An open (hearted) letter to Suzanne Moore

Dear Suzanne,

Like Paris Lees, I am a long-term admirer of you and your writing. Your articles have always been a breath of fresh air and often helped me understand that it is the world that is mad not me. So everything Paris wrote in her open letter to you, goes for me too.

Getting to the point, I would like to ask you to reconsider you tweet about suing Pinknews. Not only is there nothing you could possibly sue them for but you might help silence one of the few places where the murders of trans people around the world get reported in this country.

I have to declare an interest here; I am one of the team that organises the London International Transgender Day of Remembrance. I have volunteered to do it, despite heavy work committmemnts pulling me in other directions, because it is the only way we can bring people's attention to the obscene numbers of trans people being murdered around the world, and especially in Latin America. The Transgender Day of Remembrance this year saw such an increase in numbers that, for the first time we had to stop lighting real candles and use battery-powered ones because the smoke pollution they were causing in the room.

We also worked hard to find Spanish and Portuguese speakers who are trans, so that we can get right the pronuncuation of the names of the dead people. Finding trans people who can speak Portuguese proved difficult even in cosmopolitan London, but we found two who soldiered bravely through the 124 names until they were both overcome with emotion. I know it doesn't seem a difficult thing to do; read out a list of names, but I was one of the readers two years ago when there were "only"180 names altogether (there were 265 worldwide this time), I managed to get through without crying but wept almost uncontrolably afterwards. Believe it or not it was one of the hardest things I have ever done. Every name could have been me or my friends.

The reason why we keep this tradition going, and it has been going since 1998, is to keep alive the memories of our sisters and brothers who have been killed for being just like us. The world needs to know about this, we are a small and relatively powerless minority, even more so in global terms, so all we can uselfully do is bring it to people's attention, which is what TDoR is about.

So I want to ask, please, please do not make this about you. It is not about you, and no-one could ever read into the Pink News article that the death of Cecilia Marahouse is going to have any connection, however tentative, with you. However the fact that she has been murdered needs to be got out there. As far as we are concerned, any publicity about this issue is good publicity, but now is the time to allow the real story to be heard, that is the only way we will ever be able to bring pressure on governments in Latin America to change their ways. Work is under way already but it is difficult.

I recently met Mariela Castro who has worked hard for trans rights in Cuba, she is trying to spread understanding of trans issues throughout Latin America; she has recently started to make some tentative inroads with the Guatemalan government for example. But these governments will not listen to her without international pressure, and with the World Cup next year and Olympics two years after that, there are fears of an even greater bloodbath than that which trans people currently experience in Brazil.

We feel angry about the murders and at the same time powerless to stop them, but we are using whatever tiny influence and leverage we can find to stop out brothers and sisters form dying. Last year a young transwoman was tortured to death by a mob of 400 people in La Paz, Bolivia; plenty of others were killed in religious-style stonings across Latin America.

So please make this about them, not you. This is not about getting one back on you, this is about charred bodies in remote ditches, it is about drive-by shootings, it is about bodies of teenagers with multiple stab wounds or bullet holes, it is about religious-style stonings.

A constructive response on your part would also restore your reputation conmsiderably, especially amongst trans people and our supporters.


Yours sincerely,

Natacha Kennedy

Thicker Skins

I am one of the lucky ones; I can afford to live in a relatively safe area of London, so I spend a considerable part of my - no doubt  by Toby Young's standards - paltry salary on a huge mortgage and two hours a day getting to and from work. This is because the area of London where I work, although having a plentiful supply of relatively cheap and comfortable accommodation, is dangerous for me. How do I know? I work there.

Numerous times I have been thankful that there are plenty of other people waiting on my platform at the station, as someone has acosted me and started haranguing me; I have been called everything from a "fucking tranny" to a "fucking dyke". At one time when I was waiting for a bus on the main road a mob of people started shouting things at me of a similar nature, and making threats. I was fortunate that a black cab went past after a few moments and I jumped in in order to get away. I don't know what would have happened if I had not done so.

