Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) says it aims to “eliminate negative perceptions and discrimination against former homosexuals”.

A PFOX spokesperson said the official’s comments amounted to illegal discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

Montgomery School Superintendent Joshua Starr had been urged to stop the group from distributing the ‘ex-gay’ flyers which said such people “demonstrate that those with unwanted same-sex attractions can seek help and information on overcoming their feelings.”

Superintendent Starr said the school was legally bound to allow the group to spread their message, as it is with all non-profit organisations, even though the group’s message that sexuality can be changed is rejected by medical professional bodies.

He reportedly told students: “This group has figured out how to use that law to spread what I find to be a really, really disgusting message, frankly.”

The group distributed 8,000 flyers at five Montgomery County schools this week.

Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX said: “We call on the Montgomery County Board of Education to enforce its Nondiscrimination Policy and censure Starr immediately.

“The Policy mandates that schools provide ‘an atmosphere where differences are understood and appreciated, and where all persons are treated fairly and with respect in an environment free of discrimination and … abuse.’ Clearly Superintendent Starr has violated the Board’s Policy.

“Starr’s verbal abuse, disrespectful behavior, and slurs against the ex-gay community amount to hate and illegal sexual orientation discrimination, which are all forbidden by the Policy.”

The group Truth Wins Out wrote an open letter to Starr saying: “While non-profit literature must not be blocked based on viewpoint, it can and should be prohibited if it contains blatant misinformation that jeopardizes the health and well being of students.

“The PFOX flier easily fits this description and the group has a dubious history that includes bizarre and bigoted practices that have no place in your public school system.”

Truth Wins Out is the group which infiltrated the clinic of former presidential candidacy hopeful Michele Bachmann’s husband, Marcus Bachmann.

The school board wrote back: “Although we cannot stop the distribution of such fliers, we in [Montgomery County Public Schools] are committed to promoting values of diversity and acceptance in our school system by teaching students how to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate information.

“Please rest assured that we in Montgomery County Public Schools are always extremely receptive to the community and towards promoting a culture of the twenty-first century.”

PFOX’s website says the “demonisation” of ex-gays “is a sad end to the long struggle for tolerance by the gay community. That ex-gays and their supporters are now oppressed by the same people who until recently were victimized themselves, demonstrates how far the gay rights movement has come.”

So-called gay cure treatments have been making headlines on both sides of the Atlantic.

In her column in the Daily Express last week, Ann Widdecombe questioned the lack of availability of therapy for “gays who do not want to be gay”.

She argued that if a gay person wants to change their sexuality, professional help should be available to them, despite there being no scientific evidence for it and numerous medical bodies’ warnings against it.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, backed the appeal by Lesley Pilkington, who was found guilty of malpractice by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy last year.

He wrote to the BACP, which is hearing the appeal, with other bishops to say that ‘gay cure’ attempts do not “produce harm despite the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others maintaining the contrary”.

A regional Jewish paper prompted outrage after publishing an opinion piece on the issue which said while ‘gay cures’ may not always work, medical procedures fail and “patients are still encouraged to try them”.

It said democratic processes required that it be debated, but that it was not part of the country’s legislative agenda to pass it.

Uganda already criminalises gay acts with a penalty of life imprisonment, but it is understood the bill would expand the range of punishable offences.

David Bahati’s bill, described by Barack Obama a “odious”, originally called for the death penalty for “aggravated”, or continued, homosexuality.

AP reports the death penalty clause has now been removed. In its place is life imprisonment for a person convicted of a gay act more than once.

The bill further required the death sentence for anyone convicted of homosexuality who is living with HIV or who has been convicted of homosexuality before.

Attempted homosexuality would carry a seven year prison sentence, as would aiding or abetting acts of homosexuality.

A fine of up to 500,000 shillings (£135) or a prison sentence up to three years are included for people who are aware of any gay offence but do not report it within 24 hours.

The Ugandan government statement said: “As a parliamentary democracy the process of debate will continue.

“Whilst the government of Uganda does not support this bill, it is required under our constitution to facilitate this debate.

“The facilitation of this debate should not be confused for the government’s support for this bill.”

The applicants lost their case after the court found Sweden had not violated their rights to free speech.

The National Youth leaflets said homosexuality was a “deviant sexual proclivity”, had “a morally destructive effect” on society and was responsible for the spread of HIV and AIDS.

They also claimed the “homosexual lobby” was trying to play down paedophilia.

In 2004, Tor Fredrik Vejdeland, Mattias Harlin, Björn Täng and Niklas Lundström had handed out about a hundred leaflets or left them in the lockers of pupils at a school in Söderhamn.

They were asked to leave by the principal and later convicted under Swedish law of agitation against a national or ethnic group.

Exhausting domestic courts, they appealed to the ECHR on Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, that their rights to free speech were infringed and, under Article 7, that they were therefore unjustly punished. The court rejected both claims.

It found the statements constituted serious and prejudicial allegations about gays and that the group had effectively forced them on students by leaving them in personal lockers.

