The now-older Australian man convicted of the 1987 gay-bashing murder of a man he thought was gay received what amounted to a life sentence in a Sydney courtroom late last month.
NSW Supreme Court Justice Dina Yehia sentenced on October 20, Stanley Bruce Early, 77, to a maximum of 22 years in prison for the murder of Raymond Keam, 43, in a public park in the early morning hours of January 13, 1987. According to the Sydney Morning Herald,the sentence includes a mandatory 15 years and six months behind bars, meaning Early won’t be eligible for parole until the age of 91 in 2037.
Keam, was a martial arts expert but was suffering from an injury the night he was murdered. He identified as straight, was divorced from one woman and in a relationship with another. He had two children.
Keam was attacked just outside a public restroom in Allison Park by “ringleader” Early and a small group of youths looking to assault gay men who cruised the park in search of gay sex. Keam was beaten to the ground and stomped about the head and chest. The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be one or more fatal blows to the head. His lifeless body was discovered the following morning.
Yehia described Early’s actions as “an affront to civilized society” and chastised him during sentencing.
“The offender continues to deny his involvement in the murder,” Yehia noted according to QNews. “He has shown no remorse whatsoever.”
At the time of the murder, Early was known as Stanley “Spider” Sutton and had a hardscrabble upbringing. He reportedly struggled with his sexuality (he now identifies as bisexual). He was also a survivor of sexual assault as a child and after a stint in jail. He was out on bail at the time of the murder after being charged with committing an indecent act against a 12-year-old boy.
Early was arrested at his home in Victoria two months after a $1 million reward was offered for information leading to a conviction in the case. He was subsequently extradited to neighboring New South Wales where he has been held in jail during the trial.
Yehia said she was unable to say with certainty that Early delivered the fatal blow or blows and that she did not believe he warranted a life sentence. However, she did say his actions directly caused Keam’s death and that there was a “real chance” he would die in prison.
Hungary’s cultural minister on Monday fired the director of the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest, accusing him of failing to comply with a contentious law that bans the display of LGBTQ content to minors.
The dismissal of Laszlo L. Simon, who became director of the museum for a five-year term in 2021, came after Hungary’s government determined in late October that five photos on display at the prestigious World Press Photo exhibition violated the law restricting children’s access to content that depicts homosexuality or gender change.
The museum subsequently put a notice on its website and at the entrance to the World Press Photo exhibition — which showcases outstanding photojournalism — that the collection was restricted to visitors over 18.
Writing on his Facebook page on Monday, Simon — a member of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party and a former secretary of state with the cultural ministry — said that neither he nor the museum had deliberately violated Hungary’s 2021 “child protection” law.
“I take note of the decision, but I cannot accept it,” Simon wrote. “As a father of four and a grandparent, I firmly reject the idea that our children should be protected from me or from the institution I run.”
The photographs in question document a community of elderly LGBTQ+ people in the Philippines who have shared a home for decades and cared for each other as they age. The photos show some community members dressed in drag and wearing makeup.
Hungary’s government, led by nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has restricted the availability of materials that “promote” or depict homosexuality to minors in media, including television, films, advertisements and literature.
While the government insists that the law is designed to insulate children from what it calls sexual propaganda, it has prompted legal action from 15 countries in the European Union, with the bloc’s Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling it “a disgrace.”
In a statement, the cultural ministry wrote that Simon had been dismissed over failing to comply with the law, and “by engaging in conduct which made it impossible for him to continue his employment.”
Hungary’s cultural ministry did not respond to a request for comment.
This week, Brazil’s Congress held an important public hearing on harassment against teachers for topics they address in the classroom. Sponsored by lawmakers Talíria Petrone, Erika Hilton, and Luciene Cavalcante, it was the first such hearing held by the Education and Human Rights committees of the Chamber of Deputies.
For about a decade, federal, state, and municipal officials in Brazil have used pernicious legal and political tactics to undermine educational content on gender and sexuality, claiming such information constitutes “indoctrination” or “gender ideology.” These tactics have weaponized education for political gain among a conservative segment of the population and increased harassment of teachers. Today’s hearing also addressed teachers being harassed for addressing racism in the classroom.
