A New Jersey appeal court has upheld a massive $3.5 million fine against a conversion therapy practice, which was shut down after former patients alleged widespread abuse.
On Tuesday (6 July), the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey upheld a previous judgement against Jewish Institute for Global Awareness (JIFGA) – formerly known as Jews Offering New Alternatives (JONAH). JONAH was a nonprofit that claimed to be able to cure patients of same-sex attractions.
Former clients and practitioners have been locked in a heated legal battle for years. The Southern Poverty Law Center, who brought the initial lawsuit on behalf of several former JONAH clients and their families, announced the conversion therapy provider had lost its latest appeal.
As such, the plaintiffs are entitled to claim millions in attorney’s fees from the original lawsuit because JONAH did not shut its doors and stop promoting conversion therapy.
Scott McCoy, SPLC’s interim deputy legal director of LGBTQ rights and special litigation, said: “This case was always about protecting vulnerable people and families against the purveyors of fraudulent, harmful and ineffective so-called gay-to-straight conversion therapy.”
He added that conversion therapy is “fraudulent” because it’s “based on the lie that LGBTQ people can and should be fixed”. McCoy then vowed SPLC and “other allies” will not stop “until we eradicate these dangerous practices in New Jersey” and across the US.
n 2015, the New Jersey Superior Court found that JONAH had violated the state’s consumer fraud law and engaged in “unconscionable commercial practices”. The court also ordered the conversion therapy provider to permanently shut down and dissolve its organisation, according to reports by The Guardian.
The Guardianreported four former clients of JONAH alleged that organisers had engaged in a range of horrific behaviours and so-called therapeutic techniques. The clients claimed that therapy participants were instructed to remove all their clothing in group sessions and beat an effigy of their mothers with a tennis racket.
They also assorted clients were called homophobic slurs during mock gym classes and other sessions, according to The Guardian.
If it did not cease operation, the court ruled JONAH would have to pay $3.5 million to the plaintiffs.
But a couple of years later, in 2019, the same court found JONAH had violated the legal ruling by continuing to operate under a new name, JIFGA. As such, the Superior Court ordered the conversion therapy provider to pay up to $3.5 million, according to NBC News.
JONAH appealed against the ruling, but the appealed court just ruled against them again.
But Michael Laffey, who represented JONAH and its owners, said the latest ruling contained “clear factual errors”, according to Law.com. He added his clients are “considering their options”.
Conversion therapy has been denounced by several leading medical groups
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) said in 2018 that it strongly opposes conversion therapy. It reaffirmed its 1998 statement that the leading professional group “opposes any psychiatric treatment” that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder” or based on the assumption the individual “should change his or her homosexual orientation”.
LGBT+ supporters hold placards demonstration against the use of conversion therapy outside UK Cabinet office. (Photo by May James/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Earlier this year, the APA also adopted a resolution rebuking conversion therapy for trans people. It added that conversion therapy only served to promote “stigma and discrimination against transgender and gender diverse people”.
In 2020, a United Nations (UN) expert called for a global ban on conversion therapy, saying the practice is “inherently degrading and discriminatory” toward LGBT+ people. Earlier this year, the UN also urged the UK governmentto ban the discredited practice and said conversion therapy has “haunting consequences” for LGBT+ individuals.
Karen Holden, LGBT+ lawyer and founder of A City Law Firm, writes for PinkNews about the legal leaps and bounds the UK has made in the last three decades.
It has been almost 54 years since the decriminalisation of homosexualitystarted, sparking the decades-long fight for LGBT+ equality under British law.
t all kicked off on 21 July 1967 with the Sexual Offences Act (the law that started to recognise LGBT+ rights). Since this monumental move, we have made some phenomenal steps forward.
In light of this upcoming anniversary, let’s celebrate some of the most game-changing laws that have transformed the lives of the community to date.
LGBT+ Brits have the right not to be discriminated
The 1998 Human Rights Act, one of the most important pieces of legislation in Britain, allowed for fundamental human rights – the right to be treated equally, with fairness, dignity and respect.
t, crucially, this includes the right not the be discriminated against for sexual orientation.
It was later used to also advance the rights of LGBT+ individuals for legal protection in a relationship.
Same-sex couples can legally adopt
Paving the way for queer couples to start a family, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 meant that for the first time same-sex couples were legally able to adopt.