The first three applicants were given suspended sentences and fines ranging from approximately €200 to €2,000 and the fourth applicant was sentenced to probation.

In January, three British men were found guilty of distributing leaflets intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Five Muslim men had stood trial at Derby Crown Court on the newly-created charges, which carry a maximum sentence of seven years in prison and an unlimited fine.

Ihjaz Ali, Kabir Ahmed and Razwan Javed had distributed a leaflet entitled ‘The Death Penalty?’ outside their mosque ahead of a gay Pride parade. It contained an image of a mannequin hanging from a noose and quoted Muslim texts. They are due to be sentenced tomorrow.

Two men were left with severe burns by the attack after they were doused with flammable liquid and set on fire.

Police described the injuries of one as “life-changing”.

A 21-year-old man was charged with two counts of grievous bodily harm with intent at the Rainbow & Dove, the Leicester Mercury reports.

The man is due to appear at Basildon Magistrates’ Court, Essex.

​Russell Banks, 21, and Robert Laszewsk, 20, suffered severe burns in the Charles Street pub’s beer garden.

Mr Banks was hospitalised for six weeks under sedation. The Leicester Mercury reported that he required a number of skin grafts. Mr Laszewsk was discharged from hospital after a week.

Mr Hughes joined former footballer Paul Gascoigne, comedian Steve Coogan and football agent Sky Andrew in agreeing a settlement.

After a hearing, Mr Hughes said: “the evidence in my case clearly demonstrates that the practice of hacking was widespread. It was criminal behaviour on an industrial scale.”

He added: “Sadly, the deficiencies of the original police inquiries, which failed to investigate the clear evidence of much of the criminal behaviour at one of the most important businesses in our country, are also all too apparent.

“We must now make sure that nothing like this can ever happen again.

“Anyone involved in criminal activity at the News of the World must be brought to justice, and all those who allowed a large company to behave in this way must be held to account.

“There must also be answers to the serious questions about how the police managed to fail so badly in their original investigation.

“I will now pursue this matter through my participation in the Leveson Inquiry, an inquiry which I fully support.”

Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator hired by the paper had already pleaded guilty to hacking into Mr Hughes’s messages, along with seven other people’s voicemails in 2006.

Mr Hughes was forced to come out as bisexual by the News of the World’s sister newspaper The Sun in 2005, in an interview to respond to claims to be made by the newspaper that he had contacted men using a gay telephone chat service.

News Group Newspapers is a subsidiary of News International, itself a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

But reports say the city legislature has now approved the delayed second reading of the bill 31 to 6 and reportedly increased fines tenfold.

St Petersburg would join other Russian regions including Ryazan and Arkhangelsk in hindering the promotion of homosexuality in public.

The region of Kostroma recently approved a similar law and Moscow is rumoured to be considering such a move.

Russian activist Nikolay Alekseev was fined by the authorities in Arkhangelsk this week under that region’s rules forbidding the public “promotion” of homosexuality to minors.

Russia’s second largest city came under international condemnation last year for plans which would “silence” the gay community, and to treat the offence of public promotion of being gay in the same was as it punishes the promotion of paedophilia.

263,000 people have now signed All Out’s petition against the city law, a petition which drew attention to similar laws in other regions of the world’s largest country.

A second reading of the bill was indefinitely postponed in November 2011 but has now gone ahead, passing with overwhelming support.

Ria Novosti reports that the law now makes the offence punishable by fines of up to 500,000 roubles, ten times the amount tabled in November.

After a third and final reading, the bill would be signed into law by the city’s governor.

In November, Konstantin Dolgov, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, said he was “perplexed” by a US statement condemning the proposed law.

He said the US State Department’s comments were “incorrect”.

Interfax reported him as saying: “We are perplexed by the American side’s attempts to interfere in the legislative process in Russia, especially publicly.

“We consider these attempts inappropriate and inconsistent with the practice of interstate relations.”

The UK’s Foreign Office had described the draft law as “wrong” and “mistaken”.

Conservative MEP for London Marina Yannakoudakis MEP had written to Turkish Cypriot leader Dr. Derviş Eroğlu condemning the arrests, calling for charges to be dropped and asking for a moratorium on further arrests.

A challenge at the European Court of Human Rights of the anti-gay laws in the unrecognised state was announced yesterday.

Marina Yannakoudakis’s office said Dr. Hasan Güngör, an advisor to Dr. Eroğlu, had responded to her today saying the men had not yet been charged and the leader is not able to impose a moratorium on arrests.

In Dr. Güngör’s letter, the advisor states: “Contrary to what has been insinuated in the media, no charges have so far been brought against the two men with respect to same sexual relations.”

He continues: “The police investigation on that incident is ongoing and once the investigation is completed, the Attorney General’s Office will make the necessary legal evaluation and decide on the charges to be brought against the accused.”

