Suchergebnisse

The subject of this research is human rights related to Sexual orientation and gender identity in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United Nations. The UPR is a unique peer review mechanism which reviews all UN member states in a universal manner, but also a source of politicisation along regional lines. This politicisation has a detrimental effect on the universality of the process, especially in relation to controversial issues, such as human rights challenging of traditional perceptions about gender. The aim of this dissertation is to quantify and understand how states of different regional belonging accommodate for recommendations related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. This is realised through a quantitative study including logistic regression and a simple multilevel analysis. The findings are explored within the theoretical framework of the debate between universalism and relativism linked with a feminist perspective on cultural relativism in order to illuminate specific characteristics of human rights related to gender norms. The study reveals that tendencies toward politicisation along regional lines are fortified in relation to the issue of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, challenging the universality of human rights. Furthermore, the level of economic and social development in the State under Review and the phrasing of the recommendations also influence states' actions on these rights in the UPR.

In 1982 Wisconsin became the first state to pass a comprehensive statute prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination; and its cities, Madison and Milwaukee, recently expanded their local ordinances to prohibit employment and housing discrimination based on gender identity. On the other hand, Wisconsin singled out gays and lesbians from other protected groups when it denied affirmative action programs to remedy sexual orientation discrimination in its landmark 1982 legislation; Milwaukee's Equal Rights Commission, charged with receiving and reviewing complaints of private employer discrimination, has not operated for five years; and Wisconsin's statewide employment discrimination statute excludes gender identity protection and does not provide for a private right of action.

Pennsylvania's 174,000 LGBT workers are vulnerable to employment discrimination absent state or federal legal protections. While 33 Pennsylvania localities provide some protections, 69 percent of the state's workforce could suffer discrimination without recourse based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Pennsylvania teachers, factory workers and law enforcement officers have all faced workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Uniform legal protections could provide more consistent and stronger recourse for the state's workers at minimal administrative cost to the government. Many Pennsylvania employers have already decided that inclusive LGBT workplace policies are good for business. At least 139 companies headquartered in Pennsylvania prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, including 37 Fortune 1000 companies, and at least 40 companies prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.

Any legislation which intends to implement the values enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Constitution of Malta is to be welcomed. The values which inspire and shape Europe, such as respect for human dignity, freedom, tolerance and equality, proportionality, human rights and democracy, justice and solidarity, and the rule of law, are to be interpreted not as a catalogue of entitlements but as a necessary precondition of a 'culture of dignity' in which every citizen, irrespective of nationality, status, sexual orientation, gender, age or achievement, lives in an inclusive culture of recognition between human beings. All persons and minority groups are to be recognized as belonging to the same moral and civic community as the majority. The legislation, which is being proposed on gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics, is seeking to address the needs of a category of people who very often find it socially hard and painful in trying to deal with a fundamental dimension of their own self-identity. It is certainly a step in the right direction for society to take the necessary measures, including appropropriate legislation, to create those conditions that enable everyone, above all those whose vulnerability exposes them to multiple disadvantages, to live with dignity and to exercise their lawful rights. While there is no clear-cut answer as to the required kind of legislation on the matter, it is important to recognize the complexity of the problem and be guided by a set of ethical principles which can help one to find the right kind of balance between the rights of the individual and the legitimate interests of others and the community as a whole. [Excerpt] ; non peer-reviewed

Approximately 7,500 LGBT workers in Georgia are vulnerable to employment discrimination due to a lack of state legal protections. At least 35 localities and many private corporations based in Georgia have personnel policies that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. While Georgia law protects state workers from discrimination based on personal characteristics including race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and age, it does not include sexual orientation or gender identity. In response to a 2013 survey, 79% of voters surveyed in Georgia said that it should be, or probably should be, illegal for government employers in the state to discriminate against their employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Findings from the Georgia report are consistent with national data. A 2013 Pew Research Center survey found that 21 percent of LGBT respondents had been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay, or promotions. In 2010, 78 percent of respondents to the largest survey of transgender people reported having experienced harassment or mistreatment at work.

