Human Rights Watch continues to turn the heat up on Turkey. The group yesterday sent out a press release lamenting a Turkish court's decision to dissolve Lambda Istanbul, a gay group the government found to be "immoral." And researcher Emma Sinclair-Webb led the call:

The judge’s arbitrary decision highlights the prejudiced proceedings. If the authorities can close one organization on procedural pretexts, all of civil society is in danger.
…
The Turkish authorities must decide whether nongovernmental organizations are fair game for harassment, or full partners in a free society. Promotion of tolerance and respect for civil society by the Turkish government is key.

While it's bad enough that Turkey continues to come down on its queers, the nation has been itching for entry into the European Union. The Union, however, requires members to treat all citizens equally.

But, then again, the Union could just be talking turkey.

As Human Rights Watch takes on the Turkish government, the nation's queer citizens have been taking to the street. About 100 activists marched in Turkey's first ever gay pride last Saturday, again proving that we gays can flourish in almost any political climate. So versatile!

But, of course, there were a few hiccups for the parade through Ankara, Turkey's capital:

The march encountered minor difficulty. The police, who outnumbered the demonstrators, stopped the march and demanded that the rainbow flags and banners be taken down.

Marchers agreed and were then allowed to continue.

Well, it's a start…

Human Rights Watch puts more pressure on Turkey this morning.

The non-profit last month demanded that the nation cease-and-desist its anti-gay ways. Apparently the Turkish government didn't meet HRW's expectations, because they've today released a 123-page report highlighting human rights abuses against the homos.

In addition to compiling a startling collection of violence - like trans people being raped by cops - HRW's urging the European Union to withhold Turkey's membership until they've cleaned up their act.

CONTINUED »

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would approve.

The Iranian president became an international laughing stock last year after claiming Iran doesn't have gays like the Western world. And, according to a Human Rights Watch report, he's right!

Michael Petrelis passes on word that gays, queers and other so-called deviants make nary an appearance in HRW's last four reports on the Middle Eastern nation. Of course, we all know Iran's got some homos, because we sporadically hear accounts of public executions. The government deems these people sexual criminals, often claiming they abused a teenage boy or another despicable act.

Many activists see this as a not-so-subtle code for queer, but the hazy boundaries of these deaths may explain HRW's hesitancy. As the non-profit's Scott Long wrote in 2006:

For eight months, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has researched a report on abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Iran, interviewing dozens in Iran and the diaspora, trying to separate fact from rhetoric and rumor. As a prominent Iranian dissident said last week, “We need cases!” — documentation, not speculation.

And, unfortunately, dead bodies don't count as documentation. If only those dang Iranians kept better records of their monstrosities!

Morocco came under activist fire again today. The government got some flack last month for that whole anti-gay arrest thing, which led Amnesty International's UK-branch to wag its non-profit finger at the North African nation. Those men remain in custody.

Human Rights Watch joins the din today, saying that the the primarily Muslim nation best get with the liberal program.

The Moroccan government should protect the rights to privacy and a fair trial, Human Rights Watch and the Moroccan Human Rights Association said today. Human Rights Watch and the Moroccan Human Rights Association called on the government to repeal a law that provides prison terms for consensual homosexual acts, and launched a petition demanding that the government repeal article 489 of the penal code. They also demanded the release of the six men currently imprisoned under this article.

PM Abbas El Fassi is reportedly shaking in his boots.

Human Rights Watch had some harsh words for the United States government yesterday. Our government's accused of turning a blind eye to Uganda's misuse of HIV/AIDS funds, a blissful ignorance HRW's Scott Long calls "dangerous":

When the US funds abstinence-only programs in Uganda, it tells people that LGBT people’s sexualities are dangerous and must be denied. Supporting prejudice with cash is an approach with deadly consequences for all.
…
US politicians and pocketbooks underwrite hatred in Uganda. The US has no business lending an aura of respectability to policies that undermine human rights and public health.

Long and his activist friends want the United States to take a stronger stand against the African nation's homophobic politics. Or, rather, a stand - period.

South Africa's government got reamed once again during yesterday's Women's Day celebrations. And not just from South African activists. Human Rights Watch's Jessica Stern wrote President Thabo Mbeki a stern letter in which she calls for a full investigation into two lesbian activists' murders.

But, wait, there's more: Stern also took on South Africa's seemingly impotent government…

CONTINUED »

In the second part of our morning kiss trilogy, we again turn our eyes to that damn Snickers commercial. We'll spare you the overblown details, because by now you know that daddy corporation, Masterfoods pulled the adverts. Accompanying news reports focussed on outcry from gay mega groups like HRC and GLAAD - the two groups credited with forcing the retraction - thus the debate swirled around the plug's alleged homophobia. As any good homo knows, he who blows hardest, blows loudest.

At the height of the hysteria, homos were plotting boycotts against the no longer satisfying candy bar. The queers weren't the only ones offended by the accidental gay kiss. Another group raised their voices, but for different reasons all together. The screeches of anti-gay conservatives got drowned out by the squeals of the sissy set.

Actually, we never would have discovered this divergent displeasure had it not been for that Trebay piece…

CONTINUED »

Across the country yesterday, thousands of gays and lesbians marched for a legislative overhaul of immigration laws.

Many participants are drawn to the legal fight because of their international lovers, who they can't sponsor for citizenship. According to a 2000 census, there are 40,000 such couples living openly in America, none of whom have the legal protections granted straight binational couples.

Along with public displays of disaffection, LGBT activists have their eyes on Congress, which has shown small support for the Uniting American Families Act. The bill will allow binational same-sex couples the same rights given to straight couples of the same ilk.

Some gay conservatives have said that gays have no place in other social movements, insisting gay power should be just that: gay. What do you, our darling and opinionated readers, think of all of this? Should we stand up for immigration rights or keep our words for more overtly "gay" issues?

"Gays Join Marches for Immigration Rights" [365 Gays]

Here's a link for the Human Rights Watch's 191 report on Immigration Law: "Family, Unvalued…" [Human Rights Watch]

Whereas Human Rights Watch is calling on Catholics to speak out against the notorious Vatican directive against fairies in Seminaries, Queerty is calling on Atheists, Buddhists, Evangelicals, Hindus, Muslims, Protestants, Quakers, and the Daughters of the American Revolution to speak out against it as well.

Celibacy is so rewarding both spiritually and physically that nobody should be locked out of it because of their sexual orientation. Yet the greater problem is that the Catholic Church aggressively seeks to affect, and does affect, legal and human rights decisions made by ostensibly secular governments.

What would Jesus do? He wouldn’t get far writing a letter to his Congressmen; he only knew Aramic. You, of course, know English. In your letter, ask if a religious institution that refused to admit black people because they are black would continue enjoying tax-exempt status for any of its properties or activities.