Age-appropriate and scientifically accurate information on gender and sexuality for children and adolescents is protected under the rights to education and nondiscrimination under Brazilian and international law. Youth need this information to live healthy and safe lives. Likewise, introducing and discussing in the classroom topics such as racism helps foster acceptance of diversity and nondiscrimination.
In a 2022 report, Human Rights Watch analyzed 217 bills presented and laws enacted designed to forbid gender and sexuality education in municipal and state schools. Teachers we spoke with said they were harassed for addressing gender and sexuality, including by elected officials and community members. Some teachers faced administrative proceedings for covering such material, while others were summoned to provide statements to the police and other officials.
Brazil’s Supreme Court has served as an important check on laws banning gender and sexuality education, striking down eight such laws in 2020. Yet, teachers and education experts say the negative climate has created a “chilling effect” on some teachers’ willingness to talk about gender and sexuality, and other topics in class.
Today’s hearing is an important recognition of the struggle Brazilian teachers have had in simply doing their job. Lawmakers at all levels of Brazilian government should immediately withdraw bills or revoke laws that infringe upon the rights of students to learn about gender, sexuality, and other topics such as racism. The federal government should support teachers who suffer attacks and continue to ensure all adolescents and other children are given the information they need.
Canadians came out in force to rally behind trans youth and protest a policy which would see youngsters forcefully outed to their parents.
Hundreds of people, including trans kids and their supportive families, gathered in the Saskatchewan cities of Saskatoon, Regina and Lloydminster in opposition to Bill 137, also known as the Parent’s Bill of Rights.
The legislation, which became law last week, was introduced by Saskatchewan Party education minister Jeremy Cockrill last week and outlines a number of rights parents have regarding their children’s education, including access to the pupil’s school file and being able to see what sexual-health content is being taught.
Controversially, the bill also contains a policy stating parental consent must be given for a pupil to use “their preferred name, gender identity, and/or gender expression” at school.
Speaking with the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, rally co-organizer Blake Tait said: “Children deserve a space where they feel safe, included and affirmed.
“We know this will not always be their homes: Give children their schools.”
Tait told the newspaper he started his social transition when he was 14, by using a new name, pronouns and clothes at school.
Now 23, he said whilst the reaction of his immediate family was “lovely” his extended family’s response was less positive and left him “trapped in a hard place”.
“With the new legislation, more students will face this — and worse — with no choice in the matter,” Tait explained.
“No opportunity to go at their own pace […] Youth are going back into the closet, and youth are terrified for the lives of their friends.”
In an interview with CBC, one parent of a trans child – who moved from the UK to Saskatchewan a number of years ago – described the situation as “really awful and scary”.
“I thought we were in a progressive, safe community and province,” said Roberta Cain, whose son Silas is 15.
Cain’s son told the newspaper being “forced to come out can be so traumatizing and life-threatening” and so “having a safe place to experiment is such an important thing”.
“I am so hated for just existing and being who I am. So many younger kids who are finding out who they are and want to have a safe space are at such a risk because some people just don’t like us,” Silas said.
The policy will create “very real harms”
During the protest, Saskatoon city councillor Mairin Loewen addressed the crowd, telling them: “Kids are full humans. They’re not partial humans. They have the same rights as any other human, and those rights cannot be trumped or overridden by the political whims and desires of adults.”
She added there is “too much at stake” and “all need this sense of safety and freedom in order to be ourselves and to become ourselves”.
Loewen’s speech, quoted by LGBTQ Nation, continued: “The evidence is clear.
“This legislation is harmful. Expert after expert has been emerging to identify the risks of this legislation, and the very real harms it will create.”
The bill was passed after lawmakers involved section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a clause which gives provincial legislatures the ability to override parts of the charter for a period of five years.
In response to this move, human rights commissioner Heather Kuttai – who has a trans son – sent a letter to premier Scott Moe tending her immediate resignation.
“A child’s rights must always take precedence over a parent’s obligations and responsibilities. My first concern is that this [bill] is going to hurt kids,” Kuttai wrote, saying the policy is something she “cannot be a part of”.