This also allowed many the right to be considered not just as a person who helped care for their partner’s child but as their actual legal parent too.
The law that opened the door for civil partnerships
In what was a stepping stone towards marriage quality and a seismic leap in LGBT+ rights in Britain, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 marked a significant change in the legal standing for couples.
Trans people can legally change their gender for the first time
Transgender people protesting delays to reforming the Gender Recognition Act on 04 July, 2020 in London, England. The government announced in September it would not be reforming it, despite overwhelming public support. (WIktor Szymanowicz/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The 2004 Gender Recognition Act was the upshot of the European Court of Human Rights ruling in favour of trans woman Christine Goodwin, who was denied the right to marry in the UK.
It created for the first time a mechanism that allows trans people to be legally recognised by something other than their assigned gender at birth – this includes having the correct gender marker listed on their birth certificate.
For the first time, queer families could use surrogacy to start a family
Although surrogacy was permitted before, the parental order process, which makes the intended parent or parents the legal parents rather than the surrogate, was not available for same-sex male couples.
But the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 rectified this and even introduced the ability for same-sex female couples to be both named on the birth certificate as the legal parents of a child after using a known donor.
A single act that ensured stronger protections for all LGBT+ people
The landmark Equality Act 2010 added gender reassignment as a ‘protected characteristic’ and offered a vital tool to fight and promote protection against LGBT+ harassment, unfavourable treatment and discrimination.
Caselaw continued to evolve after this focal act against discrimination, perceived sexual orientation and those diagnosed with HIV and AIDS.
It was a drastic move to bridge the gap of there being separate laws to instead promote genuine equality for the LGBT+ community and many other minority groups collectively.
After rocky journey, marriage equality finally becomes reality
Peter McGraith and David Cabreza became the first same-sex couple to marry after the practice was legalised in England and Wales. (Andrea Baldo/LightRocket via Getty)
The road to marriage equality in Britain was a years-long uphill climb for tireless activists but by 2013, the first same-sex couple to legally wed in England became a reality.
As well as equalising marriage in name, the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act allowed same-sex couples to marry in both civil and religious ceremonies, where the religious organisation has ‘opted in’ to conduct such ceremonies and the minister of religion agrees.
Thousands of queer men pardoned in law named after Alan Turing
Alan Turing was a gay man, a scientist and a war hero. (Getty)
The “Alan Turing Law”, part of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, serves as an amnesty law pardoning criminal convictions of men who were cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts.
Named after Alan Turing, the cryptographer who helped to break the German Enigma code who had previously been convicted of ‘gross indecency’ and was chemically castrated, who was granted a royal pardon.
The association of British Insurers Guide to minimum standards 2018
HIV discrimination was removed from the previous wording included the association of British Insurers Guide to minimum standards in 2018 for being highly judgemental and stigmatising.
The new guidance from the trade association made up of hundreds of insurers reflects the considerable progress that has been made for those living with HIV over the last thirty years.
In 2019, single parents could apply for parental rights after surrogacy
An adaption to the law came into force making parental orders (which give parenthood to the intended parents after the birth and extinguish the status of the surrogate) available to single parents as well as to couples.
All these changes helped LGBT+ families really flourish, providing the right to alternative family structures, from marriage equality to adoption and surrogacy for same-sex couples being made more accessible; the protection against discrimination both in and outside the workplace, against neighbours or providers, altering the way they approach members of the LGBT+ community.
Although we should celebrate how far LGBT+ rights have progressed there are still things left unaddressed and biases still restricting genuine equality.
Here are just some of the changes needed for greater equality:
Surveys and soft supervision by the EU will be lost on LGBT+ laws and rights so the UK need to put in place its own protections to ensure we are continually moving in the right direction.
Proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act were effectively dropped, so transgender people still need a medical diagnosis to legally change gender. This is archaic and is unfair. It is our hope that these proposals for reform are brought back soon.
Although LGBT+ education in schools was made mandatory there continues to be resistance from some parents and religious campaign groups. This means that how this education is to be implemented remains uncertain. Laws around this, to provide a framework for this contentious area would be welcome.
Making surrogacy in the UK smoother with automatic parental rights.