This does not mean I have not received transphobic harrassment in West Hampstead where I live, Cornered once on a station platform with only one exit a large, threatening man tried to attack me, and once again I was only saved by the arrival of a train full of people. I have been folowed by people in the street, on one occasion a man tried to creep up behind me at the top of my street, for what purpose I do not know, can imagine. screaming at him in a loud voice and waking up many of my neighbours, to whom I later appologised profusely was the only way he was frightened off. I was threatened while waiting for a bus outside a tube station in East London in broad daylight once and harrassment and intimidation of a verbal kind is a weekly occurence so much now that I almost do not notice it. The only thing I have noticed is how the "I'm a Laydee" wits have generally disappeared since the BBC stopped repeats of Little Britain.

I am also in the position of having to do part of my job in a cisgender male appearance, because that element, supervising students on placement, is not covered by any anti-discrimination legislation, including the "all-encompassing" Equality Act.

Clearly I have not been doing things right. The wisdom of Toby Young, who must know everything about being trans, after all he's a journalist for the Sun) clearly dictates that I should grow a "thicker skin". I must admit to being perplexed at this advice. I must be doing something wrong and I can't see how a thicker skin is going to help me overcome the harrassment I recieve at the hands of those who have been driven to hate me by the media's cumulitive negative stereotyping of trans people.

OK so Young argues that you cannot "prove' that the media causes transphobic hate crime, but this is legalistic disingenuousness. You can't prove that school uniform improves discipline of attainment in school, but Toby Youn's "free" school has one.

So perhaps Toby Young could advise me on these points. I wuld love to be able to live colser to work and not become a victim of hate-crime. How thick will my skin need to be to protect me from a knife, a gun or a hate-fuelled mob.

Putting Words into our Mouths

As the dust from the Burchill transphobic article starts to settle it is time to step back a bit and look a little more closely at some of the untruths that have been said for trans people by others. In this case, in addition to Burchill, the almost as unedifying ‘intellect’ of Toby Young; the bone-headed tribal Tory reactionary journalist who stepped in to champion her cause...

There are the obvious and sickening insults from Burchill; deliberately provocative and reminiscent of some bad racist propaganda I got hold of at an Anti-Nazi League demo ages ago. But her diatribe of mindless working-class Tory bigotry (is there any other kind of working-class Tory bigotry?) also concealed an interesting, and rather nasty twist, which probably went unnoticed but which may turn out to be more significant than the more obvious stuff.

This was her deliberate misrepresentation or deliberate “misunderstanding” of the word “cisgender”. The way she presented us as using it as a kind of anti cisgender insult “syph, cyst, cistern.” Suggests that this represents one of the ways TERFs like her are going to try and misrepresent us. The fact that she suggested that “cis” is a term only used to describe women, is, of course not true, yet I have had a number of cisgender women friends contact me in recent days saying they don’t want to be called “cis” thinking that it is some kind of anti-feminist insult, which of course it is not.

A blatant attempt to deny us an important element of our vocabulary represents epistemological violence against trans people and aims to misrepresent what we say in an attempt to drum up transphobic hatred through promoting misunderstanding. It is an attempt to deny us the words with which to talk about out lives and our experiences. This is something we must watch out for. It is sometimes difficult to understand but people who have considered themselves “normal” and “unmarked” actually do find it uncomfortable to find someone else attaching a label to them. I’m not sure how many heterosexual people like the term “straight” for example. Unfortunately TERFs running round deliberately trying to make out that we are using it as a misogynistic insult is something only too true to type for these individuals; in the end since they have so little ammunition with which to attack us, they will use what they can…

Of course Burchill’s attempt to do this is probably unlikely to have much effect since it was associated with so much obvious bile, but Toby Young’s piece in support of her, and, for that matter from some other journalists, is more subtle. As such more dangerous, and not just for us but for other minorities that it is still not socially unacceptable to have a go at, Romany travellers, Chavs, genuine feminists, red-headed people, disabled people etc…

His argument is the “offence” argument, an old chestnut that needs to be exposed for what it is. The stock in trade, standard issue argument for right-wing journalists trying to silence others critiques of their own bad practice and unacceptable (and usually bigoted) views. The argument is that they should have the right to cause “offence”. Let us be very clear about this. Toby Young is using a what is in my view a thoroughly dishonest argument. He is telling everyone that we are against Burchill’s article because it caused us to be “offended”. This is a serious and disingenuous misrepresentation; I am “offended” almost every time I look at a news site, I am certainly offended every time I look at any newspaper that Young writes for, but I am of the opinion that the Burchill article should not have been published for entirely different reasons, and I believe Toby Young knows this but still chooses to misrepresent our views.