Adding she does not want to be “associated with a provincial government that takes away the rights of children, especially vulnerable children”.
An LGBTQ+ rights group in Afghanistan is calling the international community’s acceptance of Taliban rule a “betrayal of humanity” and is demanding justice for queer people from the United Nations, human rights organizations, and countries that “claim to support human rights.”
Rainbow Afghanistan details a litany of abuses against the queer community by the Taliban, which returned to power two years ago as American forces withdrew from the country 20 years after the 9/11/2001 attacks.
“For homosexuals,” a Taliban judge said at the time, “there can only be two punishments: either stoning, or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him.”
Since then, members of the LGBTQ+ community have been mysteriously killed or disappeared, arrested, “tortured and sexually assaulted in prisons, and many were stoned to death in distant provinces and, in the worst case, sexually exploited,” the letter details, while “a large number of members of the LGBT community lost their lives due to suicide,” including lesbians and transgender women who have been “forced into marriage” against their will.
“The world has remained silent” in the face of “widespread and systematic crime against humanity,” the letter from Rainbow Afghanistan declares. “The eyes and ears of the world are not willing to see and hear.”
The group documents the abduction of at least ten members of their own organization at the hands of the Taliban, and describes the existence of “private prisons for members of the LGBT community in large provinces in parts of Afghanistan.”
“According to our findings, at least two transgender individuals under the age of 19 were transferred to one of these prisons after being identified by the Taliban in Herat, where they were tortured and raped.”
The group also describes a dangerous exodus of LGBTQ+ people from Afghanistan into neighboring countries like Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey, where they’re subject to similar abuse at the hands of authorities.
“The suffocating political conditions and the criminalization of non-binary tendencies and identities in these countries have exposed them to the threat of deportation” back to Afghanistan.
The group is demanding action from the United Nations and others.
“We want the countless crimes of the Taliban against the LGBTQ community in Afghanistan to be investigated and documented, and its perpetrators should be held accountable in independent courts, and human rights, as stated in its charter, should not be limited to geographic boundaries, gender identities, and certain social groups,” the organization wrote of the U.N.
“We, the activists, ask the United Nations, human rights organizations, and countries of the world to break this annoying silence towards the LGBT community. We want to end the silence of the international community regarding these tragedies as soon as possible. We want justice for the LGBT community of Afghanistan to be raised and realized.”
A Japanese family court has ruled that the country’s requirement that transgender people be surgically sterilized to change their legal gender is unconstitutional. The ruling is the first of its kind in Japan, and comes as the Supreme Court considers a separate case about the same issue.
In 2021, Gen Suzuki, a transgender man, filed a court request to have his legal gender recognized as male without undergoing sterilization surgery as prescribed by national law. This week the Shizuoka Family Court ruled in his favor, with the judge writing: “Surgery to remove the gonads has the serious and irreversible result of loss of reproductive function. I cannot help but question whether being forced to undergo such treatment lacks necessity or rationality, considering the level of social chaos it may cause and from a medical perspective.”
In Japan, transgender people who want to legally change their gender must appeal to a family court. Under the Gender Identity Disorder (GID) Special Cases Act, applicants must undergo a psychiatric evaluation and be surgically sterilized. They also must be single and without children younger than 18.
In 2019, Japan’s Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that stated the law did not violate Japan’s constitution. However, two of the justices recognized the need for reform. “The suffering that [transgender people] face in terms of gender is also of concern to society that is supposed to embrace diversity in gender identity,” they wrote. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a trans government employee using the restrooms in accordance with her gender identity. Her employer had barred her from using the women’s restrooms on her office floor because she had not undergone the surgical procedures and therefore had not changed her legal gender.
The current case before the grand chamber of the Supreme Court asks the justices to eliminate the outdated and abusive sterilization requirement.
India’s top court has declined to legally recognize same-sex unions in a landmark ruling that also emphasized the rights of the LGBTQcommunity to be free of prejudice and discrimination.
Campaigners had sought to obtain the right to marry under Indian law, giving them access to the same privileges extended to heterosexual couples, but while that was denied they welcomed the court’s recognition of their relationships.