On forbidding any future arrests under the law, Dr. Güngör wrote: “The legislation in force does not authorize (Dr. Eroğlu) to impose a moratorium on arrests under section 171 of the Criminal Code, or to ‘suspend’ the implementation of any law.”

However, Dr. Güngör stated that measures to repeal the anti-gay law were before the relevant committee and were awaiting assessment by the relevant authorities.

Dr. Güngör also made clear that “The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) prevails over domestic law”.

The letter also says Dr. Eroğlu “stands by his promise that, once the legislative process is completed he will sign the amending law that will repeal the relevant sections of the Criminal Code to end the criminalization of unnatural offences”.

Northern Cyprus declared itself an independent state in 1983 but has not had international recognition.

Marina Yannakoudakis MEP said today: “I am pleased to receive such a speedy reply to my letter to Dr. Eroğlu’s office. Recognition by the authorities that the European Convention of Human Rights applies in the north part of Cyprus means that by prohibiting private consensual homosexual acts the north is in violation of Article 8.

“I am also pleased to note that Dr. Eroğlu intends to ‘stand by his promise’ to repeal the ban, although I am disappointed that an immediate moratorium has been rejected.

“Nevertheless I am concerned that, while no official charges have been brought against the two men detained on 29 January, that these men remain under investigation.

“Also I was informed by the north-based Initiative Against Homophobia that they are currently being held in punishment cells in Nicosia Central prison. I hope that if the north part of Cyprus is to demonstrate its commitment to human rights, that no further charges will be brought for homosexual acts.”

Libya dominated the headlines last year, but the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population of the country received very little attention internationally.

I interviewed Khaleed, a 31-year-old LGBT activist about his life in the North African country. In this first part he talks about his life before the overthrow of Muammar el-Gadaffi. Later this week he’ll be speaking about what has changed and what hasn’t since the revolution.

“There are absolutely no groups, organisations or even individuals in Libya that speak publicly about gay rights, the subject itself is a social and religious taboo. But this doesn’t mean that LGBT people do not exist, on the contrary some people are known and recognised as gay within their communities,” he tells me.

“Libyan law has a penal code against ‘men having sex with each other’ which could lead to a 5-years imprisonment [Section 407.4 of the Libyan Constitution]. However, I never heard of publicly documented cases of men being charged under this penal code, and, to my disappointment no efforts were made by any human rights or LGBT rights organisations either to investigate potential cases, nor discuss LGBT rights in Libya.”

In fact the only documented case to my knowledge was one I reported on 25.12.2010 when two men were arrested for “indecent acts,” with minimal information and despite many efforts no further information regarding this case was obtained.

Most LGBT people use the internet in Libya to socialise, exchange ideas and arrange to meet – especially through the gay social networking site Manjam, its one of the few ways available for them to explore their identities and sexuality. Yet even here, in virtual cyberspace, they are not safe.

“My personal experience as a gay man in Libya hasn’t been easy. I was investigated by policemen for having an online profile on manjam. Officers from the internal security agency during Qaddafi’s regime came to my home and outed me to my family which caused huge problems. I took me over two long years before I managed to work things out with them.”

For Khaleed the whole episode was terrible and frightening: “I was interrogated by the criminal investigation bureau for thirty long minutes, but which seemed like eternity. I was then ‘ordered’ to stop meeting people through manjam because ‘there are people there who have contacts with foreign intelligence networks’.”

“After the investigation I removed my previous profile but stayed in touch with all the contacts I have made before. But to my horror I found out that the government’s security agency was monitoring my calls and online activities. Furthermore, they hacked into my personal email and showed all my correspondence to my mother, which made me refrain from accessing any LGBT and political online sites for a while.”

For all the pious talking by politicians in the West about liberating Libya, Khaleed wants to underline the following: “I just want to say something to readers in Europe and North America:” he stresses; “The technology to monitor the internet and entrap people like me fighting for Human Rights unfortunately comes from governments and companies in the West.”

Khaleed is not entirely sure why his internet accounts were hacked and investigated but he has his suspicion: “It seems to me as a police response to previous commentary I made about human rights in Libya, and because of my participation with several liberal and secular discussions on websites that were considered to by anti-regime. The reason I feel this way is because I have heard of no similar investigation been or being made against some of my friends or acquaintances.”

In part two, I speak with Khaleed about the revolution as well as his hopes and fears for the new Libya.

David Bahati, the original sponsor of the legislation that would see gays imprisoned for life and executed for repeat offences, has tabled the draft law again, reports say.

Clauses call for the death penalty for “aggravated” or continued homosexuality, while those who fail to report incidences to police would be jailed.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill is designed to “protect the traditional family” and also requires Uganda to not ratify any international treaty that would run contrary to its provisions.

It provides for life imprisonment for people who have gay sex, “touch another person with the intention” of having gay sex or have an illegal “gay marriage”.

The bill further requires the death sentence for anyone convicted of homosexuality who is living with HIV or who has been convicted of homosexuality before.

Attempted homosexuality carries a seven year prison sentence, as does aiding or abetting acts of homosexuality.