I am protesting against this article, and others like it by Richard Littlejohn for example, not because I am “offended”, but because they legitimize transphobic hatred. They make it OK for those people in the street who shout at you, to call me ‘mate’, ‘fucking tranny’, ‘I’m a Laydee’ or any other clever witticisms. It makes it OK for groups of young men to threaten me in the street, it makes it OK for men in cars to stalk me to my door at night because they want to have sex with a “TV”, like they have seen on porn sites. It makes it legit for men to try and chat me up when I’m walking home from the Tube at midnight; a scary experience because you don’t know what they want. And it makes it OK for schools to say; no, we don’t want your kind visiting our premises and “confusing” our kids.

Toby Young’s deliberate disingenuousness is easier to pick out but no less dangerous. If journalists can justify incitement to hate crime by simply describing it as the right to “offend” then almost anything becomes possible, including groups of people being “mandated out of existence.”

So, in addition to calling Burchill on her bigotry we need to call both her and Young on deliberate and dishonest misrepresentation. It is a classic right-wing bigot’s tactic in the absence of any genuine argument. We need to make sure it is a tactic that fails.

Every School A Crammer.

The recent slump in teacher morale documented by a YouGov poll published a few days ago represents a severe indictment of Michael Gove’s education policies. Largely the extreme logical conclusion of a quarter of a century’s education policies his policies started with Margaret Thatcher’s 1988 Education Act and were carried on by a Blairite government too timid to change them.

These right-wing education policies have continuously relied on assertions that applying toytown market reductionism and simplistic MBA-style solutions to schools will achieve improvements. The problem for those advocating these right-wing policies is that they have almost always relied on unsupported declarations and failed to include any serious data or even arguments to support their claims.

Now everything is starting to fall apart, the core of Gove’s policies; fragmentation through academies and “free” schools, top-down imposition of performance-related-pay, greater centralization of the curriculum, giving heads too much power, abandoning initial teacher education and over-reliance on exams and testing. The head of Ofsted’s idiotic comment "If anyone says to you that 'staff morale is at an all-time low' you know you are doing something right." Is now threatening to make him look even more out of touch than his boss.

The problem is that as teacher morale decreases (and resulting industrial action increases) the status of teaching decreases and this hits recruitment and retention of teachers. Already, despite a severe shortage of jobs for graduates and young people, recruitment is starting to suffer, and disillusionment of teachers is falling.

The problem has been that pretty much every right-wing education initiative imposed on schools since May 2010 has been based on untested assumptions, or even, in some cases, assumptions for which there is significant evidence to the contrary – such as “free” schools.

Just one example of such an assertion is the claim by Teach First that sending barely-trained graduates into schools for a couple of years while they wait for a job to come up in banking or accountancy will “raise the status of teaching”. Brett Wigdortz, the head of Teach First has repeatedly made this assertion but has never supplied any justification for it. Indeed he has never even supported it with any serious argument, never mind any data. The decline on the status of teaching associated with the figures for teacher morale now gives lie to his vacuous assertions, repeated, Goebbels fashion to make them true.

This reflects one of the defining features of those advocating right-wing education policies has traditionally been the substitution of anecdotes for data, and unsupported assertion for actual evidence; something which runs through the entire New Educational Establishment (NEE) from Katherine Birbalsingh and Toby Young to Joel Klein and Michael Wilshaw.

In fact the British NEE is but a subsection of the GERM (Global Educational Reform Movement) as Pasi Sahlberg has Christened it; a barely-disguised corporate-run Astroturf movement dedicated to educational privatization, increased testing, and subjecting children to greater regimentation and conformity. Yet it uses the language of educational improvement to disguise a reduction in educational quality for our children.

Every school a crammer, is now the effective policy, one that was probably inevitable from the start of the current right-wing education “reforms” in 1988. Ofsted used to say that, “if pupils are not learning, teachers are not teaching.” Well this logic has now come full circle. Dr Tony Wagner has shown how rote memorization of test answers has effectively replaced real learning, and Prof. Paul Dowling and Prof Andrew Brown’s research in secondary schools has shown that many secondary school children now regard the curriculum as little more than a ticket to the next level, like a computer game. Learning has been replaced by information to be memorized for exams but useless for anything else and soon forgotten. The children in our schools learn nothing more than to pass exams and schools have become adept at producing good exam results without actually teaching the children anything useful.