A five-judge constitution bench led by India’s chief justice delivered the much-anticipated verdict on Tuesday, streamed live across the nation and to crowds outside the court who gathered to watch on their cellphones.
During the two-hour ruling, Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud said queerness is a “natural phenomenon,” and told the government to ensure the “queer community is not discriminated against because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said the right of LGBTQ couples to choose their partners was not contested, and they were entitled to celebrate their commitment to each other “in whichever way they wish within the social realm.”
However, he added: “This does not extend the right to claim any legal entitlement to any legal status for the same union or relationship.”
Bhat called for a “high-powered committee” to be formed to evaluate laws that indirectly discriminate against LGBTQ couples by denying them “compensatory benefits or social welfare entitlements” that usually come with being legally married.
“This court cannot within the judicial framework engage in this complex task, the state has to study the impact of these policies and entitlements,” he said.
India’s marriage laws bar millions of LGBTQ couples from accessing legal benefits attached to matrimony in relation to matters including adoption, insurance and inheritance.
More than a dozen petitioners had challenged the law, taking their case to the Supreme Court, which heard their arguments during hearings in April and May.
Susan Dias, one of the petitioners in the case, said she, along with her partner were “disappointed” with the verdict.
“We were hopeful that it would go a little more positively,” she said. “We filed the petition with the hope that we’d leave with some rights. So, definitely disappointment but I don’t think we’ve taken any steps back.”
The ruling government of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had opposed calls to legalize the unions.
In a submission to the court earlier this year, lawyer for the government, Solicitor Tushar Mehta, called same-sex marriage an “urban” and “elitist” concept – one that is “far removed from the social ethos of the country.”
‘It’s not a loss’
Dozens of LGBTQ activists gathered outside the Supreme Court in the Indian capital New Delhi while the verdict was being read.
Some welcomed the judgment as a progressive move, while others said it wasn’t good enough.
Pranav Grover, 20, said it was a “diplomatic” verdict. “It came in perspective with keeping both parties happy,” he said, adding: “Let’s start to focus on the positive.”
Another bystander, Faraz, said he was a little disappointed.
“When we got to know of the privileges, it is definitely a good thing,” he said.”It is not a loss.”
Amrita, who goes by the pronouns she/they, said while it was “very nice to be recognized by the justices,” it was time to “get a move on.”
They added: “This level of indifference was not expected after waiting for so many months.”
Celebrity chef and LGBTQ activist Suvir Saran said while the Supreme Court “didn’t give us the right to marry, it has used the bench as a classroom for educating the legislators and the citizens about homosexuality and the other.”
A complicated history
India has a large LGBTQ community and celebrates gay pride in cities across the country but attitudes toward same-sex relationships have been complicated.
Hindu mythology dating back centuries features men transforming into women and holy texts include third gender characters. But same-sex intercourse was criminalized and marriage rights limited to heterosexual couples under a penal code introduced by India’s British former colonial rulers in 1860.
During nearly a decade in power, Indian leader Narendra Modi and his ruling BJP party have been keen to shake off India’s colonial baggage, renaming streets and cities and championing an India in charge of its own destiny. But Victorian laws governing same-sex marriage are one throwback to the colonial past his party has fought to retain.
Campaigners in India have said the law doesn’t only trap members of the LGBTQ community in the closet, but also invites other forms of discrimination and provides a cover for blackmail and harassment.
After a decade-long battle in 2018, the Supreme Court struck down the colonial-era law that criminalized same-sex intercourse – though it left intact the legislation limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Since then, surveys have shown that acceptance of homosexuality has grown.
According to a Pew survey published in June, 53% people believed homosexuality should be accepted – a 38% increase from 2014.
Yet, despite this larger embrace, conservatives within India have been opposed to same-sex unions.
Top leaders from the country’s various religious organizations came together earlier this year to say marriage “is for procreation, not recreation.”
A Hong Kong court on Tuesday dismissed a government bid to deny same-sex married couples the right to rent and own public housing saying that it was “discriminatory in nature” and a complete denial of such couples’ rights.
The ruling by Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal is the latest in a series of legal breakthroughs for gay rights advocates in the global financial hub this year.