We have come a very long way and things are slowly evolving, but there is still more to do and mindsets left to modify.
Russia discriminated against a trans woman and violated her right to family life by denying her any contact with her children, Europe’s leading human rights court has ruled.
In a landmark judgement released on Tuesday (6 July), the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled in favour of a divorced trans woman who was blocked by Russian domestic courts from seeing her two young children back in 2017.
It marks the first time the court has found a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights’ prohibition of discrimination (Article 14) on the basis of a person’s gender identity. Russia ratified the convention in 1998 and is therefore under the court’s jurisdiction.
“It was clear from the domestic decisions … that the influence of the applicant’s gender identity on the assessment of her claim had been a decisive factor leading to the decision to restrict her contact with her children,” the court said.
“The applicant had therefore been treated differently from other parents who also sought contact with their estranged children, but whose gender identity matched their sex assigned at birth.”
Reacting to the judgement, executive director of TGEU (Transgender Europe), Masen Davis, said: “The kids are alright – there is nothing wrong with being a trans parent! Today, we celebrate this important message together with all trans families.
Every fourth trans person in Europe is a parent. Today’s judgement gives legal security to many of them.
“We congratulate the applicant for having gone all the way to Strasbourg to defend her right to be the best possible parent to her children.”
The woman, identified only as AM, separated from her wife after seven years of marriage and gained legal gender recognition in 2015, according to court documents.
The following year AM’s wife denied her access to their children, born in 2009 and 2012, with a district court claiming her visits would have a “negative impact on the mental health and psychological development” of the children.
The European Court, however, noted that the domestic courts had failed to demonstrate that the restriction was justified and well-substantiated.
“Too often we are hearing the best interest of the child being abused as an argument to limit the rights of LGBTI people,” said Evelyne Paradis, Executive Director of ILGA-Europe.
“We are glad to see the Court clearly rejecting such an abusive argument, and instead naming very concrete responsibilities for state authorities in ensuring the best interest of the child. Spreading hatred, misinformation and splitting loving parents from their children is not in the best interest of children.”
Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán has claimed that his cruel law banning the “promotion” of LGBT+ lives to minors is “not about homosexuality”.
In June, Orbán and his ruling party passed legislation restricting the portrayal of LGBT+ people on media, school materials and advertisements aimed at minors. It was quickly compared to Russia’s “gay propaganda bill” and Britain’s Section 28.
But faced with backlash from EU leaders, Orbán simply sidestepped their concerns with an astonishing claim at a European Council summit last week.
“It’s not about homosexuality,” he said, according to the Independent.
“It’s about the kids and the parents.
“I am defending the rights of homosexual guys but this law is not about them.”
Hungary’s oldest LGBT+ campaign group Háttér Society called his words blatant “lies”.
Despite Orbán telling EU officials that there is “no law about homosexuality”, the bill in question references homosexuality six times, the group said.
“The truth is that the law passed two weeks ago makes explicit references to homosexuality… in the context of declaring that it is ‘prohibited to make available to children under the age of 18 any (…) content [which] promotes or portrays deviation from the self-identity in line with the birth sex, gender reassignment, and homosexuality’.”
Háttér Society debunked Orbán’s claims that he “protects” the rights of “gay guys”, in particular, noting that his voting record says it all.
Orbán has voted against anti-discrimination laws and same-sex adoption rights, and in favour of abolishing the Equal Treatment Authority, the nation’s equality watchdog.
The group also pointed to a survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights which found that 95 per cent of LGBT+ Hungarians feel the government has not tackled anti-LGBT+ hate.
As EU officials consider choking Hungary’s funding as one way to squash the law, 17 of the bloc’s leaders have signed an open letter pledging to “continue fighting against discrimination towards the LGBTI community”.
“Respect and tolerance,” the letter stated, “are at the core of the European project.”
In recent years, LGBTQ rights have made significant advancements in the United States, but there remain areas of growing legislative hurdles and challenges.
In a country that is divided on a long list of cultural and societal issues, the acceptance of gay marriage stands out as a remarkable exception. Once a divisive issue, it now has the support of 7 in 10 Americans, according to a recent poll from Gallup.
But perhaps even more impressive, gay marriage now has majority support across a long list of voter groups.