So what is the motivation behind the GERM? The cat was let out of the bag by a Tea-Party pundit during the American election who admitted that people are more likely to vote Republican the wealthier they become, but that this is reduced significantly if they are well educated. The problem is that the more educated people are the better able they are to see through the unsupported assertions, hyperbole, propaganda and outright lies of right-wing parties.

The problem is that no-one is going to win any election by telling people they are going to make education worse, so a systematic dumbing-down of educational has to be dressed up as educational improvement, with the full force of the right-wing propaganda machine behind it. Some people have suggested that it is Gove’s background as a journalist that has resulted in him being given an easy ride by the media. This is probably an oversimplification. They are doing it because they need to maintain the myths upon which his policies are based in the face of considerable evidence on the ground to the contrary.

Initial response from PCC re: Transphobe Littlejohn story

The concerns you have raised relate directly to Miss Lucy Meadows the subject of the story. Given the nature of the story, it appears that it would be difficult for the Commission to investigate or understand this matter fully without her involvement. In addition, the outcome of a Commission investigation (whether correction, apology or adjudication, for example) would need her approval. In such circumstances, we would generally require a complaint from Miss Lucy Meadows or her representative, in order to take the matter forward.

It appears that we would have difficulty in pursuing this matter. However, if you believe that there are exceptional public interest reasons for the Commission to proceed with an independent complaint under the circumstances, we would be grateful to hear from you in the next ten days. 

Once we have heard from you, the Commission will be asked whether it wishes to take the complaint forward. If you would like to discuss your case before replying please do contact us.  If we hear no more from you we will close our file on the matter.

If, at the end of the process, you are dissatisfied with the manner in which your complaint has been handled, you should write within one month to the Independent Reviewer who will investigate the matter and report any findings and recommendations to the Commission. For further details please use the following link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/independentreview.html

A copy of the Code of Practice which all newspapers and magazines who subscribe adhere to, can be accessed using this web link:http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

Peter Wright, who was until the end of March 2012 editor of The Mail on Sunday, is currently a member of the Press Complaints Commission.  However, as the Daily Mail, the sister newspaper of the Mail on Sunday, is the subject of your complaint he will not take part in any discussion or consideration of the complaint by the Commission.

My complaint to the PCC about Mr Littlejohn's transphobic DM article

Link to the original article here

Although I am not the named complainant whose privacy was infringed in the article, I would like this complaint to be considered from someone whose life particularly affected by the publication of this and similar articles. I have a material interest in this publication and it, and similar articles negatively affect me personally in my day-to-day life on a daily basis. As such I argue that it should be given consideration at a level close to that of Miss Meadows complaint herself.

The following are the clauses in the editors' code of practice which Mr Littlejohn and the Daily Mail have breached

"All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards."

"It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual"

"The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures."

"The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact."

"Privacy

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information."

This article failed to uphold high professional standards by any measure whatsoever. In particular it failed to publish accurate information about children's responses to transgender people. There are no studies which suggest that the presence of trans people cause children any problems whatsoever. My own published, peer-reviewed research (attachment 1) shows that around 80% of trans people knew they were trans before they left primary school, they have only been troubled by others' - normally teachers or other children's parents - failure to accept them as trans.

My paper's findings have subsequently been supported by Riley, Clemson, Sitharthan & Diamond (2012) "Surviving a Gender Variant Childhood: The views of transgender adults on the needs of gender variant children and their parents" (http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2012-surviving-gender-variant-childhood.html)

Not only that but Brill & Pepper (2008) The Transgender Child: A Handbook for Professionals and Families provide strong evidence that trans people are unproblematically accepted in their new gender.

Hinton, K. (2008) “A transgender story: from birth to secondary school”. In Invisible boundaries: addressing sexualities equalities in children’s worlds DePalma R. and E. Atkinson (eds) has shown how children in a Roman Catholic primary school accepted a transgender child unproblematically despite, at that time having no support or advice organisations to turn to as there are today.