A fine of up to 500,000 shillings (£135) or a prison sentence up to three years are included for people who are aware of any gay offence but do not report it within 24 hours.

The bill received worldwide condemnation from countries, gay rights campaigners and human rights groups.

Last month, the former president of South Africa, Thabo MBeki, criticised the anti-gay bill, saying it “doesn’t make sense” to intervene in people’s private lives.

Mr Mbeki was taking questions at the Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR) in Kampala when he was asked about the draft legislation and specifically what he would say to its sponsor.

Mbeki, who served as deputy President and President of South Africa following the abolition of apartheid, said: “I would say to the MP; sexual preferences are a private matter. I don’t think it is a matter of the state to intervene.”

“I mean what would you want? It doesn’t make sense at all. That is what I would say to the MP. What two consenting adults do is really not the matter of law.”

US President Barack Obama described it as “odious”.

The move, by the Human Dignity Trust, follows reports that Northern Cyprus’s anti-gay law continues to be employed despite assurances given by its leader that it would be repealed.

Cyprus was required by the ECHR to decriminalise consensual sex between consenting adults in 1993, but in the Turkish-occupied part of Northern Cyprus, homosexual acts are still illegal.

The case has been filed against Turkey, which the Trust said is responsible for protecting and promoting human rights in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Gay acts in Turkey have been legal since the Ottoman Empire of the 19th century.

The challenge, brought on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff, asserts that the laws violate his private and family life and that the resulting discrimination he suffers amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment.

Commenting today, human rights barrister and Chief Executive of the Human Dignity Trust Jonathan Cooper said: “The fact that homosexual relations remain criminalised in Northern Cyprus is a violation of international law and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

“Criminalisation of identity puts people beyond protection of the law. This is not an issue of gay rights but one of upholding universal human rights. More than 80 legal systems across the globe continue to criminalise homosexuality – almost half the countries in the world.”

The Human Dignity Trust, an international organisation which uses law to decriminalise homosexuality across the globe.

The case is supported by the Northern Cyprus LGBTI organisation, the Homofobiye Karsi Inisiyatif (Initiative Against Homophobia).

The legal team, led by Nigel Pleming QC, includes Northern Cyprus lawyer Oncel Polili and Tom Mountford.

Instructing solicitors are international law firm Taylor Wessing LLP, who will be working pro bono.

Paul Callaghan, partner at Taylor Wessing LLP, said: “We are delighted to work on a pro bono basis with the Human Dignity Trust for such an important cause. This case highlights a clear breach of the international human rights law and we hope to see the legal, as well as moral, obligations addressed in the judgment.”

The Homofobiye Karsi Inisiyatif added: “All of our efforts to amend the law have been futile and Turkish Cypriot authorities are reluctant to show any good will. Despite the promises to amend the law authorities still charge people with this archaic law. The situation shows that Turkish Cypriot authorities have no courage to defend human rights.

“We are very pleased to show a good example of international solidarity with our work together with the Human Dignity Trust.”

Earlier this month, Conservative MEP Marina Yannakoudakis criticised the arrests in Northern Cyprus after the region’s leader Derviş Eroğlu had told her draft repeal legislation had been drawn up.

She said: “Dr. Eroğlu has twice promised me that the northern part of Cyprus would repeal the ban on homosexuality. I have so far taken him at his word, but now he needs to back up these words with deeds.

“There must be an immediate moratorium on arrests under Section 171 and the men arrested last month must be released without delay. Draft legislation submitted by the Communal Democratic Party must be fast-tracked through the assembly to ensure that there are no further miscarriages of justice and Dr. Eroğlu must keep his promise to sign the repeal into law.”

Dacre said it “could have benefited from a little judicious sub-editing” but added he had been at the opera for his wife’s birthday the evening the column was filed.

He added that he would “die in a ditch to defend a columnist’s right to have her views. There isn’t a homophobic bone in Jan Moir’s body”.

More than 20,000 people wrote to the Press Complaints Commission after Moir’s piece, which won her the Stonwall Bigot of the Year Award.

The column, which was described by Stonewall Chief Executive Ben Summerskill as a “spasm of hatred”, followed the untimely death of Stephen Gately in Mallorca in October 2009.

It was originally titled “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death” but appeared in print as “A strange, lonely and troubling death”.

Moir wrote: “Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.

“And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy.”

She also drew comparisons between Gately and Kevin McGee, the former civil partner of Matt Lucas, despite Gately dying of natural causes and McGee committing suicide after months of depression and addiction.

She wrote: “Another real sadness about Gately’s death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

“Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately’s last night raise troubling questions about what happened. It is important that the truth comes out about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death.”

The PCC ultimately rejected complains over Moir’s column saying that although it could “understand how the column had generated wide anger”, it did not police matters of offence and decency.

It said: “The commission considered that it should be slow to prevent columnists from expressing their views, however controversial they might be.

