Protest this Saturday, 9 July, from 12 noon – 3pm

Outside the Waterlily Business Centre, 69-89 Mile End Road, London E1 4TT

“Hizb ut-Tahrir is an Islamist and fundamentalist organisation which seeks to impose its supremacist interpretation of Islam on the whole world. It opposes democracy and has the goal of establishing a global religious dictatorship, a caliphate. Non-Islamic political parties would be illegal. Gender apartheid and the segregation of men and women would become mandatory,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of OutRage!.

Mr Tatchell will join Saturday’s protest at 12 noon in the Mile End Road, outside Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Caliphate Conference, together with Muslim campaigners. 

“Discrimination against people on the basis of their religion, gender and sexuality is enshrined in Hizb ut-Tahrir’s draft constitution and would be enforced in a future caliphate,” added Mr Tatchell.

“Hizb ut-Tahrir is guilty of extreme intolerance towards Muslims who do not share its harsh, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. It advocates the execution of Muslims who turn away from their faith or convert to another religion. The group has urged the death penalty for gay people and for women who have sex outside of marriage. Some of its members have a history of anti-Semitism.

“They are even more extreme and fascistic than the odious far right British National Party.

“The Hizb ut-Tahrir conference takes place in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets but its values are at odds with those of the local council: ‘Organisational pledge against Hate’: ‘We will: Promote and implement a policy that promotes diversity and equality and challenges all forms of discrimination’.

Key excerpts from Hizb ut-Tahrir’s draft constitution can be found here:

http://tiny.cc/529ft

The full draft constitution is here:

http://tiny.cc/xnjrb

Hizb ut-Tahrir regularly takes part in anti-gay demonstrations in other parts of the world:

http://tiny.cc/tin0w

“The intolerant and extreme views of Hizb ut-Tahrir are not welcome in an area of London that has already witnessed bigoted outside organisations, such as the English Defence League, promoting their divisive and hateful brand of politics,” said Mr Tatchell.

“The anti-humanitarian views of Hizb ut-Tahrir are not shared by most Muslims in Britain. Its extreme fundamentalist policies are stoking Islamophobic prejudice. We stand in solidarity with the many Muslims who support democracy and human rights.

“Members of Hizb ut-Tahrir threatened to kill me in May 1994 when I and five other activists from OutRage! picketed its 6,000-strong rally at Wembley Arena. It was six of us against 6,000 of them. Despite their abuse and death threats we made our protest. They said: ‘We will track you down and kill you.’

“We were protesting against Hizb ut-Tahrir’s call for the execution of gay people and unchaste women, and against its hateful anti-Hindu and anti-Jewish incitements. For our peaceful protest, we were arrested by the police. No police action was taken against the Hizb ut-Tahrir members who threatened to kill us,” said Mr Tatchell.

Pro-democracy and pro-human rights campaigners, including Muslims, will picket outside the conference venue at 12 noon this Saturday, 9 July, in protest against Hizb ut-Tahrir and against the Waterlily Business Centre for hosting them.

Gay couples want the right to marry too

Supporters of the Equal Love campaign presented a giant wedding card for Prince William and Kate Middleton outside the gates of Buckingham Palace yesterday, Monday 25 April.

As well as wishing the royal couple “congratulations” and “a happy life together”, the campaigners highlighted the ban on gay civil marriage and urged Kate and William to support the right of same-sex couples to marry in a register office. Cupcakes with Equal Love logos were handed out to tourists and passers by. Dozens of people signed the card.

The card read:

“Congratulations William and Kate on your Wedding Day. We wish you a happy life together. You can get married, gay people can’t. We are banned by law. We ask you to support marriage equality. Equal=Love.”

“As well as wishing the royal couple happiness, our card highlighted the fact that William and Kate can marry, but same-sex couples cannot. In democratic society, we should all be equal before the law. The ban on gay marriage is discrimination and should be repealed,” said coordinator of Monday’s 12 noon event, Peter Tatchell of the Equal Love campaign.

Mr Tatchell added:

“The public response was amazingly supportive. Everyone outside the palace expressed support for marriage equality. We didn’t get a single negative reaction.

“William and Kate are a modern young couple. They have gay friends. I am sure they would not wish them to suffer discrimination. Denying gay people the right to marry is unjust and unreasonable discrimination.

“Kate and William had a choice. They could get married, or not. They chose to marry. Great. Same-sex couples don’t have this choice. We are banned from marriage by law.

“We are urging the royal couple to find a way, within official protocol, to indicate their support for marriage equality. If they did this, they’d be the first royal couple to do so.

“The majority of the British public now support gay civil marriages in register offices.

“Three of the couples involved in the Equal Love legal campaign were present outside Buckingham Palace today, including Rev Sharon Ferguson and her partner Franka.

“In February, four gay couples and four heterosexual couples filed the Equal Love application in the European Court of Human Rights, seeking to overturn Britain’s legal prohibitions on same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships.

“Even if people disagree with the monarchy and marriage, the prohibition on gay marriage is homophobic and should be overturned. We must not let the government dictate that lesbian and gay couples cannot get married.

“Equally, we object to the way heterosexual couples are prohibited by law from having a civil partnership. Perhaps William and Kate might have preferred a civil partnership? It is wrong that they were prohibited by law from having this option.

“This event is an affirmation of our opposition to discrimination in marriage law. We want to show our support for the right of everyone to be able to choose whether or not to get married,” said Mr Tatchell.