It’s probably not a big surprise that 83 percent of Democrats say they believe gay marriage should be recognized by law, but that’s also true of 73 percent of independents and, more unexpectedly, 55 percent of Republicans.
And the Gallup data shows strong support from young and old as well. More than 80 percent of those from ages 18 to 34, but also 72 percent among middle-aged Americans and 60 percent support among those 55 and older.
That last number is especially eye-catching. Older Americans tend to be more culturally conservative than the public at large and 60-percent support is a solid number.
To give a sense of just how solid support for gay marriage is today, compare it to Gallup’s numbers on some other somewhat divisive topics.
After decades of debate, the morality of abortion remains as divisive as ever — 47 percent of Americans believe it is morally acceptable.
Obamacare may be the law of the land, particularly after the Supreme Court’s June ruling on the law, but still only 56 percent of Americans believe the federal government should make sure people have health care coverage.
And, it may be close, but more Americans believe gay marriage should be legal than believe that global warming is occurring. It’s close (a statistical tie really) but gay marriage holds a slight edge in the percentages.
Those numbers give a sense of the depth of support for legal same-sex marriage and they are even more remarkable when you realize how fast opinions on the unions have changed. In 15 years, the issue has gone from culturally divisive to culturally decided.
How dramatic is that swing? Compare it to the relatively slow public acceptance of marriage between black and white Americans.
It took “interracial marriage” almost 40 years to gain acceptance in the United States — that’s comparing support the first time Gallup asked the question (1958) to when it broke 50 percent support in the 1990s. When Gallup first asked about gay marriage in 1996, only 27 percent of Americans supported legalizing the bond. In just 15 years, 2011, 53 percent of Americans supported legalizing the practice.
Court decisions on the two practices only drive the point home.
Even if one uses the Supreme Court’s 1967 Loving decision (the ruling that made laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional), as a marker for public opinion, it was still roughly 30 years before interracial marriage was accepted by the public. By the time the Supreme Court ruled that all states had to honor gay marriage as legal in 2015, 60 percent of Americans already favored that view.
In other words, the court was leading the nation on interracial marriage, but essentially following public opinion on gay marriage.
But not all issues are settled or headed in a positive direction for the LGBTQ community. Particularly on issues that concern transgender people, state legislatures are writing legislation to limit what that population can and can’t do.
Research from the group Freedom for All Americans finds that 38 different states have proposed legislation in 2021 that would limit what trans Americans can do covering areas ranging from sports to homeless shelters to medicine. Texas and Tennessee led the way with 12 pieces of legislation each, according to the group.
And Gallup polling data from this year shows there has been a slight decline in acceptance for idea of transgender people serving in the military. Support for the idea is still high, 66 percent, but down five points from where it was in 2019. That number bears watching. It could just be a blip or something more.
The real lesson in Pride Month, however, may be as much about politics and the malleability of public opinion in America today as it is LGBTQ rights.
After all, Pride Month itself is still a relatively young event. It was just over 20 years ago, only in 1999, that then-President Bill Clinton declared June “Gay and Lesbian Pride Month” for the first time. Back then, only 35 percent of Americans thought gay marriage should be recognized by law, half the number in the 2021 poll.
It’s evidence that even in a time of deep partisanship on what seems to be a contentious issue, opinions can still change — and rapidly
We never thought that a landscaper booking website would publish a study about the horniest cities in the United States, but 2021 apparently had more surprises in store for us.
LawnStarter says it ranked the libido levels of 200 U.S. cities by “nine key indicators of sexual arousal,” including proportion of single residents, Google search interest in adult content, and sales of sex toys.
To measure the thirst of each metropolis, the researchers culled data from All Swingers Clubs, Eventbrite, Google Trends, Innerbody Research, Lovehoney, U.S. Census Bureau, and Yelp.
The results? The horniest cities in America, according to the survey, are:
Paradise, Nevada
Orange, California
Hollywood, Florida
Providence, Rhode Island
Atlanta, Georgia
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Newark, New Jersey
Dayton, Ohio
Tempe, Arizona
Baltimore, Maryland
Paradise, Nevada, has more sex shops and adult entertainment venues than any other city, according to LawnStarter, while Providence, Rhode Island, sells the most sex toys out of the cities surveyed. LawnStarter also notes that California and Florida cities dominate the top 10 in all nine metrics, crediting those states’ standout sex drives to “sand, sweat, skin, and sangria.”