“The price of freedom of expression is that often commentators and columnists say things with which other people may not agree, may find offensive or may consider to be inappropriate.”

PCC director Stephen Abell said the case had been “difficult but important”.

He added that the PCC recognised the “flaws” in the article but ruled it “would not be proportionate to rule against the columnist’s right to offer freely-expressed views about something that was the focus of public attention”.

In a column later the same month, she wrote: “I am not – unlike those close to Stephen Gately – mourning for the loss of a much-loved partner, son, family member and close friend. To them, I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral.”

The incident comes amid public discussion on the island over the introduction of hate crime laws to protect gay and transgender citizens.

Driver Marco Borg, 43, was charged on Saturday with causing injury and disrupting public order.

While there is no further penalty for homophobic motivation under current laws, the Times of Malta reports that Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has instructed Justice Minister Chris Said to work on amendments to laws to prevent hate crimes.

In footage of the incident filmed by another passenger, the driver in charge of the bus at the time is seen restraining Borg after he attacked the two women, aged 21 and 17, last Friday.

In the UK, it was reported this week that two lesbians were attacked on a train after kissing.

Bus company Arriva said he had been let go, adding that is had “a zero tolerance policy when it comes to violence of any sort and would like to make it very clear that it condemns categorically and without reserve not only this incident but indeed any bullish, violent and other such reproachable and anti-social behaviour”.

“Moreover, the bus operator wants to make it absolutely clear that it has a very clear and open diversity policy which all employees are bound to respect.”

Malta continues to debate new hate crime laws after two girls were the victims of a homophobic attack last month.

In an interview with Malta’s Sunday Times, the girl said two men, who were later arrested, had called her and her girlfriend “twisted” before attacking them, leaving her with bruises and facial injuries.

Cyrus Engerer, a spokesman for LGBT Labour in Malta said state intervention would be necessary to tackle anti-gay incidents.

He told Malta Today: “It’s not possible for a mentality of a country to change if the laws of that same country remain unchanged.”

But the introduction of special hate crime laws are opposed by some.

Lawyer and opinion writer Claire Bonello told the Times of Malta: “It makes little sense to punish the different motives of a crime when the end result is the same – injury to the victim …

“If a person is attacked because the aggressor feels some sort of personal animosity towards the victim, why should that attack be punished less severely than one where the aggressor hates the victim because of the latter’s religious affiliation or belonging to a minority group?

“The whole notion of hate crimes does away with the concept of equality in the eyes of the law.”

At a press conference today, Malta Today reports Prime Minister Gonzi saying the government will include homophobia in hate crime laws in future: “We are sending a message to society in general, not to pass judgement of people, and that we expect the forces of law to enforce laws and eliminate all forms of discrimination.”

Prop 8, the 2008 voter initiative that banned gay and lesbian marriages has been the subject of constant legal battles.

In 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker in August, which ruled that the ban on gay marriage in California was wrong. The decision came after a lengthy “trial” of the arguments for and against allowing gay couples to marry. “The evidence presented at trial and the position of the representatives of the State of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest,” Judge Walker wrote at the time. He initially ordered for gay marriages to resume in the state with almost immediate effect.

An appeal to his decision was immediately launched but
unusually, the official ‘defendants’ of that appeal, then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney-General Jerry Brown, refused to defend the ban.

It is likely that regardless of tomorrow’s ruling, there will be an appeal of the judgement of some kind. 40 states have some sort of ban on gay marriage.

Organisers have called for supporters to bring a positive attitude to the event to show the government their passion for equality.

The Love Equally March is being promoted by the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Equality Network, LGBT Youth Scotland, Stonewall Scotland and NUS Scotland.

Grant Costello MSYP, SYP Chair said: “All the evidence shows the majority of Scots support marriage equality, and the historic response to the Government’s consultation on same sex marriage demonstrates they are prepared to speak out for equality.

“Scotland’s young people are determined that the consultation is not the end, but just the beginning of the journey to a better nation with equality at its heart. We need all those supporters of marriage equality to march with us, be our Valentines and Love Equally on February 14th!”

Nathan Sparling, NUS Scotland LGBT Officer, said: “This Valentine’s Day, students from across Scotland will be taking part in the Love Equally march to show our unwavering support for Equal Marriage in Scotland. We’ll be marching on the streets of Edinburgh celebrating love, and asking for the Scottish Government to give us another reason to celebrate by making same-sex marriage legal in Scotland.”

Tom French, Policy Coordinator for the Equality Network, said; “We know that the majority of Scots support full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, but we cannot afford to just sit back and assume our politicians will lift the ban on same-sex marriage.

“Our opponents are running a well-funded campaign to pressure the Scottish Government to ditch their proposals, so it is vital that everyone who supports equal marriage speaks out. We urge equal marriage supporters to turn out for the Love Equally march on Valentines day and make our voice heard.”

Marchers will assemble at 2:30pm in Bristo Square and walk to the Scottish Parliament, arriving at 3.45pm. A Facebook event page can be found here.

