The First Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice ruled Wednesday that homophobic epithets are not protected under the nation’s “freedom of expression” laws. The case dealt with two rival journalists who publicly criticized each other’s work using such words as “maricones” (“faggots”) and “puñal” (“faggot rapist/predator”). According to a press release from the Court (translated by Andrés Duque), such language is discriminatory even if it is used jokingly:

The First Chamber determined that homophobic expressions or — in other words the frequent allegations that homosexuality is not a valid option but an inferior condition — constitute discriminatory statements even if they are expressed jokingly, since they can be used to encourage, promote and justify intolerance against gays.

For this reason, the Chamber determined that the terms used in this specific case — made up of the words “maricones” and “puñal” — were offensive. These are expressions which are certainly deeply rooted in the language of Mexican society but the truth is that the practices of a majority of participants of a society cannot trump violations of basic rights.

In addition, the First Chamber determined that these expressions were irrelevant since their usage was not needed in resolving the dispute taking place as related to the mutual criticism between two journalists from Puebla. Therefore it was determined that the expressions “maricones” and “puñal”, just as they were used in this specific case, were not protected by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of Canada similarly ruled last month that anti-gay rhetoric is a violation of the country’s hate speech laws.

These landmark rulings by the America’s North American neighbors come as the United States Supreme Court prepares to hear two cases related to same-sex marriage.

William Whatcott

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the nation’s laws against hate speech do, in fact, restrict anti-gay rhetoric, regardless of whether it reflects religious beliefs or not. The case dealt with William Whatcott of Saskatchewan, who regularly protests in public spaces with signs that say things like “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools!” and “Sodomites in our Public Schools.” According to the Court’s unanimous decision, Whatcott’s religious beliefs do not entitle him to spread messages that are harmful and marginalizing to a whole group of people:

Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect.  Finding that certain expression falls within political speech does not close off the enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech.  Hate speech may often arise as a part of a larger public discourse but it is speech of a restrictive and exclusionary kind.  Political expression contributes to our democracy by encouraging the exchange of opposing views.  Hate speech is antithetical to this objective in that it shuts down dialogue by making it difficult or impossible for members of the vulnerable group to respond, thereby stifling discourse.  Speech that has the effect of shutting down public debate cannot dodge prohibition on the basis that it promotes debate.  Section 14 of the Code provides an appropriate means by which to protect almost the entirety of political discourse as a vital part of freedom of expression.  It extricates only an extreme and marginal type of expression which contributes little to the values underlying freedom of expression and whose restriction is therefore easier to justify.

A prohibition is not overbroad for capturing expression targeting sexual behaviour.  Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself.  If expression targeting certain sexual behaviour is framed in such a way as to expose persons of an identifiable sexual orientation to what is objectively viewed as detestation and vilification, it cannot be said that such speech only targets the behaviour.  It quite clearly targets the vulnerable group.

Canada’s laws differ from the U.S.’s in terms of what limitations can be placed on free speech, so a similar law would not likely be upheld back in the States. But the Court’s ruling is notable for the sensible way it addresses sexual orientation, ensuring that attacking the behavior unique to a group of people is the same as attacking the people themselves.

Conservatives regularly try to discount the very existence of gay people by reducing their identities to merely their sexual behavior. This distinction is artificial and specifically designed to negate the full life experiences of LGBT people and their families.

The Russia Parliament, the Duma, passed the first reading of a bill banning “propaganda of homosexualism” today with only one dissenting vote and one abstention — leaving the proposal just two more readings and President Vladimir Putin’s signature away from being law. It is unclear how “propaganda” and “homosexualism” will be ultimately be defined and enforced, but the law would punish public events and dissemination of information on LGBT lifestyles to minors with fines of up to $16,000 if passed.

The bill has caused an outcry from the global LGBT movement and domestic protests out of concerns the discriminatory nature will be used to effectively silence the LGBT community in Russia; Just earlier this week activists opposing the law were assaulted and twenty LGBT activists and militant Orthodox Christian activists were detained during protests outside the Duma this morning.

A similar local law in St. Petersburg previously used to arrest participants in pride parades was upheld by the Russian Supreme Court last year, but limited in scope to enforcement against direct appeals to minors to engage in homosexual activity. Other former Soviet states including Ukraine have promoted similar anti-LGBT equality agendas.

Russian lawmakers have been considering a nationwide law that would ban “homosexual propaganda,” modeled off similar laws that have been passed in St. Petersburg and other cities. Though the bill claims to protect minors from “propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality, and transgenderism,” the term “propaganda” is not defined, and thus such a law could essentially ban all free speech on LGBT issues.

Over the weekend, LGBT groups protested the proposed legislation in both Voronezh and Moscow and experienced physical violence in retaliation. Watch videos of the brutal assaults on the peaceful protesters:

RT reports today that consideration of the bill has been indefinitely postponed, but its proponents suspect a conspiracy among its opponents is preventing it from advancing.

Last June, Utah’s Davis County School District caved to the complaints of 25 parents and removed the book In Our Mothers’ House by Patricia Polacco from general circulation in the elementary school library. The book, which features a family with two moms, was not outright banished, but was held behind the librarian’s desk such that students could not access it without first obtaining permission from their parents. The ACLU filed suit in November, and now the school has come to its senses and returned the book to general circulation. In a letter explaining the decision, the district’s assistant superintendent, Pamela Park, explains that a committee actually had positive things to say about In Our Mothers’ House, including that it will help prevent bullying:

I have considered the written summary and recommendations of the District Reconsideration Committee. I agree with and support the Committee’s conclusions regarding the book as follows:

• “Removing the book completely is not a good option.”
• “We all know many non-traditional families” with students attending our schools.
• “It could help those children in same sex families see their family in a book.”
• “[T]his book teaches acceptance and tolerance.”
• “The book could help prevent bullying of kids from same sex families.”
• “It could be used by a family to discuss the issues . . .”

Parents can still restrict their children from checking out certain books, but that policy would not prevent students from reading the book in the library.

Another wrinkle in this situation is that Utah’s sex education law prevents the use of instructional materials that include “the advocacy of homosexuality.” However, the ACLU argued and the school agreed that library books not incorporated into a curriculum are not covered by the law.

The parents who complained about Polacco’s book may now have to deal with questions about same-sex families. It’s quite likely, however, that they may have already faced such questions given the existence of same-sex families in the school their kids attend. Now, those kids have one extra resource for understanding the diversity that surrounds them.

David Cecil after being arrested in Uganda. (Photo Credit: Stephen Wandera, AP)

British theatre producer David Cecil was arrested back in September for his work on the play The River and the Mountain, which features a gay character who is ultimately killed by his own employees. Prosecutors claimed the play was staged “against lawful orders,” but a Ugandan court has dismissed those charges. Now, his lawyer is prepared to sue the government for malicious prosecution:

A win for freedom in Uganda! A case against a British script producer, David Cecil (accused of staging a “homosexual play”-The Mountain and the River and disobeying “lawful” orders) has been dismissed for lack of evidence by the Magistrates Court at Makindye. We can now sue the State for the malicious prosecution. This is the type of work I’m willing to do for the rest of my life. No man should be arrested, detained, charged and imprisoned arbitrarily for expressing himself. Rights and Freedoms are inherent and not granted by cultural and religious beliefs/institutions, families, parents, the Government or the State.

Despite the incessant anticipation of anti-gay legislation and hostile climate for Ugandan gays and lesbians, the Ugandan courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of LGBT advocates when they are unfairly targeted by the media or government forces.