A third of Poland has declared itself to be an official “LGBT-free” zone as local municipalities sign a pledge adopting resolutions against “LGBT propaganda”.
Nearly 100 Polish municipal or local governments have now proclaimed themselves to be “free from LGBTI ideology”. Local authorities in these areas pledge to refrain from acts that encourage tolerance and must avoid providing financial assistance to NGOs working to promote equal rights.
An “Atlas of Hate” map created by activists reveals the extent of Poland that has signed up to this pledge – and it covers an area greater than the size of Hungary.
The area has continued to grow after the European Parliament passed a resolution that strongly condemned the concept of LGBT-free zones in December.
MEPs described the measures as part of “a broader context of attacks against the LGBTI community in Poland, which include growing hate speech by public and elected officials and public media, as well as attacks and bans on Pride marches and actions such as Rainbow Friday.”
They called on Poland to “firmly condemn” LGBT+ discrimination and to revoke resolutions attacking LGBT+ rights, and instructed the European Commission to ensure that EU funds are not “being used for discriminatory purposes”.
This warning was ignored by the ruling party Law and Justice (PiS), who are largely responsible for driving the upswing anti-LGBT+ sentiment in Poland.
Equality parades in Poland are routinely attacked by far-right activists who violently oppose Pride-goers with homophobic chants and explosive projectiles.
Polish hate crime laws provide little deterrent as they do not cover sexuality or gender identity. Earlier this week, a husband and wife convicted of bringing three deadly homemade explosives to a Pride march in Lubin were sentenced to just one year in prison.
The Washington Postreports that Grenell failed to register as a foreign agent in 2016 while advising the Magyar Foundation, which is “almost entirely” funded by Viktor Orban’s far-right government.
According to tax records, Grenell paid himself $668,362 for his PR work in the two years to 2018, when he was named Trump’s ambassador to Germany. His work for the Hungary-linked group was not disclosed on a list of clients on a public financial disclosure form for his appointment.
The newspaper adds there is “no indication” that the justice department is investigating Grenell over the apparent breach of the foreign agents registration act, which requires those who advocate on behalf of foreign powers to publicly disclose their work.
Trump ambassador Richard Grenell is facing scrutiny (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
Grenell denies he “received any form of compensation from a foreign government”.
Hungarian government has an extreme homophobic stance.
Hungarian activists say that Orbán and his far-right Fidesz party have created a culture of persecution of LGBT+ people in the country – warning that the government is complicit in anti-LGBT+ crackdowns.
In October, Coca-Cola was issued a fine by regulators in Hungary over an ad campaign featuring same-sex couples – with Fidesz MPs and the party’s aligned media outlets jumping on the issue to spread anti-LGBT rhetoric.
Richard Grenell vowed to ’empower’ conservatives around the world.
He had told Breitbart: “Many migrants have been allowed to come in, that was the policy of chancellor Merkel.
“There are a lot of conservatives throughout Europe who have contacted me to say they are feeling there is a resurgence going on.
“I absolutely want to empower other conservatives throughout Europe, other leaders. I think there is a groundswell of conservative policies that are taking hold because of the failed policies of the left.
“There’s no question about that and it’s an exciting time for me. I look across the landscape and we’ve got a lot of work to do but I think the election of Donald Trump has empowered individuals and people to say that they can’t just allow the political class to determine before an election takes place, who’s going to win and who should run.”
A lesbian teacher who was suspended and accused of “promoting the homosexual agenda” after showing her students a photo of her partner has been awarded a $100,000 settlement.
Shortly afterwards, a parent complained that Bailey was “promoting the homosexual agenda” by showing students a picture of her partner, and she was placed on administrative leave with pay by the Mansfield Independent School District (ISD).
Texas has no state law specifically protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, so Bailey took her case to federal court. After a two-year legal battle, Judge Sam Lindsay of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that her suspension was unconstitutional.
According to the Texas Tribune, the school district maintains that it did nothing wrong, but said in a statement on Monday, February 24, that it would award Bailey and her attorney a $100,000 settlement “to avoid the time, expense, stress and other impacts of continuing litigation”.