A range of supporters for marriage equality will address the rally outside the Scottish Parliament.

Minister Samir Dilou said ‘freedom of expression has its limits’ and agreed homosexuality was a ‘perversion’ which needed to be ‘treated medically’.

The attack on Gayday magazine, whose editor has faced religiously inspired hatred and death threats, comes after a month of scandals which has brought gay issues to the fore in Tunisia.

But there has been a long build-up to the current situation.

The post-revolutionary electoral campaigns used homosexuality as a political weapon between the various groups vying for power in the new Tunisia.

Supporters of the now ruling Ennahda party used ‘homosexual panic’ tactics to allege that liberal and secular parties would legalise gay rights and marriage if they were to win, they mockingly likened these other parties’ rallies to gay pride parades.

It put the spotlight on Tunisia’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community who were used to being overlooked rather than the focus of public debate.

Sex scandals and panic

Despite the uncertain atmosphere, Gayday magazine, which claims to be the first online gay title in Tunisia, launched in March 2011 and initially received little attention other than from LGBT Tunisians.

But two scandals hit prominent members of the interim government lead by the Ennahda party three weeks ago. The first was the release of the brother of the Tunisian Minister of Justice, after an allegation that he raped a young boy. The second, occurring just a few days later was a video posted on the internet by a left wing activist allegedly featuring the current Home Office minister, Ali Laarayedh in an erotic homosexual act with a fellow cellmate during the 1990s.

This gave the opposition more opportunity to use gay hatred to lambast and discredit the ruling Ennahda party. Online homophobic reactions rapidly spread over the Tunisian cyber-space.

Fadi, editor of Gayday magazine told PinkNews.co.uk: ‘It feels like suddenly, the subject of homosexuality is no longer a taboo, judging by the magnitude of homophobic posts across the Tunisian cyberspace. Of course there is some positive side just by raising the issue, but what concerned us was the excessive amount of homophobia as a political weapon.’

Liberty March denies LGBT Rights

A ‘Walk for liberties, all liberties’ attracted nearly 10,000 Tunisians on 28 January. It came after a series of human rights violations, mainly against freedom of expression. Participants chanted ‘We won’t sell our freedom!’

But most of the Tunisian gay, bi and trans people didn’t feel their presence or rights were welcome.

‘I didn’t go simply because I see freedom is portrayed by Islamists as a contradiction to their principles. They interpret it as a license for alcohol, nudity and sex which they oppose firmly,’ said Lilia, a lesbian activist.

And Marwan, a 24-year-old gay engineering student added: ‘There was no point for me to join the march. Gay rights don’t figure on their list, they don’t even consider us humans!’

Still some remained defiant, like Bilel, a 35-year-old gay teacher who told PinkNews.co.uk: ‘I went to the march because I think it’s the right time to demand freedom for all.’

The few who made it were shocked to be greeted by homophobic signs and slogans used by their fellow left wing activists.

One read: ‘0.0% is better than a successful faggot’ [ie it is better to have no support than to be a ‘gay’ like the interior minister]..

Fadi said: ‘It was really disconcerting and alarming to witness those homophobic signs and slogans during a march for human rights. It made us feel that our rights are not included.’

Gay Day Magazine ‘cursed’

Just two days after the march Gayday magazine’s cover stirred a second wave of homophobic attacks. A couple of leading and influential opposition Facebook pages posted it with provocative headlines. For example, the ‘Tunisie’ page for instance, which has almost 900,000 fans, received 423 comments it posted the cover along with the title: ‘A magazine for fags is issued in Tunisia’. This has been shared 116 times so far.

Most of the comments on the page were homophobic. They included: ‘God’s curse on them’, ‘That’s what pro-freedom activist call for, perversion and adultery in the name of freedom of expression’ and ‘The democracy we have is excessive and ridiculous. We are in a Muslim country and a magazine like this is intolerable!’

Then Samir El-Wafi, a journalist and celebrity TV presenter known for his tabloid, ranting interview techniques joined the homophobic bandwagon, posted the cover of the magazine on his Facebook page (with over 75,500 fans) followed by the following description: ‘In the chaos of freedom of expression and freeing the media, a first Tunisian magazine for fags was issued!

‘In the name of freedom and in a conservative country whose people are facing a struggle between modernity and tradition; a magazine for fags dares to come out and challenge all the circumstances, rules, morals, ethics and customs.

‘Do we need a further strife because a very small minority expresses its perversion… not caring about the feelings and the sacred beliefs of a majority?

‘Today a magazine, tomorrow a pride march, then gay marriage… and after that who knows?’

The post got 381 likes, 124 comments and 165 shares.

The next day Fadi, received hateful messages and death threats.

One from someone identifying themselves as ‘Emna’ said: ‘You are a zero. We don’t give a fuck about you. You ought to be out assisting in building the country. This is so immoral, calling to protect dirty people. God will never forgive you. This is very haraam [forbidden], we are Muslims and we can never be proud of your gay shit. You need to go and see psychiatrists and not start a magazine. Shame on you.’