In addition the following videos show that transgender children are easily accepted by their peers;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S5usRgY720

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AelO2L4HneE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mYvj6bEpQM

My own studies are additionally proceeding involving transgender children in their schools as participants, only because of the threat of their exposure to the media by newspapers like the Daily Mail and correspondents like Mr Littlejohn in particular, I am having to work very hard to ensure that my research participants are kept out of the reach of the media and that they and their schools are anonymised. However I can confirm that these children's peers accepted them unproblematically.

In addition I taught in a primary school where, in 2004, we had a transgender child who transitioned unproblematically from male to female without any press publicity and with no problems from other children in the school, she has now successfully finished her secondary education.

In Mr Littlejohn's article he strongly infers that children will be upset and confused by the presence of a transgender teacher, yet I personally know a number of transgender teachers (who have very skillfully and successfully been able to keep their transitions out of the media) who have not had any problem with children in primary schools. I know of openly transgender primary school supply teachers who cause the children no stress and who have constantly been re-employed by a large number of primary schools. I myself, an openly transgender woman have visited a number primary schools to give diversity training with no problems.

Yet by carefully reading Mr Littlejohn's article it is clear that all he is reporting on are the fears, neuroses or biases of one parent who reported that his child was troubled by it. Yet anyone who has had any experience of parents knows that this parent is clearly causing this child's upset himself, not Miss Meadows.

"Parent Wayne Cowie said the news had left his ten-year-old son worried and confused."

Yet Mr Littlejohn, from the say-so of one individual, suggests that all children will be troubled by this.

"The school shouldn’t be allowed to elevate its ‘commitment to diversity and equality’ above its duty of care to its pupils and their parents.

It should be protecting pupils from some of the more, er, challenging realities of adult life, not forcing them down their throats."

Yet his assumptions demonstrate clearly that he has failed to properly research the subject before publishing this article. My own research and that of Riley et al, clearly demonstrates that this is not an issue relating to adult life, being transgender is an issue for children, since the overwhelming majority of trans people realise they are trans before they leave primary school.

Here also Mr Littlejohn has failed to keep fact an opinion clearly seperated; there is a wealth of research demonstrating that children accept trans people very easily, especially primary school children, it is adults who have the problem. Mr Littlejohn has failed in his duty as a journalist to do the most basic research, research which would have contradicted what he published in his article. This is not merely bad journalism, it is a breach of the code both in spirit and letter, as the preamble explicitly states. He has given the impression that children become confused and stressed by the presence of a transgender person, however this is simply not the case. He has, as such breached the letter of the code and breached the spirit of the code also, both of which are important.

This is an important issue for transgender people because it is articles like Mr Littlejohn's, coupled with the Daily Mail's obsession with transgender people (Trans Media Watch has documented dozens, if not hundreds of articles about trans people), which result in many transgender children, and their parents, being fearful of coming out at school. This is something which actively harms their education because of the internal stress it causes. However, as a transgender teacher who has had to leave teaching in order to come out as trans, I know that it harms this group of people also. I have spoken to a number of trans primary school teachers who have either not come out as teachers or have experienced discrimination, largely by senior management or parents as the result of coming out as trans.

Articles such as this, which breach an individual's right to privacy are effectively bullying trans people not to come out. Miss Meadows privacy has been breached in an unjustifiable way. Here I can anticipate the editor of the Daily Mail's response that "Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information", since Miss Meadows let it be known in the school newsletter that she was changing gender. However, this defence is simply not sustainable. The circulation of the school newsletter was intended for parents of children in that school only and was clearly included in such a way which asserts that she did not wish a huge amount of publicity. In effect Miss Meadows was doing what she needed to to to inform parents and pupils. This is something all teachers have to do, people who transition in other jobs do this also but usually do not have to do so to such a large number of people who are their clients.

So Mr Littlejohn's article, and the Daily Mail's intrusion into Miss Meadows' life at what is clearly a particularly sensitive time cannot be justified either in terms of her own public disclosures or the public interest. In fact people such as myself and other transgender teachers would like to have these issues discussed in the media, but they do not need to involve intruding on the lives of trans people to do that. This is an issue which can easily be covered without invasions of privacy, as such there can be no public interest defence for this invasion of privacy.