The Mansfield ISD has also agreed to withdraw the “administrative leave” designation from Bailey’s record, and to provide her with a letter of recommendation for future employment.
The ISD has agreed to take a vote on the issue, and will “provide mandatory training to Human Resource and Counseling staff regarding LGBTQ issues in schools, and offer optional training to be attended by administrators, educators, staff, or parents who may wish to attend such training”.
According to the Texas Tribune, Bailey said at a press conference on Tuesday, February 25: “What happened to me is most gay teachers’ worst nightmare.
“Why aren’t straight teachers afraid to talk about their families? Why do they feel comfortable to have a picture of their family on their desk without questioning their safety?”
She added: “If you are a school district who thinks you can bully and shame a gay teacher out of their job, I hope you remember my name and I hope you think twice.”
The teacher and her wife have said they will donate $10,000 o “a non-profit addressing LGBTQ student issues”, and her attorney Jason Smith will donate $10,000 to the Human Rights Campaign.
The seven remaining Democratic presidential candidates have all said they would overturn Donald Trump’s ban on trans people in the military.
Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Mike Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer have all said they would reverse the policy imposed by Trump in 2017 to ban trans people from serving in the armed forces.
Responding to a survey from the Human Rights Campaign, the candidates indicated that they would rescind the Trump policy and adopt new regulations allowing open service by all, qualified transgender people.
Buttigieg said: “I will immediately repeal the ban on military service for trans Americans and allow our transgender troops to serve openly.”
Warren added: “I have opposed the Trump administration’s shameful ban on transgender service members from the start, and I will reverse it on day one. The only thing that should matter when it comes to allowing military personnel to serve is whether or not they can handle the job. That’s also true for service members with HIV.
“Advances in care and treatment have made it possible for individuals living with HIV to serve and deploy, and the Pentagon’s policies should be updated to reflect these advances in medical science.”
Biden said: “It’s simple: every American who is qualified to serve, should be able to – and we should all be grateful for their service and courage.
“On day one of my presidency, I will direct the department of defense to allow transgender service members to serve openly and free from discrimination. I know that this is not just the right thing to do, but it’s in our national interest.”
Democratic presidential hopefuls Mike Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar have all pledged to repeal the ban (MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty Images)
Mike Bloomberg said: “I will reverse the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and rescind the exclusion of coverage of gender-affirming care in the veterans health administration.”
The Sanders campaign confirmed: “As president, Bernie will rescind Trump’s disgraceful ban on transgender people from serving in the military and issue new regulations allowing open service by transgender people.”
The response from Klobuchar’s team said: “Senator Klobuchar will immediately lift the ban preventing qualified transgender people from serving in the military. She will also expedite the process for service members who were discharged for no other reason than their sexual orientation or gender identity to correct negative discharges in order to reflect their honourable service.”
Steyer indicated he would scrap the ban but did not provide a further quote.
All the candidates have also pledged to sign the equality act, a bill to introduce federal LGBT+ non-discrimination protections that has been blocked by Republicans in the Senate, and to oppose efforts that allow individuals to use their religious beliefs as a justification for anti-LGBT discrimination.
Fox News favourite Tulsi Gabbard is AWOL from contest.
HRC notes that fringe candidate Tulsi Gabbard, who is yet to formally withdraw from the presidential race despite not appearing on a debate stage since November, did not respond to the survey, adding: “Should her campaign send responses, we will update the web site accordingly.”
It is unclear if the frequent Fox News guest, who has historical ties to anti-LGBT+ groups, plans to stay in the race after flatlining in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, while polling just one per cent nationally.
HRC president Alphonso David said: “LGBTQ people are among the most politically engaged constituencies in the country, and Democratic presidential candidates are taking notice.
“The more than 11 million LGBTQ voters and 57 million equality voters – LGBTQ voters and our allies – are crucial members of the intersectional coalition that will oust president Trump in November.”
He added: “Throughout his administration, Trump has attacked LGBTQ people at every opportunity. From eliminating access to necessary health care to actively supporting discrimination in the workplace, Trump has put LGBTQ rights at risk.