‘Sabrine’ messaged him to say: ‘How could you be so impolite to do this, you belong to a Muslim society. Don’t you know that these things upset God? You’re so sinful and this one of the signs to the end of time. Fucking bitches.’

And Aymen posted on the Gayday magazine Facebook page: ‘You’re dead; don’t come to Tunisia you faggot. Even hell is disgusted to have you!’

There were, however, a few positive comments. One read: ‘I saw the link on Facebook and I was very happy to see the coming out of this magazine. I salute you for challenging and bypassing all the taboos and homophobic prejudices. It’s really a shame to see such a narrow mentality. Anyway, congratulations and good luck.’

Human Rights minister excludes gays

Samir El-Wafi continued his homophobic attack when he hosted Minister of Human Rights and Transitional Justice, Samir Dilou, on his TV show on 4 February.

Dilou told El-Wafi he’s against having such a magazine in Tunisia: ‘This country has its own history, heritage, religion and customs and we need to deal with everything on such a basis.’

El-Wafi asked: ‘We can’t deny that this phenomenon of sexual perversion exists but shall we deny these people from expression mediums?’

And Dilou responded: ‘Yes, freedom of expression has limits.

‘They live as citizens but they must respect the red lines set up by our religion, heritage and civilization.’

When asked if the magazine should be banned, the minister said: ‘I have no knowledge if this magazine have applied for a permit or not but I’m against it even though I’m a minister of human rights.’

They concluded laughing that sexual orientation is not a human right and ‘sexual perversion needs to be treated medically’.

Fadi said: ‘The situation for LGBT people remains hostile in the shadow of all this exaggerated expression on homophobia. A friend of mine and I received couple of online death threats that says we deserve to be hanged or burnt in public.

‘It’s never a good time for anyone to come out at this time but I’m glad the subject is slowly breaking through the taboo shell. A lot of work is ahead of us to repeal the 230 Article [which makes gay sex illegal] and establish equality laws for LGBT individuals in Tunisia. Gayday magazine is only a start that I hope it serves as a medium that portrays us a humans, dispels the myths around us and advocates for our rights.’

See the El-Wafi and Dilou interview here (in Arabic):

April James, 19, is accused of attacking the girl in October after people in her party hurled homophobic abuse at the young couple, the Bexhill Observer reports.

The prosecution said they were unable to prove Ms James made homophobic comments herself, but said she was in the group that did.

Mark Kateley, prosecuting at Hastings Crown Court, said: “When the victim and her partner objected to the comments made, she was then assaulted by a group of females during which she was punched, had her hair pulled and at one point had her head banged against the door and ended up on the floor being kicked a number of times on the floor.

“The defendant admits making a kick to the head or shoulder.”

The attack reportedly ensued after the girls, both 16, kissed and the victim drank from a bottle of alcohol which was being shared on the train.

Her victim statement said: “This incident made me feel ashamed of who I am and made me scared of going out and getting on a train.

“It made me scared of being with my girlfriend.

“It has taken me a long time to be confident with my sexuality and this has knocked me back down.”

The defendant claimed the train was too busy for her to have assaulted the girl in the carriage, but accepts kicking her on the platform at Bexhill.

A further hearing is scheduled to take place in April at Hastings Magistrates Court due to disputed facts. 

Nicholas Whitaker, 34, said the “brief hug from behind” was only intended as a platonic greeting, the Yorkshire Post reports.

He told Leeds County Court: “Certainly not my intention to touch her breasts. I would have no reason to touch her breasts, no wish to touch her breasts.”

The gay church assistant denied the charges, which relate to a meeting last July at Wakefield Cathedral, the tallest church in Yorkshire. Whitaker said he may have touched the woman’s breasts, but it would have been unintentional.

Whitaker said the embrace lasted for around two seconds. The woman he is alleged to have assaulted said it was between thirty seconds and a minute.

The unnamed woman had previously told the court: “He put his arms underneath my arms and just grabbed hold of my bust and groped and felt and squeezed. It was awful.

“He just stopped doing it and went off … I just felt sick, really sick.

“I just went straight to the toilet and stood there in disbelief. I gathered my thoughts, I just couldn’t believe what had happened.”

The verger said he had never “made a secret” of being gay.

The case continues.

In a memo discovered by Lee Bennett in firm archives in 2010, a partner at Bivonas LLP had written that he should be sacked and that he would “take our cases to his batty boy mate”.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with the original ruling that the content of the memo was “a professional slur of the utmost gravity”.

The law firm had claimed the note, written in 2008, was a “personal aide-memoire”, not intended to be kept or showed to anyone.

It lost its argument on appeal that the Employment Tribunal was wrong to say that the insult was a detriment.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal found no evidence that any straight men had been insulted in the same way as Mr Bennett for being gay.

The firm could not provide justification for treating Mr Bennett differently to other employees.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission funded Mr Bennett’s defence against the law firm’s appeal.