The government had challenged two High Court rulings that it was “unconstitutional and unlawful” for the city’s housing authority to exclude same-sex couples who married abroad from public housing.
The appeal involved two cases, one in which the authority had declined to consider a permanent resident’s application to rent a public flat with his husband, because their marriage in Canada was not recognized in Hong Kong.
The other involved a same-sex couple who were denied joint-ownership of a government-subsidized flat by the authority because their marriage in Britain was not recognized in Hong Kong.
Court of Appeal justices Jeremy Poon, Aarif Barma and Thomas Au said in a written judgment that the authority’s treatment of gay married couples was “discriminatory in nature” and they should be afforded equal treatment.
“The differential treatment in the present cases is a more severe form of indirect discrimination than most cases because the criterion is one which same-sex couples can never meet,” the judges said in their ruling.
One of the men involved in the second case, Henry Li, welcomed the ruling in a post on Facebook.
Rights group Hong Kong Marriage Equality also welcomed the decision saying it had made clear “that discrimination and unequal treatment on the ground of sexual orientation has no place in public policy decisions.”
Hong Kong’s top court in September ruled against same-sex marriage but acknowledged the need for same-sex couples “for access to an alternative legal framework in order to meet basic social requirements.”
The government was given two years to come up with the framework.
A Hong Kong court in September sided with a married lesbian couple who argued that both women should have parental status over their child born via reciprocal IVF.
Activists in other parts of Asia are watching Hong Kong’s courts in the hope that their rulings could influence campaigns for reform elsewhere.
The World Bank will aim to ensure gay and transgender Ugandans are not discriminated against in its programs before resuming new funding, which was halted in August over an anti-LGBTQ law, a bank executive said.
World Bank project documents will make it clear that LGBTQ Ugandans should not face discrimination and that staff will not be arrested for including them, Victoria Kwakwa, the bank’s head for eastern and southern Africa, told Reuters.
Rights groups have said that the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), which was enacted in May and prescribes the death penalty for certain same-sex acts, has unleashed a torrent of abuse against LGBTQ people, mostly by private individuals.
“We’re doing all this to clarify this is not what you should be doing in World Bank-financed projects and to say you are allowed to do it the right way and you will be not be arrested,” Kwakwa said, on the sidelines of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s annual meetings in Marrakech, Morocco.
She declined to give a timeline for assessing the measures’ efficacy and moving to a decision on whether to resume new funding for Uganda.
“We have discussed this at length with government. Government is comfortable with that,” Kwakwa said.
When the World Bank suspended new funding, Ugandan officials accused the development finance institution of hypocrisy, saying it was lending to countries in the Middle East and Asia that have the same or harsher laws targeting LGBTQ people.
The government would need to revise its budget to reflect the suspension’s potential financial impact, a junior finance minister said at the time.
The World Bank’s portfolio of projects in the East African country was $5.2 billion at the end of 2022. These have not been affected by the decision to suspend new financing.
Max and Sasha are just two of the many LGBTQ+ people who have joined the mass exodus fleeing Russia to avoid violence, discrimination and war.
Now, the queer Russian-Ukrainian couple are left with the scars of living under Vladimir Putin’s repressive regime.
Putin’s obsession with rejecting what he sees as Western “degradation” has led to Russia toughening anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in recent months. At the same time, the Kremlin has clamped down on free speech, human rights and dissent as the war in Ukraine drags on.
Max and Sasha fled Russia this time last year. They joined the hundreds of thousands of people trying to find safety in other countries bordering the huge nation.
They made it to the the Latvian border, hitching a ride with a stranger.
When the queer couple got to the crossing, guards confronted them, demanding to know why they were leaving Russia.
Unable to reveal their real reasons, they had “full-on panic attacks just trying to hold back tears” as they waited hours to be let them through, the pair tell PinkNews.
“When we got there and we gave our passports, the guard looked at Sasha’s, and he was like: ‘I can’t see the visa, so what are you doing? What are your plans? What are you thinking? What are you doing there?’” Max, who is Ukrainian, recalls.
“We were like: ‘There are some people waiting for us there’. We were trying to say at least something. You’re completely stunned… we were standing there trying not to cry because they took our passports.