“Our community is looking for a leader that understands the challenges we face each and every day and has substantive, realistic plans to overcome them. The Trump-Pence administration must be stopped and HRC will work nationwide through November to ensure that they are.”
Seven current candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination were the among the respondents to an LGBTQ survey the nation’s leading LGBTQ group unveiled on Monday, but Tulsi Gabbard — who has been criticized for having an anti-LGBTQ past — wasn’t among them.
The seven current candidates who responded — Joseph Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer and Elizabeth Warren — responded affirmatively to each of HRC’s questions on LGBTQ issues, including whether they support the Equality Act, oppose President Trump’s transgender military ban and will commit to tackling anti-trans violence.
The lack of response from Gabbard sticks out, especially because she faced heavy criticism during the start of her presidential campaign for her opposition to LGBTQ rights as a Hawaii state legislator.
At the time in the early 2000s, Gabbard denounced LGBTQ rights supporters seeking to legalize civil unions as “homosexual extremists” and touted working for her father’s anti-gay organization, which fought marriage equality and promoted widely discredited “ex-gay” conversion therapy.
“I’m deeply sorry for having said that,” Gabbard says. “My views have changed significantly since then and my record in Congress over the last six years and reflect what is in my years.”
Gabbard since her election to Congress has endorsed marriage equality and became a co-sponsor of the Equality Act, legislation that would bar anti-LGBTQ discrimination under federal law.
But her record on LGBTQ issues isn’t spotless. The Hawaii Democrat was among a handful of congressional Democrats last year who didn’t sign a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, therefore illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In a news statement, the Human Rights Campaign says it will update its website with Gabbard’s responses should she provide them. The Washington Blade has placed a request in with the Gabbard campaign seeking comment on why it didn’t provide an LGBTQ survey response.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, Andrew Yang and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick also responded to the survey, but the organization didn’t make those results public because neither are still in the race.
Also not among the respondents is Trump, who has been criticized for building an anti-LGBTQ record over the course of his administration. Asked by Blade whether the Trump campaign received a questionnaire, an HRC spokesperson replied, “HRC sent questionnaires to all Democratic presidential candidates earlier this year.”
HRC hasn’t made an endorsement in the 2020 presidential race. Asked by the Blade how the survey results will factor into the endorsement decision and whether the endorsement during the primary, the HRC spokesperson was vague in response.
“These answers, alongside our town hall, will be crucial to our endorsement process and decision,“ the HRC spokesperson said.
HRC has a varied history on presidential endorsements, although it always endorsed Democratic candidates for the White House. In 2016, HRC endorsed Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary. In 2008, the organization waited until the conclusion of the primary between Clinton and Barack Obama before endorsing the latter candidate, who went on to win the presidency.
The Blade has placed a follow-up inquiry in with the Human Rights Campaign on whether the Gabbard campaign provided any explanation for not providing an LGBTQ survey response by deadline.
An investigation by Responsible Statecraft has found that President Trump’s newly installed acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, knowingly provided public relations services directed at U.S. media on behalf of a project funded by Hungary’s far-right government. Grenell didn’t register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which is a requirement applying to individuals and entities operating inside the U.S. as an “agent” of a “foreign principal.”
Craig Engle, Grenell’s attorney, told Responsible Statecraft that Grenell “knew that the Hungarian government was the sponsor” of work he undertook, but claimed that Grenell’s activities did not require him to file under FARA. According to the Justice Department, activities requiring registration as an “agent” to a “foreign principal” includes engaging in “acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal.”
This latest revelation follows a similar ProPublica reportpublished on Friday:
President Donald Trump’s new acting intelligence director, Richard Grenell, used to do consulting work on behalf of an Eastern European oligarch who is now a fugitive and was recently barred from entering the U.S. under anti-corruption sanctions imposed last month by the State Department.
In 2016, Grenell wrote several articles defending the oligarch, a Moldovan politician named Vladimir Plahotniuc, but did not disclose that he was being paid, according to records and interviews. Grenell also did not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which generally requires people to disclose work in the U.S. on behalf of foreign politicians.