John Wadham, Group Director Legal, Equality and Human Rights Commission said: “Homophobia will not be tolerated in the workplace or anywhere else. We funded Mr Bennett’s defence and this win has set a precedent for discrimination law.”

Bivonas said it had “the appropriate measures in the light of the Tribunal’s observations”.

Their appeal argues that Britain’s twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships amount to illegal discrimination, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The bans violate Articles 8, 12 and 14 – respectively the right to privacy and family life, the right to marry and the right to non-discrimination.

The 31-page application, drafted by Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at King’s College London, presents a compelling case. Since there are no significant differences in the rights and responsibilities involved in civil marriages and civil partnerships, there can be no justification for the segregation of gay and straight couples into two mutually exclusive legal systems. It is discrimination based on sexual orientation. For this reason, we are hopeful that when the ECHR eventually delivers a judgement, probably in 2014, it will be in favour of equality.

Soon after the ECHR appeal was filed, the government announced its intention to consult on the issue of same-sex marriage. Mere coincidence? Perhaps. But the government was surely mindful that it will be required to explain to the ECHR its rationale for excluding gay couples from civil marriages and heterosexual couples from civil partnerships. It can now report to the ECHR that it is consulting. This consultation is, however, flawed. It is limited to same-sex marriage.

David Cameron mistakenly calculated that we’ll be satisfied with marriage equality. We won’t. So long as heterosexual couples remain banned from civil partnerships, which is the Prime Minister’s apparent intention, the Equal Love campaign will continue. We believe in straight equality just as passionately as we care about equal rights for lesbians and gay men.

In our estimation, there is a sizeable minority of heterosexual couples who would prefer a civil partnership. They dislike the patriarchal history and language of marriage; viewing civil partnerships as a more modern, egalitarian alternative. In the Netherlands, where civil partnerships are open to both gay and heterosexual couples, two-thirds of civil partners are straight men and women. We could expect a similar take-up by heterosexual couples in Britain, if civil partnerships were open to everyone.

Cameron also miscalculated by ruling out any legalisation of religious same-sex marriages, even by faith organisations, such as the Quakers and Unitarians, who want to conduct them. This is an attack on religious freedom, as well as perpetrating homophobic discrimination. Moreover, given that the government has recently authorised religious same-sex civil partnerships, a continued blanket ban on religious same-sex marriages looks inconsistent and petty.

For all these reasons, the Equal Love campaign is building momentum. The right of gay couples to marry is backed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Boris Johnson and a growing number of Tory MPs, including Chloe Smith, Mike Weatherley and Margot James.

In 2010, the Green Party national conference was the first to vote to end the twin bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. It was followed by the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru conferences. Oddly, the Labour conference has declined to vote on the issue; although the GMB, Unison and all 13 Labour MEPs want the twin bans overturned.

The SNP government in Scotland is leading the way, with its public consultation period already concluded; while David Cameron inexplicably postponed the start of his consultation from last summer to next month.

Some people argue: what’s there to consult about? Homophobic discrimination is wrong and should therefore be abolished pronto. Would the government have a long drawn out consultation about repealing racist laws? I doubt it. It would immediately abolish them on the grounds that they were incompatible with a democratic society. Why should homophobic bans be treated any differently?

The public is on our side. A Populus poll in 2009 found that 61% of the public believe: “Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.” Only 33% disagreed. It’s likely that there is similar support for heterosexual civil partnerships.

What’s the government waiting for? The time for equality is now.

This article first appeared in the Guardian. 

Returning its verdict in Glasgow today, the jury rejected Roy’s argument that he was suffering from an undiagnosed personality disorder.

Roy had admitted causing the death of the gay schoolboy, who was found with 20 stab wounds and his throat cut in woodland over a year ago, but denied full responsibility for his actions.

Now 19, Roy said he had no memory of the attack itself.

A picture of the complicated relationship between Roy and Frew emerged during the trial.

The teenagers had been schoolmates at East Kilbride in South Lanarkshire.

Psychiatrist Dr Rajan Darjee told the court Roy had admitted having a sexual encounter with the murdered teen in January 2010.

The court previously heard Roy’s claim that he saw Frew as a threat to his new relationship, describing him as a “sex pest.”

The court had heard that Roy and Jack Frew met in woods on 6 May 2010 at the murdered teenager’s request.

Roy was said to have been concerned Frew, then 16, would tell his boyfriend about their sexual encounters and brought a knife to the meeting.

He told a psychiatrist Frew had exposed himself, but thereafter his memory failed.

Roy’s boyfriend Christopher Hannah, 20, a student at Glasgow Caledonian University, was the first person to arrive at the scene after being called by Roy.

The jury less than two hours to reach its verdict.

The BBC reported Jack Frew’s father saying Roy should “rot in hell”.

Roy will be sentenced on 1 March. Though he faces a mandatory life sentence, the minimum term he must spend in custody is yet to be determined.