The publication of this article has occured shortly after the publication of Leveson, yet it is written as if Leveson had not happened. This suggests that the press is returning to its old ways very quickly. If the newspaper industry's own proposals for its own self regulation are to be credible then this article needs to be censured by the PCC. Failure to act, and to act quickly and decisively in this instance will seriously undermine any claims the industry has to being able to regulate itself and will represent evidence that the proposed body will allow newspapers to continue in the way they did prior to the News of the World scandals.

                  

Extrajudicial Killings and TDoR

The following is a joint press release from these organisations;

Action Canada for Population and Development, Canada; Anjaree Thailand, Thailand; Amnesty International; Arc International; COC Nederland, Netherlands; FARUG, Uganda; For-SOGI, Thailand; GAYa NUSANTARA, Indonesia; GATE: Global Action for Trans* Equality, International; Human Rights Watch; International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia (IDAHO); International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission; International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA); International Commission of Jurists, International; International Service for Human Rights (ISHR); Kaos Gay Lesbian Cultural Research and Solidarity Association, Turkey; The Norwegian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Organisation (LLH), Norway; Organización de Transexuales por la Dignidad de la Diversidad (OTD), Chile; RFSL The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights, Sweden; Russian LGBT Network, Russia; SAYONI, Singapore; SPECTRUM, Uganda; SPoD, Social Policies, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Studies Association, Turkey; TLF Share, Philippines; ransgender Europe (TGEU), International; Women for Women's Human Rights (WWHR), Turkey.

"Governments Condemn Extrajudicial Executions in Seminal UN Vote

Historic First Condemnation of Killings Based on Gender Identity 

November 21, 2012

For Immediate Release (For media contacts, see below)

(New York) An international coalition of organizations dedicated to human rights celebrated yesterday’s historic vote in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly to pass resolution A/C.3/67/L.36 condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.  The vote reversed the events of 2010 when the same body voted to strip the resolution of reference to “sexual orientation.” The UNGA also expanded upon its commitment to the universality of human rights by including “gender identity” for the first time in the resolution’s history.  

The resolution, which is introduced biennially in the Third Committee, urges States to protect the right to life of all people, including by calling upon states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. It was introduced by the Government of Sweden and co-sponsored by 34 states from around the world. 

For the past 12 years, this resolution has urged States "to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including... all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation."  Apart from Human Rights Council resolution 17/19, it is the only UN resolution to make specific reference to sexual orientation.  This year, the term “gender identity” was added to the list of categories vulnerable to extrajudicial killings.

At Tuesday’s session, the United Arab Emirates, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, presented an amendment that would have stripped the resolution of reference to “sexual orientation and gender identity” and substituted “or for any other reason.”  The UAE proposal was rejected in a vote with 44 votes in favor, 86 against, and 31 abstentions and 32 absent.  Another failed effort, led by the Holy See, would have stripped all specific references to groups at high risk for execution; however it was never formally introduced.  

The Third Committee also retained language expressing “deep concern” over the continuing instances of arbitrary killing resulting from the use of capital punishment in a manner that violates international law, which some States led by Singapore attempted to have deleted. The Singapore proposal was rejected in a vote with 50 votes in favor, 78 against, and 37 abstentions and 30 absent. 
 
The full resolution passed with 108 votes in favor, 1 against, 65 abstentions, and 19 absent.  (While the voting screen showed no vote from Trinidad & Tobago, the state representative took the floor after the tally to explain their intention to vote in favor of the full resolution.)

Many governments, including Brazil, the United States and South Africa, among others, spoke out to condemn the proposed amendment to remove reference to sexual orientation and gender identity.  The Government of Japan ended the silence that has often characterized the Asian Group’s participation on LGBT rights at the UNGA by stating, “We cannot tolerate any killings of persons because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Our delegation voted against the proposed amendment to this paragraph because we think it is meaningful to mention such killings from the perspective of protecting the rights of LGBT people.”  

Some governments condemned the reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, including Sudan on behalf of the Arab Group, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Trinidad and Tobago stated that specific reference to “gender identity” presented a “particular challenge” for the country.  Speaking frequently, the Government of Egypt stated that it was “gravely alarmed at the attempt to legitimate undetermined concepts like gender identity” by equating them with other forms of discrimination such as that based on race, color, sex, religion, and language.  In reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, Egypt stated, “We are alarmed at the attempts to make new rights or new standards.”  