FARA is the same law that Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former deputy campaign manager Rick Gates were convicted of violating. (Manafort went to trial. Gates pleaded guilty.)
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear a dispute over a Philadelphia Catholic agency that won’t place foster children with same-sex couples.
The justices will review an appeals court ruling that upheld the city’s decision to stop placing children with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s agency because it would not permit same-sex couples to serve as foster parents.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled the city did not target the agency because of its religious beliefs but acted only to enforce its own nondiscrimination policy in the face of what seemed to be a clear violation.
UPDATE: From the ACLU.
The Supreme Court today agreed to hear Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case about whether or not taxpayer-funded foster care agencies have a constitutional right to discriminate based on the agency’s religious requirements.
Catholic Social Services (CSS) sued Philadelphia for the right to discriminate against prospective foster families headed by same-sex couples. The Support Center for Child Advocates and Philadelphia Family Pride, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Pennsylvania, intervened in the lawsuit.
Both the district court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected CSS’ claims, saying instead that Philadelphia can require agencies that accept tax dollars to provide foster care services for children to accept all qualified families.
Taxpayer-funded foster care agencies in a number of states, such as South Carolina, have asserted a religious objection to accepting families of different faiths, families that do not attend church, same-sex couples, or unmarried people.
Pete Buttigieg was accused of “contradicting God’s word” by pastor Rhyan Glezman, the older brother of his husband Chasten.
Glezman spoke out after Buttigieg questioned how Christians could support Donald Trump.
“Well, I’m not going to tell other Christians how to be Christians, he said during a CNN town hall event on Tuesday, February 18.
“But I will say I cannot find any compatibility between the way this president conducts himself and anything that I find in Scripture.”
The Democrat’s brother-in-law said that it was the “the height of intellectual dishonesty for Pete to make claims that there’s no compatibility with being a Christian and voting for Trump”.
“Just everything that Pete is pushing is, it’s anti-God. I’m just gonna be honest with you,” he told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight.
He’s the one that is openly contradicting God’s word over and over.
Glezman has previously spoken out against the Buttigiegs, telling The Washington Post that “while he wants the best” for his brother, he doesn’t “support the gay lifestyle”.
The pastor was interviewed for a profile of Chasten, in which the would-be first gentleman said he had been forced to leave home after coming out because his brothers rejected him.
Glezman rejected this version of events, and accused the Buttigeigs of making up the story for political clout.
“A mayor from a small city and his husband, a child who grew up with nothing and his parents kicked him out … it makes a perfect political story for the campaign,” he told The Washington Examiner.
“To me that’s very sad. If that’s all you have to stand on, you’re not fit to be president of the United States.”
Pete Buttigieg goes into Nevada caucuses after trying week.
Buttigieg’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination will be tested on Saturday, February 22 at the Nevada caucuses.
The former South Bend, Indiana mayor has spent much of the week defending himself after right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh questioned his suitability for the White House as a gay man.
Buttigieg fired barbs at both Limbaugh and Trump at the CNN town hall event, laughing at “the idea that the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Donald Trump [could be] lecturing anybody on family values”.
“One thing about my marriage is it’s never involved me having to send hush money to a porn star,” he added.
A man has detailed the alleged sexual abuse he suffered 50 years ago at the hands of a now-deceased university doctor who treated “all the gay men”.
Robert E Anderson was formerly a director of the health service at the University of Michigan, and worked at the university from 1968 until 2003. He passed away in 2008.
According to The Detroit News, University of Michigan officials announced on Wednesday, February 19, that since July 2018 they had been investigating multiple reports of “sexual misconduct and unnecessary medical exams” by Anderson’s former patients.
Most of the alleged incidents took place in the 1970s, but at least one former patient said they were abused in the 1990s.
University of Michigan president Mark Schlissel said in a statement: “The allegations that were reported are disturbing and very serious. We promptly began a police investigation and cooperated fully with the prosecutor’s office.”
One of Anderson’s alleged victims, Robert Julian Stone, has spoken out about his experience of being one of the doctor’s patients in 1970.
According to All About Ann Arbor, when Stone was a 20-year-old student at the university he was fearful of visiting his family doctor because he was gay.