“We were like: ‘What next? What are they doing with our passports? They’re not letting us go’.”
A growing number of people, like Max and Sasha, have left Russia via land border crossings into other countries. (Getty)
Several countries – including Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Finland – have put in place measures to restrict the entry of Russian citizens, limiting the chances for people to use them as safe havens.
At one point, the border guards let Sasha, who is Russian, through but said that Max couldn’t join him. However, the couple knew they had to stay together so they regrouped in Russia and used “some other ways to cross the border”.
‘The scariest thing was that people were delusional about Russia’
Eventually, they made it into one of the Baltic states and began the process of applying for asylum. But they encountered difficulties with access to resources because of their differing citizenships, given the ongoing war.
Max feels he has a “lot of privilege as a Ukrainian” because he can travel, and it’s “easier” to find a job. Sadly, he can’t share that same level of support with Sasha because the pair aren’t married yet.
The LGBTQ+ community in Russia has faced a growing crackdown by authorities, which has only increased in ferocity since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (Getty)
The queer couple’s asylum application was initially denied because the person reviewing it argued that it’s merely “hard” for gay people in Russia – refusing to recognise the very real abuse LGBTQ+ people face.
“The arguments were: ‘It’s hard for gay people in Russia, but you did go to work. You did finish at school’,” Max explains.
“We were basically going around the streets, pretending we are someone who we are not. No matter how [hard] we try, people always figure everything out.
“We were standing near a subway station and hearing a guy talk to his wife like: ‘Oh my God, you won’t believe it. I’m standing next to the most disgusting f*****s. Come save me. They’re gonna rape me right now’. People don’t understand that it’s not possible to get any proper help.
“At [one] point, we were shot at. There were four guys passing us by in a car. They stopped to ask if we’re f*****s, and we said ‘no’. They said: ‘We saw you guys kiss’. We weren’t kissing.
“When we were talking about this in our [asylum] interview, they were like: ‘Why didn’t you go to the police?’ It’s pointless, you’ll leave the police station feeling worse.”
Sasha and Max, who have since been granted asylum after appealing the first ruling, say that people react with shock when they discover the true level of discrimination and violence LGBTQ+ people face in Russia.
“I think the scariest thing was, when we arrived, that people were delusional about Russia,” Sasha says. “They don’t know anything, what happens there and how it happens, which also affected our case.
“They don’t understand that, if you go to the police, you can be assaulted or even killed there, and no one will know. People have no idea what it is like… I was so scared after all that, that while being [in the country that last year], I wouldn’t go out of my house because I was so scared of people, men specifically.”
Anti-LGBTQ+ ideology has been a central axis of political propaganda in Russia over the past decade
Sasha and Max still feel the impact of the Russia’s oppressive anti-LGBTQ+ laws, which have led to hate and violence on the streets. As they put it: “You left Russia, but Russia never left you.
“It’s been a year, and when we got the asylum status approved, it was a relief, but I did not feel safe,” Sasha says. “It’s still hard for me to get out of the house. I’m still wearing a hat outside when I dye my hair.
“Yes, I understand that I don’t live in danger any more. I’m not in Russia. A rational part of me knows I’m not there, and it’s not as scary as I think it is outside [and] I can express myself with clothing more.”
It’s been a year since Max and Sasha fled anti-LGBTQ+ persecution in Russia, but Sasha says it’s “still hard for [him] to get out of the house”. (Getty)
Anna-Maria Tesfaye, the co-founder of LGBTQ+ not-for-profit organisation Queer Svit, says many LGBTQ+ people think they can “leave this bulls**t behind” when they flee Russia, but they realise they are still “mentally” trapped in the country’s politics of terror.
“You finally have the ability to think because you’re not in Russia any more,” she says.
“You don’t need to do anything, then it hits you. You understand that maybe you’re out of Russia, but you’re in Russia mentally. A lot of people understand that it’s probably post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Max and Sasha say they still “scan every corner [and] every street” for “scary-looking people” and the police because of their Russian experiences.
The pair are feeling a “little more freedom” in their new home, but it’s still difficult to live fully in the moment given the hate they endured.