Today’s celebration was organised by the Equal Love campaign, which seeks to overturn the twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships: www.equallove.org.uk

It is supported by the LGBTI human rights group OutRage! and the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

London – 25 April 2011: Equal Love campaign. Supporters of lesbian and gay marriage presented a giant wedding card to Prince William and Kate Middleton outside Buckingham Palace. The card read: “Congratulations William and Kate on your Wedding Day. We wish you a happy life together. You can get married, gay people can’t. We are banned by law. We ask you to support marriage equality. Equal=Love.”

12 noon to 2pm
Monday 25 April 2011
Buckingham Palace (in front of the main entrance)
London SW1

Sign up to join the event on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=198721503499425

End the ban on same-sex marriage. Supporters of marriage equality will hold a celebration in front of Buckingham Palace on Easter Bank Holiday, Monday 25th April, from 12 noon to 2pm. It is a public holiday. We invite you to join us.

Coordinator of the event, Peter Tatchell of the Equal Love campaign, said:

“We plan to deliver a giant wedding card to William and Kate. As well as wishing the royal couple every happiness, we will highlight the fact that William and Kate can marry, but same-sex couples can’t.

“Our event will urge the royal couple to support moves to end the ban on gay marriage. We want equal marriage rights for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

“Kate and William had a choice. They could get married, or not. Same-sex couples don’t have this choice. We are banned from marriage by law.

“All welcome. Bring your friends for a party in front of Buckingham Palace. Come with flowers, rainbow flags and pink jack flags.

“Some of the couples involved in the Equal Love campaign will join us on the day.

“Even if you don’t agree with marriage, the prohibition on gay marriage is homophobic and should be overturned. Don’t let the government dictate that LGBTI people can’t get married.

“The 25 April is not a celebration of the monarchy or marriage (many of us are critical of both). It is an affirmation of our opposition to discrimination in marriage law. We want to show our support for the right of everyone to be able to choose whether or not to get married, said Mr Tatchell.

Next Monday’s event is organised by the Equal Love campaign, which seeks to overturn the twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships: www.equallove.org.uk

It is supported by the LGBTI human rights group OutRage! www.outrage.org.uk and the Peter Tatchell Foundation www.petertatchellfoundation.org

Conway Hall
25 Red Lion Square
London WC1R 4LR

This event is organised by the Gay and Lesbian Humanists Association (GALHA) with the official support of Outrage and The Peter Tatchell Foundation. Some of the couples involved in this campaign are expected to be present. We hope to confirm soon that a guest speaker who is a legal expert on gay marriage/partnership law in Europe will also be present.

Derek Lennard (GALHA Events co-ordinator) commented:
“This event will focus on the “Equal Love” campaign which has taken the legal bid for gay marriage and for heterosexual civil partnerships to the European Court of Human Rights. Peter Tatchell will report on the progress of the campaign.”

This event is organised by GALHA with the official support of Outrage and the Peter Tatchell Foundation. Some of the couples involved in this campaign are expected to be present. We hope to confirm soon that a guest speaker who is a legal expert on gay marriage/partnership law in Europe will also be present.

GALHA has consistently supported marriage equality between gay and straight couples since long before this became an issue with mainstream support.

Some humanists strongly support marriage as a social institution. Others see Civil Partnerships as more relevant. However humanists generally agree passionately that both gay and straight couples should have equal access to both marriage and civil partnerships.

For more details of the meeting please see: http://www.galhameetup.com/events/16576277/

East London Mosque urged to dialogue with LGBTI communities

Commenting on the planned East London Gay Pride march scheduled for 2 April, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said:

“OutRage! is not supporting East London Gay Pride, following the revelation of links between some of the organisers and the right-wing English Defence League (EDL). I have also withdrawn my personal support. We fear the march will be exploited and hijacked by the far right to create divisions and stir up intolerance against Muslim people,” he said.

“OutRage! opposes both homophobia and anti-Muslim bigotry. All forms of intolerance are wrong. The gay, Muslim, Jewish, Asian and black communities know the pain of prejudice and discrimination. We should stand together, united against hate. Let’s celebrate East London’s multicultural diversity. Don’t let bigotry divide us. Together, we can defeat the hate-mongers.

“While defending the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and inter-sex (LGBTI) people to protest against homophobia and the ‘Gay Free Zone’ stickers, it would be best if the march was postponed until a later date and organised by a broad-based grassroots and community coalition, untainted by associations with the EDL.

“Muslim organisations and speakers should be invited to participate in the rescheduled East London Pride.

“Sadly, the East London Mosque and its London Muslim Centre must bear some responsibility for previously stoking homophobia. They have hosted anti-gay hate preachers such as Abdul Karim Hattin who delivered a presentation called ‘Spot The Fag’.

“Hattin is not the only homophobe who has been given a platform. So have anti-gay clerics Muhammad Alshareef, Abdullah Hakim Quick and Bilal Philips.

“These fundamentalist hate preachers fuel a culture of homophobia that first and foremost intimidates and threatens LGBTI Muslims. Our Muslim sisters and brothers must be defended against those who advocate harming them.

“We welcome the East London Mosque’s assurance that it will not give a platform to anti-gay speakers in the future. We urge them to establish a regular, permanent dialogue with LGBTI organisations, including Muslim ones, to foster solidarity between the LGBTI and Muslim communities and to combat both homophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice.

