Author: admin

The Lira bookstore chain was fined 12 million forints. This fine was imposed due to the sale of Alice Osman’s comic book “Heartstopper”, which tells the story of the romantic relationship of two young men.

Heartstopper сomics: Lira fined for violating Hungarian laws

Recorded in the history of the Hungarian book trade, a fine of 12 million forints, equivalent to approximately 32,000 euros, was imposed on the Lira bookstore chain for selling books with homosexual content in an “inappropriate form” – without a clear plastic wrapper. Lira, the main competitor of state-owned Libri, faced such a fine for the first time in its history. The object of the dispute was Alice Osman’s comic book “Heartstopper”, which tells about the romantic relationship of two young men..

According to Hungarian law, books with content considered unsuitable for children must be packaged in transparent film to prevent access to the content by minors. However, Lira broke this rule by selling the “Heartstopper” comic without such packaging. As a result, they were fined a record amount, causing outrage and controversy in the community.

According to Cristiana Nyari, Líra’s creative director, there are many ambiguities in the Child Protection Act, making it difficult for retailers to comply if they do not understand what is required of them. “One can argue about what books should be provided to children aged 3-4 years, whether they should contain sexuality or not. But this decision should be made by the parents, as previously stated by the state. However, now the state is trying to interfere in everything. It is absolutely unacceptable for teenagers aged 16 or 17 to have someone else determine what they are allowed to read,” Nyari said. Líra management said it would use all available legal means to challenge the decision and have it overturned.

Ban on visiting the exhibition for minors: the situation in Budapest

The Hungarian National Museum has banned minors from visiting the international exhibition World Press Photo, even with parental consent. The decision came after several photographs in the exhibition depicted members of the LGBT community in the Philippines. Parliamentarians said the images violated a recently passed law banning the dissemination of LGBT propaganda to minors. Now, persons under 18 years of age cannot visit the museum, even with parental permission. The exhibition organizers expressed their apologies and noted that this is the first time such a situation has occurred in Europe.

This decision caused public discontent and led to widespread debate about freedom of expression and access to information. Many critics argue that banning minors from the exhibition is a form of censorship and a restriction of citizens’ rights to receive information. The organizers of the exhibition expressed regret over the situation and emphasized that their goal was simply to show the diversity of world journalistic photography. However, the museum and the deputies who supported the ban insist on the need to comply with the law and protect the rights of minors.

The ban on visiting the exhibition caused a stir not only within the country, but also abroad. Many international human rights organizations expressed their disagreement with this decision, calling it discriminatory and violating the principles of freedom of speech. They call on the Hungarian authorities to reconsider this decision and ensure equal access to cultural events for all citizens, regardless of age. At the same time, supporters of the ban argue that this is a necessary measure to protect young people from negative influences and propaganda that could affect their worldview and moral values.

The decision by the Russian Supreme Court, recognizing the “international LGBT social movement” (which doesn’t exist) as “extremist” and prohibiting its activities in Russia, was strongly condemned by the European Union. Josep Borrell, the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, made this statement.

As a senior EU diplomat noted, the Russian court’s decision creates obstacles for LGBTIQ people to exercise their rights and maintain their dignity due to fears of unjustified persecution. This decision raises serious concerns in the international community as it threatens the foundations of freedom and equality before the law. Such actions highlight the need to protect human rights and  Prevent bias stemming from sexual orientation or gender identity. “Against the backdrop of years of violations of the rights of the LGBTIQ community that began under Putin’s presidency, this decision is designed to continue the persecution of the LGBTIQ community in Russia and is aimed at suppressing civil society and those who fearlessly defend human rights,” he said.

Borrell reiterated that the EU insists on the principle of non-discrimination against people and calls on the Russian Federation to immediately end arbitrary suppression, adhere to its global commitments  and ensure “respect, protection and exercise of human rights equally for all.”

The ban was imposed by the Supreme Court of Russia. the activities of an LGBT organization that was claimed to be non-existent

Prior to this, the Supreme Court of Russia, at the request of the Ministry of Justice, declared the activities of the “international LGBT social movement” extremist, which, according to human rights activists, does not actually exist. This court decision was preceded by the adoption of two laws in Russia aimed at harshly persecuting the LGBT community.

First, Russia expanded the application of the law on “LGBT propaganda” to adults – previously it only applied to children. The decision caused significant protest both nationally and globally as many considered it discriminatory and a violation of basic human rights regarding freedom of expression and assembly.

After this, Russian legislation introduced a ban on transgender transition, which included not just altering the gender designation in official paperwork , but also a ban on access to medical procedures necessary for physical transformation. This  prohibition has sparked significant concerns among the medical community and human rights advocates as it hinders the ability to obtain healthcare and threatens the health and well-being of transgender people.

These legislative changes have sparked intense public debate and have been the subject of criticism from many global.