During last month’s European championship soccer match between Germany and Hungary, the rainbow was everywhere on the German side. The German goalie wore a rainbow armband; the team’s fans donned rainbow wigs and waved rainbow flags.
All of this was directed at the opposing side: The Germans were protesting a new Hungarian law banning LGBTQ sex education and media directed at minors — a measure that has sparked outrage in Europe and elsewhere against Hungary.
While this may look like a PR mess for Hungary’s ruling right-wing Fidesz party, it’s in keeping with the right-wing populist playbook that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has turned to over and over again to shore up his authoritarian rule. In the past few years, demonizing queer and trans identities has become a central part of Orbán’s campaign for maintaining his grip on power.
The criticism from Europe, if anything, bolsters the strategy. It allows the Hungarian government to tout its core ideological argument: that it is the Hungarian Christian family’s champion against a godless, globalist European Union.
“Hungary asserts its role as ‘defender of traditional values’ while mostly West European states get to claim moral superiority with no one paying any price for it,” says Cas Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia who studies far-right politics.
The new anti-LGBTQ rules — which were tacked on at the last minute to a bill increasing penalties for sex crimes against children — are part of a broader slate of legal attacks on the queer community that strengthen Orbán’s regime, the only non-democratic government in the European Union.
Demagoguery is at the heart of the Fidesz political strategy. A series of boogeymen — Muslim migrants, Jewish billionaire George Soros, and now LGBTQ activists — have been used to rally Orbán’s base to the ballot box and justify the expansion of authoritarian state powers.
In this, Orbán is not alone. The demonization of out-groups is a key ingredient in the right-wing authoritarian recipe, one used by factions the world over to win power and undermine democracy once they’ve acquired it. It’s a pattern Americans should pay attention to, especially during the current moment of right-wing panic about the purported corruption of our youth.
Hungary’s persecution of LGBTQ communities, explained
The new Hungarian regulations on LGBTQ expression are broad. Among other things, they prohibit sex educators from instructing students about LGBTQ sexuality and ban television stations from airing content “popularizing” LGBTQ identity outside the hours of 10 pm to 5 am. The regulations also prohibit films or advertisements from representing same-sex physical acts or gender-affirmation surgery in materials targeted at individuals under 18.
But what counts as “popularizing” LGBTQ identity, and what sorts of art count as being targeted at kids? According to local media and human rights groups, the bill isn’t especially clear on these points — raising fears about censorship. RTL Klub, the country’s largest television channel, warned that “series like Modern Family would be banned, as would some episodes of Friends.”
No less troubling: By declaring LGBTQ programming harmful for children, the law dehumanizes queer couples and individuals, legally codifying the notion that their very existence threatens Hungarian society.
Defenders of the law are open about its hierarchical aims. An article in the Hungarian Conservative, a magazine supportive of the Orbán regime, denies that Friends specifically would be blocked by the new rules — but touts the bill’s efforts to “protect children’s natural and healthy sexual development” from the allegedly nefarious influence of gay propaganda.
“Protecting children does not end with stopping sex offenders, but should also include the protection from potentially harmful influences well until children are old enough to make the best decisions for themselves,” the article claims.
A protester against the new anti-LGBTQ bill in Budapest holds a photoshopped sign showing Orbán holding a rainbow flag.
In recent years, the anti-LGBTQ campaign has intensified. In 2018, the government banned the teaching of gender studies in Hungarian universities. A government spokesperson told CNN at the time that they did it because “we do not consider it acceptable for us to talk about socially constructed genders, rather than biological sexes.” In May 2020, the government prohibited trans Hungarians from changing their gender on official government forms.
In December 2020, the government approved a constitutional reform package that strengthened the anti-LGBTQ constitutional provisions: It stated that the family is defined as being “based on marriage and the parent-child relation. The mother is a woman, the father a man.” The December legislative package also banned adoption by same-sex couples and abolished the Equal Treatment Authority, Hungary’s most important nondiscrimination agency covering LGBTQ rights.
The anti-LGBTQ policies of the past few years are not incidental to Fidesz’s ideology. A paper by Andrea Pető and Weronika Grzebalska, two scholars of gender and politics in Central Europe, identify the Hungarian government’s commitment to traditional gender norms as the “symbolic glue” that holds its overall ideology together, positioning social liberalism “as a symbol of everything that is wrong with the current state of politics.”
