Last over the decade, the rights of sexual and gender minorities in Europe have improved significantly. Last year, however, development almost came to a halt.
This is clear by the European umbrella organization for gender minorities From a comparison published by Ilga-Europe, published for 12 years. For the first time, the map shows almost no changes from the previous year.
Director of Advocacy for the Organization Katrin Hugendubel commented in the press releasethat stagnation would be easy to blame for the corona pandemic, but the reality is more complex.
According to the Hugendubel, in too many countries, progress has stalled as the political confrontation between sexual and gender minority issues has increased. In addition, certain decision-makers no longer see the benefits of supporting equality.
Finland ranks sixth in the comparison, ie among the most advanced countries.
Read more: The Hungarian parliament passed a law banning the teaching of homosexuality to minors
Read more: Finland and 12 other EU countries express joint concern over Hungarian law discriminating against sexual and gender minorities
“Finland has undergone significant reforms over the past ten years: the Equal Marriage Act and a very comprehensive Equality Act,” says the Secretary General of the human rights organization Seta. Kerttu Tarjamo.
The Citizens ‘Initiative for Equal Marriage Act was sent to Parliament in 2013. The Citizens’ Initiative entitled The Right to Be reached in April the number of signatures required. The initiative is pushing for a fairer translakia.
Last year, the first out-of-family adoptions for same-sex couples were made in Finland.
Read more: “This is the call now,” was heard on the phone and Unna became a U-mother and Anna became an A-mother – Finland’s first rainbow adoption families tell about the raging adoption process and the happiness the child
ILGAn ”in the rainbow map, “the countries that have done best in the human rights of sexual and gender minorities are marked in green and the worst in red. In Europe, Turkey did the worst with just under 4% and Malta excelled the best with 94%.
Malta, an island nation south of Italy, is left out of the map.
Of the EU countries, Poland is in the worst position in the report for the second year in a row. The country’s president is elected one year ago, Spoke of the destructive impact of the “LGBT ideology” in his campaigns Andrzej Duda. Many of the country’s cities declared themselves to be “LGBT-free,” or areas free of sexual and gender minorities.
In 2014, Finland was even lower than Hungary in comparison. Hungary now meets 33% of the criteria and is in the middle of the list. The country’s ranking is so good because recent twists and turns in policies that discriminate against the country’s minorities have taken place this year.
In mid-June, the Hungarian government adopted a package of laws banning the making available to minors of content about homosexuality, gender correction, and “anomalous gender identity”.
Read more: Hungary forbids telling children about homosexuality as part of the “Pedophilia Act” – Dorottya Rédain’s children’s book sold out and torn live
Elsewhere In Eastern Europe, the situation has deteriorated slightly, and the authors of the report have expressed concern that the governments of other countries could follow the path of Poland and Hungary.
The largest faller is still not found in the east but in the west. Denmark surprised this year with the biggest drop, 3.8 percentage points. The drop is due to the fact that in health care, transgenderism has in some cases still been associated with mental health disorders.
Largest human rights enhancers were instead Malta, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The last two increased their points by improving their freedom of assembly.
With the exception of Greece, the whole of the Balkans either improved its human rights record or remained unchanged.
What explains the fact that in Malta the human rights of sexual and gender minorities are approaching as high as one hundred?
“Malta has systematically promoted human rights. For example, the country has the best translaki in the world, ”comments Tarjamo.
“It is important to note that a strongly religious Malta can rise to the forefront of human rights. Decisions can be made in a wide range of societies, regardless of the country. ”
Although Finland ranks well in the European comparison, a third of Ilga’s criteria are still not met here.
There are a total of 71 criteria in the comparison, and two new ones were added last year. They are the recognition of the opposite sex and the possibility of recognizing the sex of the minor.
Finland does not meet either of these, and the country’s ranking therefore fell by one percentage point from last year.
Where Could Finland still develop?
Most of the missing criteria relate to the rights of gender minorities. The reform of Transla has been on the agenda as the citizens’ initiative that drove it received the required 50,000 signatures in full in April.
Among other things, the initiative states that the requirement of reproductive incapacity and medical diagnosis should be removed from the translate as a precondition for legal redress for sex.
“Health care should start with strengthening health and not having to prove that there is some gender. People do not need care for their identity but for their gender dysphoria, ”says Setan Tarjamo.
A person with gender dysphoria experiences a conflict between their gender identity and the sex determined at birth, which causes anxiety and intense discomfort.
Second the problem concerns the modification of the sexual characteristics of intersex babies.
According to Seta, 10–850 intersex babies are born in Finland every year, depending on the definition, who do not have chromosomes, genitals or hormonal functions typical only of women or men.
Babies are undergoing radical medical interventions that can have a major impact on their lives, and organizations have called for these to be banned.
In addition to these, Ilga’s report shows that there are still major problems in Finland in the asylum procedure for people belonging to rainbow minorities.
“There are negative decisions in cases where the grounds for applying for asylum have seemed credible to organizational actors but not to the authorities. We should get information about why the views on the case are different, ”says Tarjamo.