“The vast majority of British Muslims are not fundamentalist fanatics. They don’t support hate preachers. Although most of them do not approve of homosexuality, they do not discriminate or harm LGBTI people. We must be very careful to distinguish between Muslim people in general and the extremist minority who oppose democracy and human rights and who want to establish a clerical dictatorship,” said Peter Tatchell of OutRage!, the LGBTI human rights campaign organisation.

Eight couples file joint application on 2 February

Professor Robert Wintemute outlines the legal case for equality

Photo call:
9.30am, Wednesday 2 February
Corner Abingdon Street and Great College Street, SW1
(diagonally opposite the House of Lords)

Equal Love – European Court application launch
10.30am, Tuesday 2 February
Committee Room 17
House of Commons

“Eight British couples will formally file a joint legal application to the European Court of Human Rights this Wednesday, 2 February, in a bid to overturn the twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships,” announced human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of the LGBT human rights group OutRage!.

The European Court challenge will be formally announced at a meeting in Committee Room 17 at the House of Commons at 10.30am, booked in the name of Caroline Lucas MP. Ms Lucas is the keynote speaker.

Prior to this meeting, there will be a photo call at 9.30am, where the couples filing the European Court challenge will post their application in the red letter box at the corner of Abingdon Street and Great College Street, SW1, diagonally opposite the House of Lords.

Peter Tatchell is coordinator of the Equal Love campaign – www.equalove.org.uk – which seeks to end sexual orientation discrimination in both civil marriage and civil partnership law.

“Since November, four same-sex couples were refused marriage licenses at register offices in Greenwich, Northampton and Petersfield. Four heterosexual couples were also turned away when they applied for civil partnerships in Islington, Camden, Bristol and Aldershot,” added Mr Tatchell.

“All eight couples received letters of refusal from their register offices, which we are now using as the evidential basis to challenge in the European Court of Human Rights the UK’s exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage and the prohibition of straight civil partnerships. Since there is no substantive difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no justification for having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems.

“Outlawing black or Jewish people from getting married would provoke uproar. The prohibition on gay marriages should provoke similar outrage. Arbitrarily excluding heterosexual couples from civil partnerships is equally reprehensible.

“The bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships are a form of sexual apartheid – one law for gay couples and another law for heterosexual partners. Two wrongs don’t make a right. In a democratic society, we should all be equal before the law,” said Mr Tatchell.

Wednesday’s launch will be chaired by Peter Tatchell, and feature Caroline Lucas MP as the keynote speaker, plus some of the eight couples and their legal advisor, Professor Robert Wintemute of the School of Law at Kings College London. He will outline the legal basis of the Equal Love challenge to the current proscriptions.

“Our Equal Love campaign wants both marriages and civil partnerships opened up to all couples, different-sex and same-sex. Let everyone have a free and equal choice,” said Professor Wintemute.

“Banning same-sex marriage and different-sex civil partnerships violates Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“It’s discriminatory and obnoxious, like having separate drinking fountains or beaches for different racial groups, even though the water is the same. The only function of the twin bans is to mark lesbian and gay people as socially and legally inferior to heterosexual people.

“I am confident that we have a good chance of persuading the European Court of Human Rights that the UK’s system of segregating couples into two ’separate but equal’ legal institutions violates the European Convention. I predict that same-sex couples will be granted access to marriage in the UK and that this will be because the UK Government will eventually accept that it cannot defend the current discriminatory system,” he said.

See Prof Wintemute’s detailed legal arguments below.

See below a summary of countries around the world that have legislated same-sex civil marriage and civil unions.

Professor Robert Wintemute explains the legal basis of the application to the European Court of Human Rights:

1. Why and how we are able to take the Equal Love legal case direct to the European Court of Human Rights, without first exhausting the UK courts

“We have decided to take our case directly to the European Court of Human Rights for two reasons,” said Professor Robert Wintemute.

“First, anyone challenging discriminatory legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998 has to worry that losing could mean being ordered to pay the UK Government’s legal costs. This happened in 2006 to a lesbian couple, Susan Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, when they tried to have their lawful Canadian marriage recognised as a marriage in the UK. Our government would only recognise it as a civil partnership. Their case was rejected by a High Court judge, who ordered them to pay the UK Government £25,000 in legal costs. They could not afford to appeal the decision. In contrast, individuals who lose in the European Court of Human Rights do not have to pay the UK Government’s legal costs. The eight couples bringing this joint legal action are not well off and are not in a position to take the risk of a potentially huge legal bill.

“Second, even if we were to win in a UK court, the Human Rights Act 1998 only allows a UK court to make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, if the court deems legislation to be discriminatory. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states that the parties to a marriage must be male and female. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 stipulates that the parties to a civil partnership must be of the same sex. A ‘declaration of incompatibility’ is not legally binding, so the UK Government is free to ignore it. Even if the declaration is made by the UK Supreme Court, the UK Government is able to say: ‘We’ll wait to hear what the European Court of Human Rights has to say.’ This limit on the powers of UK courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 is a defect in the UK’s legal protection of human rights. Because of this defect, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed in 2008 that a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ is not an effective remedy, and does not have to be exhausted before making an application to the Court against the UK Government.”