In the government’s narrative, the traditional Christian Hungarian family is under attack by nefarious globalist liberals who want to replace Hungarian mothers and fathers with immigrants. Defending the Hungarian nation means defending the family, defined exclusively as male-female pairings that produce more Hungarian children. The Orbán government is notoriously obsessed with the birthrate, passing tax and welfare policies specifically framed as incentives for native Hungarian women to have more kids.
The government attacks on LGBTQ identities flow directly from this conservative preoccupation with family and fertility, casting queer families as illegitimate, non-procreative entities.
“In a moral sense, there is no difference between pedophiles and those who demand [gay adoption],” László Kövér, the speaker of Hungary’s parliament, said in 2019. “Both objectify the child as a consumer good, and consider it a means of self-fulfillment.”
How social conservatism fuels Hungarian authoritarianism
Hungarians have long been more conservative than most other EU states. A 2019 Eurobarometer poll found that 61 percent opposed same-sex marriage and 72 percent opposed allowing trans individuals to alter government documents to match their gender identity. This fits a general European pattern, in which former communist states are on average more culturally right-wing than their Western European peers.
At the same time, there’s some evidence of recent movement in a more progressive direction. A 2021 Ipsos poll found that 59 percent of Hungarians today support same-sex couples’ adoption rights, compared to 42 percent in 2013. A plurality had even come to favor same-sex marriage (46 percent in favor versus 38 percent opposed).
These numbers suggest the recent anti-LGBTQ moves are less of a response to a public groundswell than a political play by the ruling party to elevate the issue — to wage a culture war against progressive ideas and activists as a means of activating the Fidesz base and solidifying Orban’s hold on power.
By definition, “populism” as a political style relies on a contrast between a virtuous people and a corrupt elite. In modern right-wing populism, both in Hungary and elsewhere, that corrupt elite is typically identified with minorities and socially liberal activists — groups positioned as subverting national traditions, attacking traditional morality, and destroying national character.
“Minority rights are rejected as threatening the majority’s rights to do what they please, and dignity and solidarity is only granted to those belonging to the restricted community of real patriots,” Pető and Grzebalska write in their article on the gender politics of right-wing populism. “The illiberal right is not so much trying to eliminate the progressive civil society but rather turn it into a bogeyman that governing elites can activate whenever they need to mobilize their supporters.”
“We are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open, but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the whole world,” Orbán said in a 2018 speech.
Now, it’s important not to equate social conservatism with authoritarianism. Opposing equal rights for LGBTQ individuals, while certainly illiberal, could well be supported by an electoral majority in Hungary.
But far-right governments like Orbán’s typically use populism in service of their authoritarianism: Attacks on minority groups are not merely electoral appeals but also justifications for power grabs that weaken democracy’s foundations.
Many of the anti-LGBTQ laws passed expand the state’s power to enforce ideological hegemony. In the name of fighting a phantom scourge, it has given itself new abilities to regulate education, media, and advertising — sometimes through vaguely worded provisions that could be enforced capriciously. In this sense, the anti-LGBTQ provisions aren’t merely cultural warfare but direct expansions of Orbán’s authoritarian reach.
This is not a uniquely Hungarian phenomenon: Authoritarian populists of both the right- and left-wing variety, in countries as diverse as Poland and Venezuela and Turkey, have used demonization of minorities and/or an allegedly corrupt elite to enact laws aimed at weakening their political opponents and revving up their base.
Closer to home, we’re seeing something similar afoot. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) recently signed a bill that would require professors at state-funded universities to fill out surveys describing the campus ideological climate, threatening budget funds if schools are deemed insufficiently open to right-wing ideas. Dozens of state legislatures have passed or proposed bills that regulate what can be taught in the classroom on similar grounds — a response to the allegedly corrosive threat of “critical race theory” on the US educational system.
These American bills are not directly inspired by Hungarian policies. But the affinities between right-wing populists in these countries are real, with many leading thinkers on the American right openly admiring Orbán’s willingness to wage culture wars, to the point where they’re willing to downplay his authoritarian abuses.
