewsAsia, a Google spokesman said: “We’ve been proud supporters of Pink Dot since 2011 and we will continue to show our commitment to diversity and inclusion. So we will apply for a permit to support Pink Dot in 2017 if required by this new regulation. We hope that these new rules will not limit public discussion on important issues.”

    Another past sponsor, JP Morgan said via a spokesman that the company is “committed to promoting equality in our workplace and encourage a supportive and inclusive culture”. Channel NewsAsia has reached out to six other past sponsors of Pink, including BP, which said it had no comment.

    Other entities which have organised events at Hong Lim Park include the YMCA, but its head of corporate affairs Samuel Ng told Channel NewsAsia that he believes the YMCA “won’t be affected” by the new rules, as its past Proms @ the Park events were held at the main lawn ‎of Hong Lim Park, not at the Speaker’s Corner.

    “The administration and all is quite different,” said Mr Ng, referring to whether an entity applies to hold an event at the Speaker’s Corner or at the park. “(Our events) would be under the community shelter that manages the park.”

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • MHA: Foreign Companies Need Permit To Sponsor, Promote Or Participate In Speakers’ Corner Events

    MHA: Foreign Companies Need Permit To Sponsor, Promote Or Participate In Speakers’ Corner Events

    Foreign companies will need a permit to sponsor, publicly promote or get its employees to participate in events at the Speakers’ Corner, stated the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Friday afternoon (Oct 21).

    For the first time, the ministry made clear what a Singapore entity was: those incorporated or registered in Singapore and controlled by a majority of Singapore citizens.

    The entity’s directors must be mostly Singaporean, and the majority of its ownership must be held by Singaporeans or one or more Singapore companies.

    Meanwhile, the ministry is loosening rules for local entities organising events at the Speakers’ Corner. From next month, Singapore companies or non-government organisations no longer need permits to hold events at the Speakers’ Corner. Now, only Singapore citizens are exempted.

    In its news release on the amendments to the rules, the ministry reiterated that the Speakers’ Corner was set up in 2000 for Singaporeans to express their views on issues that concern them.

    “The Government’s position has always been that foreign entities should not interfere in our domestic issues, especially those of a political or controversial nature,” said the MHA. “The amendments reinforce the key principle that the Speakers’ Corner was set up primarily for Singaporeans.”

    MHA is also extending the rules to those who participate at Speakers’ Corner events through remote means. So foreign entities will also need a permit if they speak through teleconferecing or pre-recorded messages at the Speakers’ Corner.

    These changes come on the back of reviews to Speakers’ Corner rules which the MHA started in June. The ministry had wanted to “make it clear that foreign entities should not fund, support or influence” events held at Speakers’ Corner, such as June 4’s Pink Dot – the annual lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rally.

    This year’s Pink Dot – the eighth such – attracted 18 sponsors including multinational companies such as Google, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Visa and General Electric.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Championing LGBT Equality Does Not Necessarily Mean Being Pro-LGBT

    Championing LGBT Equality Does Not Necessarily Mean Being Pro-LGBT

    I refer to the report “Chan Chun Sing urges youth to go beyond relying on good grades for jobs” (Sept 24).

    Offering his personal views on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing said: ““I’m not going to discriminate … I’m not a sex policeman.”

    When we have a law like Section 377A, however, which criminalises male gay sex but not female gay sex, then it is effectively a “sex policeman” and discriminates against gay males. Mr Chan’s comments seem incongruous with the current situation.

    Also, people supportive of LGBT equality are not “pro-LGBT” per se, not in the way that it would be seen as elevating LGBT people above others nor be seen as morally equivalent to those who are “anti-LGBT”.

    For example, if some people are racist against blacks, and there are laws or social programmes that promote general racial equality, then it would be inaccurate to claim that equality legislation is pro-black.

    Likewise, it is incorrect to portray equality for all, including LGBT people, as being pro-LGBT.

    LGBT activists tend to speak out against bullying of LGBT people and also bullying in general because they tend to see or experience the harm of bullying first-hand and are inclined to try to stop it.

    Let us not confuse this with being pro-LGBT per se. People who speak out against bullying of blacks or racist bullying in general are not generally seen as being pro-such-and-such a race.

    I also see support for things like proper relationship and marriage equality not so much as pro-LGBT but as pro-marriage.

    Decades ago in the United States, some areas outlawed mixed-race marriage, but when that was overturned, it helped to improve the relationships of those couples. And this has a positive knock-on effect on society.

    As a married heterosexual Singaporean, my marriage would not be affected if same-sex marriage were ever allowed. It is not as if mine would suddenly crumble because some other same-sex couple could marry.

    There is no rational basis for claiming harm to marriage where same-sex marriage is allowed.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com