The vote affirms the resolution’s dramatic conclusion in 2010. At that time, the Third Committee removed the reference to “sexual orientation” by a vote of 79 in favor, 70 opposed, with 17 abstaining and 26 not voting and was silent on “gender identity.” However, in a remarkable turn of events, the resolution was later introduced before the full General Assembly, which voted to reinstate the language by passing it 93 to 55, with 27 abstentions and 17 absent or not voting.

The states’ decision on Tuesday to support the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and introduce “gender identity” into the resolution is one more in a series of positive developments the UN and in regional human rights systems where there is increasingly recognition of the need for protection from discrimination regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. The successful expansion of the resolution to include “gender identity” on Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day dedicated to those murdered as a result of their gender identity or expression, was particularly significant.

THE VOTE

·      For a full vote on the Singapore Amendment, click here.  For a photograph of the vote, click here.

·      For a full vote on the United Arab Emirates Amendment to remove sexual orientation and gender identity, click here.  For a photograph of the vote, click here.

·      For a full vote on the passage of the Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions Resolutions, click here.  For a photograph of the vote, click here. 

HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS RESPOND

Amnesty International, International

“The resolution also focuses attention on another way, little explored by the UN up to now, that the death penalty as such does violence to human rights,” said Amnesty International’s UN representative, José Luis Díaz. “The Third Committee sent a strong message, reaffirming everyone must be protected from extrajudicial killings and keeping language Singapore and others sought to expunge, thereby upholding fundamental principles of human rights and the rule of law.”

Arc International, International

"More than half of the world's nations have now spoken, and we call upon the minority of countries that still oppose LGBT rights to bring their laws into conformity with international standards," said Kim Vance, Co-Director, Arc International.

GAYa NUSANTARA, Indonesia

“We commend the steadfastness of those governments who showed their commitment to the universality of human rights principles, and urge those who have not to do so in future resolutions,” said Dédé Oetomo of GAYa NUSANTARA.

Global Action for Trans* Equality (GATE), International

“The inclusion of gender identity in the Resolution on Extrajudicial Executions is an historical landmark for trans* people around the world, who are commemorating today an International Day of Remembrance, honoring those killed by transphobic violence. In the context of this Resolution, language on gender identity would contribute decisively to dismantle that violence," said Mauro Cabral, Co-Director, GATE

Human Rights Watch, International

“The right to life, liberty and security of the person is a basic human right. It is shocking to see how often people are killed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Boris Dittrich, advocacy director in the LGBT program at Human Rights Watch “With this vote the majority of states acknowledge this serious problem and seek to redress it.”  

International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, International

“With yesterday’s UN vote, a majority of governments worldwide decisively rebutted the ideology of hate and affirmed the simple but fundamental premise that LGBT people have a right to exist,” said Jessica Stern, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC).  “By some measure, this is a low bar, but progress is incremental and every step must be celebrated in advancing human rights for everyone, everywhere.”

Organización de Transexuales por la Dignidad de la Diversidad (OTD), Chile

“The passage of this resolution is the recognition that the lives and dignity of Trans people (transsexual, transgender, transvestite and intersex) and of lesbian, gay and bisexual people cannot continue to be taken with impunity.  Today people are executed and/or murdered because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, which is an aberration we should be ashamed of as a society and as human beings.  Today, states have spoken.  They have recognized that life is a right and that they have the responsibility to protect it regardless of an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity. Today the work of civil society has paid off, and we can move forward continuing to advance rights,” said Andrés Rivera Duarte, Director of OTD.

RFSL: The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights, Sweden

“We appreciate Sweden's lead on this important resolution for the first time explicitly mentioning inclusion of those persecuted on the grounds of gender identity and are very happy with the outcome,” said Ulrika Westerlund, President of RFSL, the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights.

Sayoni, Singapore

"As LGBT citizens of Singapore, we are applaud the government of Singapore for voting to include SOGI in the resolution to stop extra judicial killings. It sends a clear message affirming the sanctity of every human life.  However, we are disappointed that the government of Singapore abstained from voting on passage of the resolution.  This absence represents a missed opportunity to further protect the rights of LGBTIQ persons all over the world and shows little regard for the fate of it's citizens," said Jean Chong of Sayoni

SPECTRUM, Uganda
“Don’t legalise killings and murders based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” said Moses Mulindwa, SPECTRUM.