“What I see in Orbán is one of the few major politicians in the West who seems to understand the importance of Christianity, and the importance of culture, and who is willing to defend these things against a very rich and powerful international establishment,” Rod Dreher, a senior writer at the American Conservative who recently accepted a writing fellowship at the government-funded Danube Institute in Budapest, told me last year. “I find myself saying of Orbán what I hear conservatives say when they explain why they instinctively love Trump: because he fights. The thing about Orbán is that unlike Trump, he fights, and he wins, and his victories are substantive.”
This cultural affinity is effectively an intellectual shield for Orbán, with criticism of his anti-democratic tendencies portrayed by conservatives as a liberal smear.
“One suspects [allegations of authoritarianism are] just simple hatred of Christian conservatism, a fanatical projection of culture war antipathies to the near abroad,” Michael Brendan Dougherty writes in National Review, without a hint of irony.
The Hungarian government has assiduously courted the global intellectual right, setting up meetings between Orbán and prominent socially conservative thinkers from countries ranging from Canada to Israel. The goal is to construct an international traditionalist alliance, centering on Budapest, that aligns right-wing populist movements in Europe and beyond. The culture war is a useful tool for normalizing Hungarian authoritarianism globally, and for enlisting allies who are willing to overlook anti-democratic abuses when the right side of the culture war is perpetrating them.
It’s a strategy that, in many ways, has worked for Orbán — and shows just how vulnerable democracy is to far-right cultural demagoguery.
More than half of LGBTQ adults in America say they have experienced violent threats, according to a study from The William Institute at the UCLA School of Law.
The study examined the similarities and differences across key subgroups of the LGBTQ community.
Fifty-two percent of respondents said that someone had threatened them with violence since they were age 18.
Among this group, 61 percent of transgender women said someone threatened them, compared to 49 percent of cisgender women and 52 percent of cisgender men.
In addition, 75 percent of respondents said someone verbally insulted or abused them. Thirty-nine percent said someone had thrown an object at them.
Forty-two percent of LGBTQ respondents said they were hit, beaten, physically attacked or sexually assaulted as adults, while 41 percent said they were robbed, had properly stolen or vandalized.
The survey also found high rates of bullying during childhood among the LGBTQ community. Sixty-seven percent of LBQ cisgender women, 75 percent of GBQ cis men and 70 percent of transgender people said they had been bullied often or sometimes before age 18.
The survey also examined some health outcomes of the LGBTQ community. For example, 26 percent of transgender people said their health was fair or poor, compared to 24 percent of cisgender women and 14 percent of cisgender men.
Meanwhile, 42 percent of transgender people reported lifetime suicide attempts, compared to 32 percent of cisgender women and 22 percent of cisgender men.
The data for the study was pulled from a combination of two studies, one of which was a national probability sample of sexual minority (LGBQ) individuals who were not transgender and another of transgender adults. The study does not list a margin of sampling error.
As the GLBT Historical Society’s archives reopen, we’re looking back on the things that kept us going through a lonely year. One of them was the National Archives’ monthly Twitter collaboration, #ArchivesHashtagParty.
Each month, archivists all over the country post historical items with the same theme—ranging from insects (#ArchivesBugs) to cakes (#ArchivesBakeOff), elections (#ArchivesGetsTheVote) to educators of color (#ArchivesBlackEducation). The National Archives selects each theme two weeks in advance, setting off a scavenger hunt for just the right item in each archivist’s collection.
Digging Deep
The beauty of #ArchivesHashtagParty is that it encourages us to dig deep. You might not think of the society as a repository of signatures, maps or vehicles, but we’ve found items for each theme, including a map of an early Pride parade route; a handmade knit rug depicting a leatherman; and a photo of two participants in the Mint tricycle race, with their biplane-themed bike, the “Lavender Baron.” The party lets us go beyond the obvious, showing off corners of LGBTQ life that are accidentally illuminated by the need to show Twitter a picture of a bug (in this case, the fist-and-butterfly logo of the 1972 Pride booklet).
It also brings us together. Archiving is isolating work at the best of times; many archivists work completely alone. The Hashtag Party turns archiving from a monologue to a dialogue, connecting us with strangers around the world who are curious to see unexpected fragments of the past.