2. The key points and arguments of the Equal Love legal case

“Our case is that the combination of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 creates a system that segregates couples into two separate legal institutions, with different names but identical rights and responsibilities. The segregation of couples is based on their sexual orientations: same-sex couples are excluded from marriage, and different-sex couples are excluded from civil partnership. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, all differences in treatment affecting other Convention rights – in this case the rights to marry in Article 12 and to respect for family life in Article 8 – must have an ‘objective and reasonable justification’. The European Court of Human Rights has said that differences in treatment based on sexual orientation ‘require particularly serious reasons by way of justification’, like differences in treatment based on race, religion or sex. The only apparent reason for maintaining the system of segregation is to use the law to mark same-sex couples as socially and legally inferior, and different-sex couples as socially and legally superior. Same-sex couples are excluded from marriage, which is the universal system for legally recognising a loving, committed, sexual relationship between two adults. This legal segregation is similar to having separate beaches and drinking fountains for white and black people, as existed in South Africa under apartheid. It is comparable to having a system of marriage for Christians and civil partnership for non-Christians.”

3. Why previous ECHR rulings against same-sex marriage might not apply in our case

“On 24 June 2010, the European Court of Human Rights issued its first judgment in a case in which a same-sex couple was seeking the right to marry. The Court found no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of two men, Horst Schalk and Johan Kopf, who were seeking the right to marry in Austria. Although the Court ruled that Article 12 of the Convention did not yet impose an obligation on European governments to allow same-sex couples to marry, the Court changed its interpretation of Article 12, saying that it ‘would no longer consider that the right to marry enshrined in Article 12 must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex’. When more Council of Europe countries than the current 7 (out of 47) allow same-sex couples to marry, the Court will be willing to consider ordering all of them to do so. The number European countries that allow same-sex marriage increased from three in 2005 to seven in 2010, and could double again while this case is pending. Same-sex marriage bills are currently being considered by the parliaments in Luxembourg and Slovenia, and a bill is expected soon in Finland. With a change of government, Denmark and France may follow suit.

“In our case, we are not asking the Court to order Italy, Poland, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and 35 other Council of Europe member states to allow same-sex couples to marry. Some countries in continental Europe, like Austria, do not want to allow same-sex couples to marry, because they are not ready to allow them to adopt children jointly, or to grant lesbian couples access to donor insemination. But this is not the situation in the UK. In 2002, same-sex couples in England and Wales were granted the right to adopt children jointly. In 2004, they won the right to register a civil partnership and acquire all of the rights of married different-sex couples, except in relation to assisted reproduction. In 2008, they achieved full equality in relation to assisted reproduction, including donor insemination. We are asking the Court to require the UK Government to explain why, after taking these politically difficult decisions voluntarily, and having gone so far to ensure equality between marriage and civil partnerships, the UK should be allowed to withhold access to marriage from same-sex couples, and access to civil partnership from different-sex couples. Given that UK marriages and civil partnerships confer identical rights and responsibilities, the UK government will have to justify to the European Court its maintenance of two different institutions that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

“We will draw on the EU Court of Justice’s requirement of consistency, set out in its Maruko judgment in 2008. The EU Court ruled that it was up to Germany to decide whether or not to have a registered partnership law for same-sex couples, and how many rights to grant registered same-sex partners. But once Germany decided voluntarily to pass a registered partnership law, and to put registered same-sex partners ‘in a situation comparable to that of spouses’, Germany could not exclude them from survivor’s benefits under employment-related pension plans that fell within the scope of EU anti-discrimination law. EU freedom of movement law also requires consistency with regard to the immigration rights of same-sex partners who are not EU citizens, ‘if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage’.

“Our case is essentially that the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with developments in European Union law, imposes an obligation of consistency on European governments that voluntarily create an institution like civil partnership, and then grant same-sex civil partners all of the rights of different-sex spouses.

“The European Court of Human Rights should, as a matter of consistency and for the avoidance of pettiness, require the UK and other countries in the same position, like Denmark, to take the final step and grant access to the institution of marriage. Anyone who has attended a civil partnership ceremony, and seen how similar it is to a marriage ceremony, knows how extraordinarily petty it is for the UK Government to say that a same-sex couple can have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage through an institution with a different name (civil partnership) but cannot have access to the word and institution of marriage.

4. Our assessment of the chances of success

“I am confident that we have a good chance of persuading the European Court of Human Rights that the UK’s system of segregating couples into two ’separate but equal’ legal institutions violates the Convention. I would predict that same-sex couples will be granted access to marriage in the UK and that this will be because the UK Government will eventually accept that they cannot defend the current discriminatory system. The UK Government should settle the case, and voluntarily introduce a bill in the UK Parliament, so that the European Court of Human Rights does not have to issue a judgment. This bill should simply repeal the twin bans on same-sex marriage and different-sex civil partnership, and give every couple, different-sex or same-sex, a choice of marriage or civil partnership, as in the Netherlands, Quebec and South Africa. This bill would bring ‘Equal Love’ to the UK,” said Professor Wintemute.

“At this event we will announce the joint legal action to be taken by the eight Equal Love couples. Four same-sex couples have filed applications at register offices for civil marriages. Four different-sex couples have applied for civil partnerships. All have been refused, on the grounds that the law prohibits same-sex civil marriages and different-sex civil partnerships. It is this discrimination that we intend to challenge in the courts,” said Professor Wintemute.