Non-governmental organizations and human rights advocates are urging Russia to adhere to global human rights norms and guarantee equal rights and protections for all its individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Supreme Court of India has declined the proposal for the legalization of same-sex marriage, underlining the significance of upholding the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. A panel of five judges from the Supreme Court concluded that such a decision should fall within the purview of Parliament, the primary legislative authority in the nation, and that amendments to the existing Marriage Law were outside their jurisdiction.

In India, over 21 million people, constituting more than 1.5% of the population, openly identify themselves as part of the LGBTQ+ community, with the actual number potentially being even higher.

The Indian government has expressed its opposition to legislative alterations aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage, characterizing the arguments in favor of the proposition as “reflective of urban elite perspectives” and contending that they do not align with the traditional Indian family structure of husband, wife, and children.

The viewpoints among the Supreme Court judges were divided with a ratio of 2:3. Chief Justice Dhananjaya Chandrachud, in his concluding statement, emphasized that “the concept of marriage lacks a universally applicable definition” and argued that the matter of recognizing and regulating same-sex marriage should be entrusted to Parliament and state legislatures.

According to his perspective, the institution of marriage primarily gains legal significance through its regulation by the state and the provision of certain material benefits. In this context, the court does not possess the authority to make determinations regarding this institution, as the country’s Constitution does not explicitly establish an individual’s direct right to marriage, unlike, for example, the right to life and personal liberty.

Nonetheless, Justice Chandrachud underscored that certain facets of marital relationships reflect constitutional values, including the right to human dignity, life, and personal liberty. He also highlighted that the court should refrain from intervening in policy matters and should not have the authority to amend the Special Marriage Act.

The second most senior judge in the Supreme Court, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, underscored that while same-sex relationships have been acknowledged in India since ancient times, legal recognition has only been extended to unions between individuals of different genders.

Additionally, he emphasized that while the court cannot confer the right to marry upon LGBTQ+ citizens, it does possess the authority to provide recommendations to the government. Notably, he stressed the importance of ensuring that the rights of same-sex couples are safeguarded in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Multidirectional emotions: disappointment and approval in connection with the Supreme Court decision

The reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling has been diverse and mixed. Those directly impacted by these developments expressed natural disappointment.

“We pay the same taxes as heterosexual couples and encounter the same, if not more, challenges. Yet, we still feel like second-class citizens,” voiced Archie Dutt, a gay student from Delhi.

Pia Chanda, who has been living with her partner for 34 years, criticized the Supreme Court for essentially “shifting responsibility” to Parliament and evading making its own decisions.

However, lawyer and writer Tanushree Bhalla believes that the court acted in accordance with the law and hopes that “the government will heed the court’s recommendations and take the necessary measures to put an end to the discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals on a daily basis, both in legal matters and in everyday life.”

She expressed optimism that the legal framework will evolve in step with societal progress. Adish Aggarwal, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, partially echoed her sentiments. He expressed satisfaction that the court aligned with the government’s stance, asserting that the matter of legalizing same-sex marriage falls beyond the court’s jurisdiction and should exclusively be determined by the Indian Parliament.

However, it’s noteworthy that even prior to the decision, he had voiced opposition to the prospect of legalizing same-sex marriage, deeming it incompatible with “the prevailing system in India.”

Many activists advocating for the rights of sexual minorities had hoped that, if not marriage, at least civil unions for same-sex couples would become lawful following the court’s ruling. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court denied them this opportunity, emphasizing that this issue should also be left to parliament’s discretion. Additionally, the court did not permit same-sex couples to formally adopt children.

Although the judges held differing opinions, they all arrived at the same consensus that legislative amendments fall under the purview of parliament, with the court’s role solely being the interpretation of laws.

While Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul held the view that it is the government’s duty to ensure LGBTQ+ citizens are granted “a complete spectrum of rights and privileges” on par with those enjoyed by heterosexual couples, Justice Bhat dissented, arguing that such demands should not be placed on the state. The second unanimous decision was to endorse the government’s proposal to establish an expert panel to examine the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights.

Recommendations to the government and the police

 

Towards the end of the proceedings, Justice Chandrachud presented a set of recommendations to the government, which included the following key points:

Guarantee that the queer community is shielded from discrimination based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Ensure that LGBTQ+ individuals face no discrimination when accessing goods and services available to all other members of society.

Undertake initiatives to enhance public awareness about LGBTQ+ individuals and their identity, emphasizing its naturalness and dispelling misconceptions of it being a mental disorder.

Establish a dedicated service accessible to LGBTQ+ citizens who have encountered persecution or violence in any form.

Publish information detailing the availability of shelters for LGBTQ+ citizens in all regions, offering them refuge in instances of violence or discrimination.

Put an immediate end to practices by medical professionals or others aimed at altering gender identity or sexual orientation.

The police also received a list of recommendations, including the following directives:

Prohibit the harassment of same-sex couples through summons to police stations or home visits solely for the purpose of verifying their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Respect the choices of queer individuals who do not wish to return to their families.

When queer individuals approach the police with complaints of domestic harassment, the police are mandated to investigate the legitimacy of these complaints and ensure the personal freedom and safety of the complainants.