The European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously that the banning of an LGBT pride parade in Warsaw was a violation of Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (non-discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court specifically acknowledged that the protection of minorities includes people with a minority sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal held that disparate age-of-consent laws between same-sex and opposite-sex intercourse violated Hong Kong’s Basic Law and Bill of Rights. The Court set a new precedent by recognising sexual orientation as a proscribed ground of discrimination, giving sexual orientation equal footing with other proscribed grounds of discrimination, such as sex and race.
Nadan and McCosker had engaged in private, consensual, homosexual intercourse and had been charged pursuant to ss 175 and 177 of the Fijian Penal Code which criminalises carnal acts ‘against the order of nature’ and acts of ‘gross indecency’. They argued in the High Court that these provisions of the Penal Code were constitutionally invalid on the basis that they infringed provisions concerning privacy, equality, and freedom from degrading treatment. The court found for the appellants, quashing their convictions, as well as reading down the offending sections to that they would continue to operate only in relation to non-consensual sexual acts.
The US Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited sexual acts between same sex couples. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the right to privacy protects a right for adults to engage in private, consensual homosexual activity.
The appellant had been charged under Botswana’s Penal Code with s. 164(c) ‘unnatural offences and s.167 ‘indecent practices between males’. The appellant argued that these sections were incompatible with the Botswana Constitution and that the Penal Code discriminates against men on the basis of their gender and offends their right of freedom of conscience, expression, privacy, assembly and association entrenched in the Constitution. The Court held that discriminatory legislation on the basis of gender violated the Constitution and that section 167 of the Penal Code was therefore unconstitutional. However section 164(c) was not deemed to be unconstitutional.
This amicus curiae brief was submitted in the case of Lawrence v Texas in which the US Supreme Court struck down laws criminalising homosexuality in the state of Texas as unconstitutional. The brief emphasises that research and clinical experience demonstrates that homosexuality is a normal form of human sexuality. In the opinion of the Association sexual intimacy is a core aspect of human experience, and criminalising laws reinforce prejudice, discrimination, and violence against gay men and lesbians.