Background information

Segregation of couples in UK law, based on sexual orientation:

• Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s. 11: “A marriage … shall be void [if] … the parties are not respectively male and female …”
• Civil Partnership Act 2004, s. 3(1): “Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners … if they are not of the same sex …”
• Countries, provinces and states with marriage for same-sex and different-sex couples:
• 17 – Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, USA (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, District of Columbia), Mexico (Federal District)

Countries, provinces and states with civil partnership for same-sex and different-sex couples:

• 11 – Australia (Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria), Canada (Québec), Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, USA (Illinois, Nevada, District of Columbia)
• Countries, provinces and states with both marriages and civil partnerships open to gay and heterosexual couples ie. “Equal Love”:
• 3 – Canada (Québec), Netherlands, South Africa

We salute David and his immense, brave contribution to LGBTI human rights in Uganda.

He was an inspiring campaigner of long and great commitment. He will live on in our memories. He will also live on through the rights and equalities that LGBTI Ugandans will win eventually thanks to his many years of tireless groundwork and campaigning.

We express our admiration and appreciation to all the members of SMUG who are battling for LGBTI freedom in conditions of great adversity and danger. Their courage and tenacity is awesome.

We hope this savage killing will finally prompt Uganda’s political, religious and media leaders to cease their homophobic witch-hunts. We call on the government of Uganda to withdraw the ‘kill the gays’ Anti-Homosexuality Bill, decriminalise same-sex relations and legislate protection for LGBTI people against discrimination and hate crimes.

Yours in mournful comradeship,

Peter Tatchell,
OutRage! London UK

Islamic Research and Education Academy conference this Sunday

The Ibis international hotel group has been accused by lesbian and gay human rights campaigners of “irresponsibly hosting conferences by extremist anti-gay hate preachers”.

The next conference by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA) will be held on Sunday 16 January at the Ibis Hotel in Earl’s Court in London.

The Ibis group is being urged to cancel the iERA booking and “stop hosting speakers who variously incite homophobic hatred and the killing of gay people.”

The iERA has featured Muslim fundamentalist preachers who advocate the criminalisation of homosexuality and even the death penalty for same-sex acts. They argue that it is necessary to execute gays to keep society pure. They defend these extreme teachings about homosexuality as a model that should be followed by contemporary societies.

The headline speakers at Sunday’s conference are associates of the hate preachers Dr Zakir Naik and Bilal Phillips. Both banned from entering Britain by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, last year. Another iERA advisor, Hussein Yee is also banned from entering the UK.

The iERA speakers at the Ibis Hotel on Sunday are:

• Shaykh Abdullah Hakim Quick
• Abduraheem Green
• Shaykh Ala El Sayed
• Shaykh Yusuf Estes (tbc)
• Shaykh Shady Suleiman,
• Hamza Tzortzis
• Yusuf Chambers

See below examples of their homophobic incitements against lesbian and gay people.

“The Ibis Hotel group should not facilitate speakers who promote homophobic discrimination and violence. They should cancel this booking,” said Peter Tatchell of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights group OutRage!

“Lesbian and gay people – and straight people of conscience – should not use Ibis Hotels while they continue to host extremist anti-gay preachers. A boycott campaign might be necessary if Ibis does not change its policy.

“Neither the government nor the police would allow an event with speakers who had called for the killing of Muslims to ‘keep society pure’ and stop the spread of their religion. Such extreme anti-Muslim hate speech would not be tolerated. The event would be stopped and the speakers arrested if they expressed those views. Why the double standards?

“Most Muslims in Britain do not believe that lesbian and gay people should be killed. These extremists are out of touch with the majority of Muslim opinion. They are divisive and they damage community cohesion. Their homophobic fanaticism is being exploited by the far right to unfairly tarnish the wider Muslim community,” Mr Tatchell said.

OutRage! is urging you to email your protest to the General Manager of the Ibis Hotel in Earl’s Court, Patrice Millot:
patrice.millot@accor.com

Please also email your protest to Jean-Jacques Dessors, CEO of the Ibis Hotel parent company, Accor, via his PA, Charlotte Young:
charlotte.young@accor.com

Brett Lock of OutRage! added:

“This is not the first time Ibis Hotels have hosted such extremist events. It is quite shocking. I doubt they would host racist and anti-Semitic conferences.

“We do not wish to ban people with religious convictions from expressing their moral opposition to homosexuality. People should have the freedom to say that they think homosexuality is a sin and incompatible with their religious beliefs. However, supporting the execution of lesbian and gay people and equating them with rapists and paedophiles is dangerous incitement. It crosses the line,” he said.

Below are samples of anti-gay incitements by Sunday’s speakers at the Islamic Research and Education Academy conference in London:

Abdullah Hakim Quick
Six years ago, Quick was condemned by New Zealand’s broadcasting authority for his fiery anti-gay broadcasts which included these claims:
- AIDS is caused by the “filthy practices” of homosexuals
- Homosexuals are dropping dead from AIDS and “they want to take us all down with them”
- The Islamic position on homosexuality is “death”
- Homosexuals are “sick” and “not natural”
- “Muslims are going to have to take a stand [against homosexuals] and it’s not enough to call names”.

Unrepentant, he continues to hold this position: “They said ‘what is the Islamic position [on homosexuality]?’ And I told them. Put my name in the paper. The punishment is death. And I’m not going to change this religion.”

Abdur-Raheem Green
In an essay on his website entitled, “Terrible and brutal Islamic punishments or wise and just guidance from Allah?”, Green argues that homosexuality and adultery are “inexcusable, and justly punished with severity.” For this he stipulates death: “a slow and painful death by stoning. It is indicative of just how harmful this crime is to society.”

