Fight Discrimination in Europe Campaign Work on LGBTI rights – overview

1. Fight Discrimination in Europe CampaignWork on LGBTI rights – overview 15th Annual Conference of ILGA-Europe 28 October 2011 Turin

2. Themes of the Campaign • Discrimination of Roma • Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity • Race-based and faith-based discrimination

3. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity Support of Pride events, fighting homophobic and transphobic policies/ practices, promoting positive measures for LGBTI rights

4. Amnesty International’s work on Prides The aim of our work is to strengthen the enjoyment of the freedom of expression and assembly by the LGBTI movement in Europe by: • Providing support to Pride Marches/Events at risk through advocacy, campaigning and media work, and participation of local AI sections and AI activistsfrom other countries • Providing support to the LGBTI movement in countries at high risk through country-based work and European solidarity actions • Providing support to Pride events to strengthen LGBTI organizations in countries and regions where Amnesty International is undertaking work on LGBTI rights • Encouraging AI sections to participate in Pride events in their own countries by expressing AI concerns on LGBTI rights and common messages across Europe

5. Amnesty International’s work on Prides (cont.) Criteria to select Prides for full AI participation: • Pride march/event in need for support to enhance its visibility, success and safety • Existing LGBTI organization capable and willing to receive AI’s support • Capacity of LGBTI organization to create a sustainable dynamic in the country that can be supported externally • Capacity of LGBTI organization to ensure a minimum level of coordination between AI and local authorities during the Pride march/event • AI planned work on LGBTI rights on that country, or minimum capacity to maintain reactive work, to ensure sustainability of AI’s support after the Pride march/event • Minimum level of security, where the Pride march/event is authorized, and is likely to benefit from minimum adequate police protection  Consultation with ILGA-Europe and local LGBTI organizations is key

6. Amnesty International’s work on Prides (cont.) • Comprehensive support (advocacy, campaigning and media work + participation of AI international delegations of activists) • Baltic Pride: since 2009 (before: Riga Pride) – delegations of about 70-100 activists • Belgrade Pride (2010) – delegation of about 20 activists • Budapest and Bratislava Prides (2011) – delegations of about 30-50 activists • Support through tailor-made advocacy, campaigning and EUR solidarity action • Slavic Pride (2010 and 2011): more than 15,000 signatures sent to St. Petersburg Governor in 2011 • Chisinau and Nikolaev Prides (2010): media work • Belgrade Pride (2011): media work + follow-up with SR authorities (joint letter by all AI EUR directors) • Small scale support to Sofia Pride

7. Amnesty International’s work on Prides (cont.) Outcome / impact • Baltic Pride 2010: first ever Pride to take place in Vilnius; successful and with adequate police protection; organizers said that AI support/presence helped them to improve relationship with local authorities, increase security and visibility of the Prides, and bring the human rights perspective in the public discourse • Belgrade Pride (2010): first ever Pride authorized in Serbia. However, violence that sorrounded the event overshadowed it, and led the Serbian authorities to ban it this year on the ground of security concerns • Bratislava and Budapest Prides (2011): more adequate protection by police and increased visibility; increased cooperation between LGBTI organizations and local Amnesty sections – and also between LGBTI NGOs from different countries

8. Amnesty International’s work on Prides (cont.) Outcome / impact • Impact is stronger when AI support is combined with other international support (e.g. participation of ILGA-Europe, MEPs, ambassadors from EU countries…) • Impact is stronger when AI is capable of comprehensive support, including its presence in the marches • Not enough impact when it comes to work on Prides at high risk (apart from – partially – Belgrade Pride 2010) So what to do to achieve more impact and ensure more international support to Prides at high risk ???????????

9. Example of our work on homophobic and transphobic legislation: Lithuania • Law on the protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information (2009): prohibiting information information that “agitates” for homosexual / bisexual relations • Urgent actions and lobbying work first to stop, then to repeal / review the legislation • Signs of success: • Presidential veto - though after overturned by 2nd vote by the Parliament • EP Resolution (September 2009) expressing serious concern and calling for the FRA to deliver a legal opinion  international pressure • Set up of a Group of Expert by the new President to review the law

10. Example of our work on legislation: Lithuania (cont.) • Some amendments adopted in December 2009 • No reference anymore to prohibition of information that “agitates” for homosexual / bisexual relations, but still some concerns • Now all information on all kinds of sexual relations are defined detrimental  concerns about freedom of information and expression and the right to education • Worrying reference to prohibition of promotion of "any concept of the family other than that set down in the Constitution“, i.e. marriage is between a man and a woman  likely to result in discriminatory application and affect freedom of LGBTI activists to advocate for gay marriage or other concerns • Attempt to amend Administrative Code would allow to implement this law

11. Example of our work on legislation: Lithuania (cont.) • Homophobic amendment to the Administrative Code: • In its first version, sanctioning the “public promotion of homosexuality” with a fine (approx. 580-2,900 EUR)  advocacy, campaigning and media work • Signs of success: Legal Committee of Parliament rejects the bill recognizing that it is discriminatory However, now a new version has been presented by the MP author of the 1st version and should be discussed by the Parliament this autumn, sanctioning: • “the public denigration of constitutional moral values and the principles of family stipulated in the Constitution and the organization of events contradicting social morality”  ongoing advocacy work – more hope following sentence by Constitutional Court dismissing restrictive interpretation of family

12. Example of our work on legislation: Lithuania (cont.) • Transphobic amendment to Civil Code prohibiting gender reassignment surgery • This is the answer of the proponents of this bill to the ECtHR ruling (2007) condemning Lithuania for not having adopted yet any specific law to define the procedure and conditions for gender reassignment • Blatantly discriminatory, it would also establish that civil registry entries concerning gender reassignment surgeries performed abroad be amended by court decision only  Ongoing advocacy work, considering membership action

13. Example of our work on legislation: Lithuania (cont.) • Law on Audiovisual Information (October 2010) • Allegedly by “mistake of the translator”, this law transposing EU Audiovisual Directive omitted to prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and on the contrary prohibited any AV information on sexual orientation • Though this acknowledgment by Minister of Culture, no corrective action  advocacy work • Signs of success: modified law adopted on 30 June by Parliament – now prohibiting discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation

14. Work to support positive measures: new EU Equality Directive • Proposal for a new Directive on social security, education, access to good and services (including housing) – covering sexual orientation (presented by the European Commission: July 2008) • Stuck at the EU Council for lack of political will • Advocacy and campaigning work in cooperation with other EUR anti-discrimination NGOs (ILGA-Europe at the forefront) • Very few signs of success, but anti-discrimination NGOs will try again to put the issue on the EU agenda first by raising more awareness of general public  more campaigning from mid-2012

15. Work on a new EU Equality Directive (cont.) • Petition targeting Germany (the EU Member State most vocal in opposing the Directive) • More than 50,000 signatures - though no sexy topic  • However Germany did not change its position (opposition to Directive even in government coalition agreement)  need for bottom-up pressure How to raise more awareness? Giving more concrete examples of what discrimination – and lack of protection – means in common life  “fake game” concept: an on-line application that lead the player through different steps, corresponding to different grounds of discrimination  the challenge is now to reach more people, particularly in countries hostile to the Directive (Germany, Italy, Malta)

16. For more information...

17. THANK YOU!