You can join in the party by following our Twitter account, where we post these and other archival finds throughout the month. And if you’re not on that platform, fear not: we adapt each hashtag entry for Facebook and Instagram.
Major aid donors have said they will investigate and take action against anti-LGBT ‘conversion therapy’ practices at clinics run by groups they fund, in response to findings from an openDemocracy investigation
A new undercover investigation by the global news outlet openDemocracy reveals how health facilities in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have provided, or provided referrals for, controversial anti-gay ‘conversion therapy’ to “quit” same-sex attraction
Undercover reporters were told by some staff at these facilities that being gay is “evil”, “for whites”,caused by peer pressure, and a mental health problem, and told to give a gay teenager a sleeping pill to prevent him from masturbating
Major aid donors mentioned in our investigation include USAID,The Global Fund and the US government programme PEPFAR. Another implicated clinic in Tanzania is run by MSI Reproductive Choices, a UK-based NGO
During a six-month investigation, our undercover reporters found staff at health centres across Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda who offered help to “quit” same-sex attraction – including at clinics run by aid-funded groups that specifically reach out to LGBT patients.
‘Conversion therapy’ describes a range of practices – from talk therapy to physical ‘treatments – that attempt to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It is “ineffective” and “harmful,” according to human rights groups, and has been condemned by more than 60 associations of doctors, psychologists and counsellors worldwide.
In almost all cases, the ‘treatments’ identified by our undercover reporters consisted of ‘talk therapy’ counselling sessions. In Uganda, one counsellor also recommended “exposure therapy” with “a housemaid [he] can get attracted [to]’’, and told our undercover reporter to give a gay teenager a sleeping pill to prevent him from masturbating.
‘Conversion therapy’ is banned in some countries, including Brazil, Ecuador and Malta. President Biden has pledged to end these practices within the US; a proposed ban in the UK was included in the Queen’s speech this year; and Canada’s lower house has just passed a bill banning it, which is now waiting for approval in the senate.
Facilities where our investigation found support for these practices include:
Uganda:
An HIV clinic at Kampala’s Mulago Hospital – Uganda’s largest public hospital – run by the Most At Risk Populations Initiative (MARPI), which received a $420,000 USAID grant in 2019, ending in September. (It is unclear if any money went to this specific clinic). The Swiss-based Global Fund, which combats AIDS, TB and malaria, funds both Uganda’s health ministry and a local NGO, which in turn fund the Mulago clinic
Three hospitals in the Uganda Catholic Medical Bureau (UCMB) network. This network received more than $1m from USAID between 2019 and this April (it is unclear whether the specific hospitals identified in our investigation received any of this money)
Tanzania:
A clinic in Mwenge, Dar es Salaam that is run by MSI Reproductive Choices (formerly Marie Stopes International), a UK-based NGO that provides sexual and reproductive healthcare services around the world. In its latest annual report (2019) the organisation reported more than £1.4m in income from UK aid for projects in Tanzania.
Kenya:
A clinic inside the main office in Nairobi of LVCT Health, an HIV and AIDS care organisation, which currently has an $8m grant (which began in 2016 and ends in September) from the US government programme PEPFAR, for work with marginalised communities of sex workers, gay men and trans people in Kenya
In response to this investigation:
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Africa director at the International Commission of Jurists human rights organisation said that such efforts to ‘cure’ homosexuality are “inherently degrading and discriminatory”
Yvee Oduor of the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya said that aid donors should “redirect funding […] We already have clinics and health centres run by LGBTQI+ people all over the country. Why not fund these community initiatives?”
A spokesperson for MSI Reproductive Choices said: “We have launched an investigation and will take immediate action against anyone found to be involved in this abhorrent practice”
A US embassy spokesperson in Uganda, Anthony Kujawa, said: “USAID does not fund or promote anti-LGBTQI ‘conversion therapy’ and will investigate any report that a USAID funded partner is doing so”
A spokesperson for the Global Fund said that the organisation “takes seriously the matters raised” by our investigation’s findings and that it “will look into them”
An LVCT Health spokesperson said “we are investigating the matter and will address it conclusively”, including “urgent retraining and sensitisation of our staff”
PEPFAR, MARPI and UCMB did not respond to openDemocracy requests for comment
Notes to editors:
openDemocracy is a global news outlet based in London, UK, with reporters and editors internationally including in East Africa