He concludes by arguing that that people should not quibble about whether the Islamic punishments are too harsh or not according to their own cultural experiences, but should just accept that Islam has a long track record and trust that Islamic law works.

Yusuf Estes
In an article on his website he says: “Scholars of Islam have already made it clear what the position is on those who engage in homosexual activities.” And he links to a fatwa ruling:

“In order to maintain the purity of the Muslim society, most Muslim scholars have ruled that the punishment for this act should be the same as for zina (i.e. one hundred whiplashes for the man who has never married, and death by stoning for the married man). Some have even ruled that it should be death for both partners, because the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, said: ‘Kill the doer and the one to whom it was done.’

Estes further reprints and endorses an email on his website referring to gay people as “deviants” and “devils”.

Hamza Tzortzis
Hamza Tzortzis wants to criminalise homosexuality. He argues:
“Some people object to Islam making the public expression of homosexuality a criminal act. This is subjective and only strikes a chord amongst those who cannot escape the social constructs in their own societies. There are societies past and present which accepted paedophilia and cannibalism as normal parts of human life and they would find Western society oppressive preventing them from carrying out these practices.”

He concludes by stating: “Those who claim that making homosexuality a criminal act is wrong are totally inconsistent.” He suggests this would mean saying that God is wrong. He explicitly rejects the argument that the historical context is different to the modern context: “Islam does not change with the tide or the fashion of the day,” he says.

Yusuf Chambers
Yusuf Chambers, an associate of Abdur-Raheem Green, reportedly says that homosexuality is a sickness and can be cured. He interviews a Dr Zakir Naik (banned from Britain for hate preaching) for one of his broadcasts and specifically asks the scholar what the punishment for homosexuality should be (the answer is “death”) and to refute suggestions that homosexuality has any natural or genetic origins.

Shady Suleiman
He says: “Also homosexuality that’s spreading all these diseases. Let’s not deny the fact. Don’t call it the name of freedom. Don’t talk about freedom and, you know, this is the freedom of action and we could do whatever we want. It doesn’t mean that freedom of action you destroy a nation. These are evil actions that bring evil outcomes to our society… Remember that if there is an Islamic state the punishment of zina (sex outside marriage), the punishment of those who commit zina, if they have never been married before, they will be lashed 100 lashes. If they are married while they committed zina, or previously been married and divorced, and they committed zina, then their punishment is stoning to death.”

People wishing to protest to Ibis Hotels for allowing their venue to be used by homophobic extremists can write to the General Manager of the Ibis Hotel in Earl’s Court, Patrice Millot:
patrice.millot@accor.com

Please also email your protest to Jean-Jacques Dessors, CEO of the Ibis Hotel parent company, Accor, via his PA, Charlotte Young:
charlotte.young@accor.com

Lord Lester QC keynote speaker at Equal Love launch

Four gay couples and four straight couples today announced their intention to file a joint application to the European Court of Human Rights, in a bid to overturn the twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships. They want both institutions opened up to all couples, without discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“The formal filing of the application to the European Court of Human Rights was postponed after Camden register office inadvertently failed, at the last moment, to provide a valid letter of rejection to one of the heterosexual couples who were refused a civil partnership. Such a letter is required evidence, in order to demonstrate to the European Court that the couple suffered discrimination based on their sexual orientation,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, coordinator of the Equal Love campaign, which is organising the legal challenge.

Mr Tatchell opened this morning’s European Court case launch news confernce:

“This postponement is frustrating. It has delayed the formal application but it will not prevent it. Once we have the final letter of refusal, we will go ahead with the application, probably in the second week of January,” he said.

Mr Tatchell told the news conference: “Banning black couples from getting married would provoke national and international condemnation. The prohibition on gay marriages is equally outrageous.”

The full text of Peter Tatchell’s opening speech follows below

The formal launch of the European Court challenge took place in the Great Hall at King’s College London this morning, Tuesday 21 December – the fifth anniversary of the first civil partnership ceremonies in England.

This launch was followed by the Equal Love conference, chaired by Lord Lester QC, who inspired the Civil Partnership Act in 2004.

See these photos of today’s European Court case launch:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/outrage/sets/72157625520746245/
These photos are free to use, without charge, but please credit the photographer.

Professor Robert Wintemute of Kings College School of Law was a lead speaker at today’s launch. He is legal advisor to the Equal Love campaign, and the author of the submission to the European Court of Human Rights.

“This legal challenge is a milestone. It is the first time in the world that there has been a simultaneous legal challenge to the dual prohibitions on same-sex marriages and different-sex civil partnerships. Previous court cases have focussed on one ban or the other. We are challenging both,” said Professor Wintemute.

“Banning same-sex marriage and different-sex civil partnerships violates Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“It’s discriminatory and offensive, like having separate drinking fountains or beaches for different racial groups. The only function of the twin bans is to mark lesbian and gay people as socially and legally inferior to heterosexual people.

“I am confident that we have a good chance of persuading the European Court of Human Rights that the UK’s system of segregating couples into two ’separate but equal’ legal institutions violates the European Convention,” he said.

Professor Wintemute explained in advance of the launch the legal basis of the application to the European Court of Human Rights. See his arguments at the end of this news release

The other speakers at the news conference were Rev Sharon Ferguson, Chief Executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, and her partner Franka Strietzel, on behalf of the four same-sex couples; and Katherine Doyle and Thomas Freeman, on behalf of the four different-sex couples.