Approximately 66,000 LGBT workers in South Carolina are vulnerable to employment discrimination absent state legal protections. Four localities in South Carolina prohibit public sector employment discrimination against LGBT people. Only 18% of the state's labor force works in those localities, and only a small proportion of those workers are employed by their local governments. Currently none of South Carolina's LGBT-inclusive local ordinances prohibit discrimination in private employment. Findings from the South Carolina report are consistent with national data. A 2013 Pew Research Center survey found that 21 percent of LGBT respondents had been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay, or promotions. In 2010, 78 percent of respondents to the largest national survey of transgender people to date reported having experienced harassment or mistreatment at work, and 47 percent reported having been discriminated against in hiring, promotion, or job retention because of their gender identity.

Missouri has no state statute prohibiting public employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Since 1998, legislators in the Missouri General Assembly have introduced bills that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, specifically in the areas of employment, public accommodations, and housing; none of the attempts have been successful.

Wyoming, the least populous state in the United States, currently has no laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Legislation was introduced in 2009 that would add sexual orientation to the list of enumerated classes that are currently protected against employment discrimination, but the bill would not extend such protections to gender identity.

There are no state laws in Texas that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, although five of Texas's six largest cities have local ordinances partially banning such discrimination in specific contexts.1 State legislators have repeatedly introduced bills at the state level to add sexual orientation and/or gender identity as protected classes in various contexts, although none of these bills has left the committee stage.

Currently, Michigan has not enacted any statewide legislation prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Michigan Civil Rights Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act"), which prohibits employment discrimination based on various categories, including religion, race, and sex, does not prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. Indeed, in Barbour v. Department of Social Services, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that harassment and discrimination based upon a person's sexual orientation is not an activity proscribed by the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The Barbour court, however, did hold that a gender discrimination claim brought pursuant to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act may be based on incidents of homosexual advances that directly relate to the employee's gender. More recently, a bill was introduced in January 2007 to include "sexual orientation and gender identity or expression," but that bill did not go beyond the Judiciary Committee.

There is no state law in Alabama prohibiting any form of employment discrimination. Rather, Alabama defers to federal law for providing its citizens with protections against discrimination based upon age, race, religion, sex, national origin, and disabilities. Only a few unsuccessful attempts have been made to enact legislation to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, and none to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. Neither the state nor any locality in Alabama prohibits sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.

Tennessee"s anti-discrimination law, known as the Tennessee Human Rights Act, does not explicitly address either sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination. Further, the state does not provide protection to state or private employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition, no executive orders, local laws or state government personnel policies exist that prohibit job discrimination on either basis. The formal state employee grievance policy addresses discrimination, but does not include these characteristics.

Utah has no state-wide statutes, administrative regulations or executive orders that protect its residents – including employees of state government – from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. A 1993 executive order that addressed sexual harassment in state government workplaces was worded in such a way that it covered same-sex harassment, but that order was rescinded in 2006 and replaced by an executive order that does not address the issue. Local ordinances in Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City protect municipal government workers in those locations from sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.

Montana currently has no laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. State personnel rules issued by former Governor Marc Racicot in 2000 prohibit discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation with respect to employment by state government, but the available remedies are limited due to the lack of a statewide statute. Bills have been introduced to add either sexual orientation or gender identity and expression, or both, to Montana"s human rights laws in most of the legislative sessions of the past decade, including the current 2009 legislative session. None have passed despite enjoying recent support from the Governor"s office.

Alaska's anti-discrimination statute provides no protection against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The state university system has rebuffed repeated attempts to add sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics in its anti-discrimination policy. In addition, there are currently no municipal laws offering protection for local government workers (a 1993 Anchorage law was enacted and then repealed in the same year). In 2002, the governor issued an administrative order declaring that the "goal" of state officials is to prohibit and prevent job discrimination against state employees based on, inter alia, sexual orientation; gender identity is not included in the administrative order. However, there appear to be no remedies available under the order, beyond the possibility of filing a complaint.