He said: “I called a friend of mine, a gay friend in Ann Arbor. I said: ‘Look, I don’t know. Who do I go to? Who do I see?’
“He said go to Dr Anderson. Dr Anderson treats all the gay men in Ann Arbor.”
Stone said that during the appointment Anderson began undressing and placed the student’s hand on his genitals.
He continued: “After this happened, I was horrified. I was absolutely enraged and disgusted. It makes me want to cry.
“Homosexuality was still considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. I felt completely disempowered to report this.”
Stone, who now lives in Palm Springs with his husband, wrote an essay in the summer of 2019 about the alleged sexual abuse and sent it to the university, which triggered the investigation.
According to The Detroit News, Stone said: “When I first wrote to the university, I thought: ‘Well, Dr Anderson was a closeted gay man’, and I had some compassion for a man at that time in that position.
“Now I realise he wasn’t a closeted gay man. He was a sexual predator, and that’s … a criminal thing.”
But Washtenaw County prosecutor Steven Hiller has said that no charges can be filed because so much time had passed, and Anderson was deceased.
The University of Michigan has, however, set up a hotline for other people to come forward. According to All About Ann Arbor, there have been 22 reports to the hotline since Wednesday.
Brigham Young University in Utah has revised its strict code of conduct to strip a rule that banned any behavior that reflected “homosexual feelings,” which LGBTQ students and their allies felt created an unfair double standard not imposed on heterosexual couples.
The university is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which teaches its members that being gay isn’t a sin, but engaging in same-sex intimacy is.
BYU’s revisions to what the college calls its honor code don’t change the faith’s opposition to same-sex relationships or gay marriage. The changes were discovered by media outlets Wednesday.
Students found out Wednesday, too. BYU student Franchesca Lopez, tweeting under the handle @fremlo_, wrote, “It’s confirmed. Gay dating is okay, kissing and hand holding from the mouth of an HCO [Honor Code Office] counselor,” and included a photo of her kissing a friend in front of the campus statue of Brigham Young.
I’m going to the honor code office as soon as I get out of class to make sure, but several people have confirmed that gay students can now date and it is not against the honor code
BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said an email that the updated version of the code aligns with a new handbook of rules unveiled by the faith, widely known as the Mormon church. She didn’t elaborate on the thinking behind the change, saying only that the changes removed “prescriptive language” and “kept the focus on the principles of the Honor Code, which have not changed.”
The faith has tried to carve out a more compassionate stance toward LGBTQ people over the last decade, while adhering to its doctrinal belief that same-sex relationships are a sin.
An entire section in the code that was dedicated to “homosexual behavior” has been removed. The clause that upset people was the part that said “all forms of physical intimacy that that give expression to homosexual feelings” is prohibited.
Students had previously complained about the clause that was eliminated was interpreted to be a ban on gay couples holding hands or kissing. Those behaviors are allowed for heterosexual couples, though premarital sex is banned.
Former BYU student Addison Jenkins had advocated for years for the college to remove the language, which he said codified homophobic ideas. He said he’s glad the section is gone.
“It treats queer students the same as straight students, which is something we have been begging the university for,” said Jenkins, who is gay.
But he said he still has major concerns about how school administrators will implement the change after seeing BYU officials issue a series of tweets late Wednesday afternoon about what the college called some “miscommunication” about what the changes mean.
“The Honor Code Office will handle questions that arise on a case by case basis,” BYU tweeted. “For example, since dating means different things to different people, the Honor Code Office will work with students individually.”
BYU’s Honor Code bans other things that are commonplace at other colleges — including drinking, beards and piercings. Students who attend the university in Provo, Utah, south of Salt Lake City, agree to agreed to adhere to the code. Nearly all students are members of the faith. Punishments for violations range from discipline to suspension and expulsion.
Last year, several hundred students rallied to call on BYU officials to be more compassionate with punishments for honor code violators.
The code was criticized in 2016 by female students who spoke out against the school opening honor-code investigations of students who reported sexual abuses to police. The college changed the policy to ensure that students who report sexual abuse would no longer be investigated for honor code violations.