The conference that followed was chaired and addressed by Lord Anthony Lester of Herne Hill QC, author of the private member’s bill that inspired the Civil Partnership Act 2004. He was followed by Professor Anne Barlow, Professor of Family Law and Policy, University of Exeter; Rev. Carla Grosch-Miller, Minister, St. Columba’s United Reformed Church, Oxford; Professor Cees van Dam, Visiting Professor, School of Law, Kings College London; Canon Giles Goddard, Priest in charge, St. John’s Church (Church of England), Waterloo, London; and Liberal Democrat policy-maker and former MP, Evan Harris.

Background information

Segregation of couples in UK law, based on sexual orientation:

• Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s. 11: “A marriage … shall be void [if] … the parties are not respectively male and female …”
• Civil Partnership Act 2004, s. 3(1): “Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners … if they are not of the same sex …”

Countries, provinces and states with marriage for same-sex and different-sex couples:

• 17 – Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, USA (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, District of Columbia), Mexico (Federal District)

Countries, provinces and states with civil partnership for same-sex and different-sex couples:

• 11 – Australia (Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria), Canada (Québec), Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, USA (Illinois, Nevada, District of Columbia)

Countries, provinces and states with both marriages and civil partnerships open to both gay and heterosexual couples ie. “Equal Love”:

• 3 – Canada (Québec), Netherlands, South Africa

The full text of Peter Tatchell’s opening speech to the Equal Love conference at Kings College London on Tuesday 21 December:

“Welcome to Kings College London, to this historic bid to end sexual orientation discrimination in civil marriage and civil partnership law.

“This bid for equality is championed by the Equal Love campaign, supported by the LGBT human rights group OutRage! and by the Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund.

“Today, we announce that eight couples – four gay and four heterosexual – will file an application in the European Court of Human Rights to overturn the twin bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships.

“This day, the 21 December, is the fifth anniversary of the first civil partnership ceremonies in England – a breakthrough moment in legal equality and social acceptance for same-sex couples.

“Now it is time to go one step further by overturning the ban on gay civil marriages (ie. marriages in register offices).

“Some same-sex couples do not want marriage. They are happy with civil partnerships. We respect their feelings. But other lesbian and gay couples would like to get married. It is the universally recognised system of love and commitment.

“We sympathise with heterosexual couples who don’t like the patriarchal history of marriage and the idea of being called husband and wife. They would rather have a civil partnership instead. They see it as more modern and equal. The law should give them that option.

“Over the last two months, four same-sex couples were refused marriage licenses at register offices in Greenwich, Northampton and Petersfield. During the same period, four heterosexual couples were turned away when they applied for civil partnerships in Islington, Camden, Bristol and Aldershot.

“All eight couples have requested letters of refusal from their register offices. We intend to use these rejection letters as evidence of discrimination, to challenge the exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage and the denial of civil partnerships to straight couples. Since there is no difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no justification for having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems.

“Banning black couples from getting married would provoke uproar. The prohibition on gay marriages should arouse similar outrage.

“The ban on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships is a form of sexual apartheid – one law for gay couples and another law for heterosexual partners. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

“In a democratic society, we should all be equal before the law.

“Everyone should have a choice, either a civil marriage or a civil partnership, whichever they prefer. The current laws deny couples choice and discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is what we are challenging in the European Court of Human Rights.

“We had intended to file the joint application to the European Court today. We expected that all register offices would have provided the eight couples with their letters of rejection by yesterday afternoon. These letters are the formal evidence of sexual orientation discrimination that we need to present to the European Court.

“Unfortunately, for reasons beyond our control, not all the letters of refusal have arrived. It is therefore necessary for us to postpone the formal filing of the application. This will now take place in January – and you will be notified.

“We apologise, but hope you understand that the incomplete portfolio of rejection letters makes it impossible for us to submit our application to the European Court of Human Rights today.

“But we will proceed, at a later date. This will not stop the case going forward. The Equal Love campaign continues,” said Mr Tatchell.

Professor Robert Wintemute explains the legal basis of the application to the European Court of Human Rights:

1. Why and how we are able to take the Equal Love legal case direct to the European Court of Human Rights, without first exhausting the UK courts

“We have decided to take our case directly to the European Court of Human Rights for two reasons,” said Professor Robert Wintemute.

“First, anyone challenging discriminatory legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998 has to worry that losing could mean being ordered to pay the UK Government’s legal costs. This happened in 2006 to a lesbian couple, Susan Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, when they tried to have their lawful Canadian marriage recognised as a marriage in the UK. Our government would only recognise it as a civil partnership. Their case was rejected by a High Court judge, who ordered them to pay the UK Government £25,000 in legal costs. They could not afford to appeal the decision. In contrast, individuals who lose in the European Court of Human Rights do not have to pay the UK Government’s legal costs. The eight couples bringing this joint legal action are not well off and are not in a position to take the risk of a potentially huge legal bill.