SPoD, Social Policies, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Studies Association, Turkey

“SPoD welcomes UN General Assembly’s decision to include both sexual orientation and gender identity within the resolution. This historic vote, including gender identity, sends a clear message to all governments that LGBT individuals should be protected from extrajudicial executions.
However, we are highly disappointed to see the Turkish Government abstained from the vote on the adoption of such a crucial resolution and absent on the vote on whether or not to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity as within Turkey an alarming number of LGBT people are killed every year,” said Onur Fidangul, International Coordinator, SPoD.

TLF Share, Philippines

"The historic vote of the UN against extrajudicial executions sends a strong signal to the international community that collectively, we stand against the appalling execution of individuals because of their sexual orientation & gender identity. We have just shattered that wall of silence that has allowed this grave form of abuse to persist in many countries worldwide, and we hope that this would lead to an end to extrajudicial executions of LGBTs. We are disappointed, however, with the abstention of the Philippine government. It must realize that with its silence on EJE, it is condoning this reprehensible abuse against LGBTs," said Jonas Bagas, Director, TLF Share

FOR PRESS INQUIRIES, Contact

Action Canada for Population and Development, Canada
Neha Sood, neha@acpd.ca, +1-917-510-3714

Anjaree Thailand, Thailand
Anjana Suvarnananda, anjana42@gmail.com

Amnesty International, International
Jose Luis Diaz, JoseLuis.Diaz@amnesty.org,

Arc International, International
Kim Vance, kim@arc-international.net, +1-902-442-3630

COC Nederland, Netherlands
Philip Tijsma, ptijsma@coc.nl, +31.6.3958 3789

FARUG, Uganda
Kasha N. Jacqueline, kasha@faruganda.org, jnkasha@gmail.com, +256 (0) 31229 4863

For-SOGI, Thailand
Coordinator, ชมพู่ ธรรมดา, supecha@gmail.com

GAYa NUSANTARA, Indonesia
Dédé Oetomo, doetomo@gmail.com, +62811311743

GATE: Global Action for Trans* Equality, International
Mauro Cabral, mcabral@transactivists.org, +54 (9) 11 65806999
Justus Eisfeld, jeisfeld@transactivists.org, +1-212-367-1304

Human Rights Watch, International
Graeme Reid, reidg@hrw.org, +1-212-216-1288

International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia (IDAHO), International
Joel Bedos, , jbedos@dayagainsthomophobia.org, +33 6 64 71 59 21

International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, International
Jessica Stern, jstern@iglhrc.org, +1-917-355-3262

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), International
Renato Sabbadini, renato@ilga.org,+393356067158

International Commission of Jurists, International
Allison Jernow, allison.jernow@icj.org, +41 (0)22 979 38 00

International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), International
Michelle Evans, michelle.evans@ishrny.org, +1-212-490-2199

Kaos Gay Lesbian Cultural Research and Solidarity Association, Turkey
Hayriye Kara, hayriye@kaosgl.org, +90 (312) 230 03 58

The Norwegian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Organisation (LLH), Norway
Bård Nylund, bard@llh.no, +47 23103939

Organización de Transexuales por la Dignidad de la Diversidad (OTD), Chile
Andrés Rivera Duarte, andresrivera@transexualesdechile.org, +56-72-229660

RFSL The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights, Sweden
Ulrika Westerlund, ulrika.westerlund@rfsl.se, +46-70-345 01 83

Russian LGBT Network, Russia
Maria Kozlovskaya, maria.k@lgbtnet.ru, +7 (812) 454 64 52

SAYONI, Singapore
Jean Chong, jean@sayoni.com, +65 9747 5756

SPECTRUM, Uganda
Moses Mulindwa, manyagwa2000@yahoo.com, +256782854391

SPoD, Social Policies, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Studies Association, Turkey
Onur Fidangul, international@spod.org.tr, +90 534 080 75 47

TLF Share, Philippines
Jonas Bagas, jonasbagas@gmail.com

Transgender Europe (TGEU), International
Carla LaGata, carla@tgeu.org, +49-176-39509277

Women for Women's Human Rights (WWHR), Turkey
Pinar Ilkkaracan, pinar.ilkkaracan@boun.edu.tr"