“Second, even if we were to win in a UK court, the Human Rights Act 1998 only allows a UK court to make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, if the court deems legislation to be discriminatory. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states that the parties to a marriage must be male and female. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 stipulates that the parties to a civil partnership must be of the same sex. A ‘declaration of incompatibility’ is not legally binding, so the UK Government is free to ignore it. Even if the declaration is made by the UK Supreme Court, the UK Government is able to say: ‘We’ll wait to hear what the European Court of Human Rights has to say.’ This limit on the powers of UK courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 is a defect in the UK’s legal protection of human rights. Because of this defect, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed in 2008 that a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ is not an effective remedy, and does not have to be exhausted before making an application to the Court against the UK Government.”

2. The key points and arguments of the Equal Love legal case

“Our case is that the combination of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 creates a system that segregates couples into two separate legal institutions, with different names but identical rights and responsibilities. The segregation of couples is based on their sexual orientations: same-sex couples are excluded from marriage, and different-sex couples are excluded from civil partnership. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, all differences in treatment affecting other Convention rights – in this case the rights to marry in Article 12 and to respect for family life in Article 8 – must have an ‘objective and reasonable justification’. The European Court of Human Rights has said that differences in treatment based on sexual orientation ‘require particularly serious reasons by way of justification’, like differences in treatment based on race, religion or sex. The only apparent reason for maintaining the system of segregation is to use the law to mark same-sex couples as socially and legally inferior, and different-sex couples as socially and legally superior. Same-sex couples are excluded from marriage, which is the universal system for legally recognising a loving, committed, sexual relationship between two adults. This legal segregation is similar to having separate beaches and drinking fountains for white and black people, as existed in South Africa under apartheid. It is comparable to having a system of marriage for Christians and civil partnership for non-Christians.”

3. Why previous ECHR rulings against same-sex marriage might not apply in our case

“On 24 June 2010, the European Court of Human Rights issued its first judgment in a case in which a same-sex couple was seeking the right to marry. The Court found no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of two men, Horst Schalk and Johan Kopf, who were seeking the right to marry in Austria. Although the Court ruled that Article 12 of the Convention did not yet impose an obligation on European governments to allow same-sex couples to marry, the Court changed its interpretation of Article 12, saying that it ‘would no longer consider that the right to marry enshrined in Article 12 must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex’. When more Council of Europe countries than the current 7 (out of 47) allow same-sex couples to marry, the Court will be willing to consider ordering all of them to do so. The number European countries that allow same-sex marriage increased from three in 2005 to seven in 2010, and could double again while this case is pending. Same-sex marriage bills are currently being considered by the parliaments in Luxembourg and Slovenia, and a bill is expected soon in Finland. With a change of government, Denmark and France may follow suit.

In our case, we are not asking the Court to order Italy, Poland, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and 35 other Council of Europe member states to allow same-sex couples to marry. Some countries in continental Europe, like Austria, do not want to allow same-sex couples to marry, because they are not ready to allow them to adopt children jointly, or to grant lesbian couples access to donor insemination. But this is not the situation in the UK. In 2002, same-sex couples in England and Wales were granted the right to adopt children jointly. In 2004, they won the right to register a civil partnership and acquire all of the rights of married different-sex couples, except in relation to assisted reproduction. In 2008, they achieved full equality in relation to assisted reproduction, including donor insemination. We are asking the Court to require the UK Government to explain why, after taking these politically difficult decisions voluntarily, and having gone so far to ensure equality between marriage and civil partnerships, the UK should be allowed to withhold access to marriage from same-sex couples, and access to civil partnership from different-sex couples. Given that UK marriages and civil partnerships confer identical rights and responsibilities, the UK government will have to justify to the European Court its maintenance of two different institutions that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

“We will draw on the EU Court of Justice’s requirement of consistency, set out in its Maruko judgment in 2008. The EU Court ruled that it was up to Germany to decide whether or not to have a registered partnership law for same-sex couples, and how many rights to grant registered same-sex partners. But once Germany decided voluntarily to pass a registered partnership law, and to put registered same-sex partners ‘in a situation comparable to that of spouses’, Germany could not exclude them from survivor’s benefits under employment-related pension plans that fell within the scope of EU anti-discrimination law. EU freedom of movement law also requires consistency with regard to the immigration rights of same-sex partners who are not EU citizens, ‘if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage’.

“Our case is essentially that the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with developments in European Union law, imposes an obligation of consistency on European governments that voluntarily create an institution like civil partnership, and then grant same-sex civil partners all of the rights of different-sex spouses.

The European Court of Human Rights should, as a matter of consistency and for the avoidance of pettiness, require the UK and other countries in the same position, like Denmark, to take the final step and grant access to the institution of marriage. Anyone who has attended a civil partnership ceremony, and seen how similar it is to a marriage ceremony, knows how extraordinarily petty it is for the UK Government to say that a same-sex couple can have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage through an institution with a different name (civil partnership) but cannot have access to the word and institution of marriage.

4. Our assessment of the chances of success

“I am confident that we have a good chance of persuading the European Court of Human Rights that the UK’s system of segregating couples into two ’separate but equal’ legal institutions violates the Convention. I would predict that same-sex couples will be granted access to marriage in the UK and that this will be because the UK Government will eventually accept that they cannot defend the current discriminatory system. The UK Government should settle the case, and voluntarily introduce a bill in the UK Parliament, so that the European Court of Human Rights does not have to issue a judgment. This bill should simply repeal the twin bans on same-sex marriage and different-sex civil partnership, and give every couple, different-sex or same-sex, a choice of marriage or civil partnership, as in the Netherlands, Quebec and South Africa. This bill would bring ‘Equal Love’ to the UK,” said Professor Wintemute.