PRESS LINK HERE: https://youtube.com/@nakeddeparture1?si=UvMb5zw-rMDvRqmH

Ghana's Supreme Court on Wednesday paved the way for a contested bill severely curtailing LGBTQ rights to become law after rejecting two bids to overturn it. Lawmakers approved the Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill in February, drawing international condemnation despite gaining wide public support in the conservative West African country. The proposed anti-LGBTQ legislation is considered among the most stringent in Africa, stipulating jail terms of up to three years for engaging in same-sex relations and up to five years for promoting or sponsoring LGBTQ activities. The bill will only become law after being ratified by the outgoing president Nana Akufo-Addo or his successor John Mahama. Akufo-Addo, who officially steps down on January 7 after two terms in office, has not yet announced his decision. He had said he would first await the Supreme Court's ruling on the bill's constitutionality. Opposition leader, Mahama, who won the December 7 elections, voiced support for the anti-LGBTQ bill during the electoral campaign. Gay sex is already illegal in the religious, mostly Christian nation, but while discrimination against LGBTQ people is common, no one has ever been prosecuted under the colonial-era law. "The Supreme Court's decision is a victory for Ghanaian values and cultural sovereignty," Yaw Biney, a lawyer and supporter of the bill, told AFP. LGBTQ rights campaigners voiced fear and disappointment.

सुप्रीम अदालत ने नागरिकता अधिनियम की धारा 6ए की वैधता को रखा बरकरार, संविधान पीठ ने सुनाया फैसला #News #NewsUpdate #newsfeed #newsbreakapp

Citizenship Amendment Act 1985: देश की सर्वोच्च अदालत की पांच जजों की संविधान पीठ ने असम समझौते को आगे बढ़ाने के लिए 1985 में संशोधन के माध्यम से जोड़े गए नागरिकता अधिनियम की धारा 6ए की संवैधानिक वैधता को बरकरार रखा। बता दें कि इस मामले की सुनवाई सीजेआई डीवाई चंद्रचूड़ की अध्यक्षता वाली बेंच कर रही थी, जिसको लेकर 12 दिसंबर 2023 को 17 याचिकाओं पर सुनवाई के बाद फैसला सुरक्षित रख लिया गया था और आज…

After months of national debate, Gambia’s Parliament on July 15 voted to reject a controversial Bill that sought to repeal a 2015 law banning female genital mutilation (FGM) in the country. The anti-FGM law, enacted under exiled former president Yahya Jammeh’s regime, prohibits the cut, which is widely practised in Gambia, backed by religious and cultural beliefs. Islamic scholars in the Muslim-dominated country vigorously campaigned to have the law repealed, arguing it violated the cultural and religious rights of Gambians. But the religious community was sharply divided, with those against the repeal citing the harmful nature of the practice and casting doubt on its religious basis. The issue even featured in the Organisation of Islamic Conference meeting hosted by Gambia this year, where some scholars insisted that FGM had no religious basis. Following a heated debate, the House on Monday voted 48 to five in favour of maintaining the law. Anti-FGM campaigners hailed the decision. The Women’s Amendment Bill 2023 was in the House since last year. None of its provisions was passed.

While Ghanaians are still waiting for a decision on a wide-ranging proposed anti-LGBTQ+ bill, the country’s supreme court has now upheld archaic legislation that criminalises gay sex between men. On Wednesday (24 July), the West African nation’s supreme court dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the Ghanaian Criminal Code of 1960, which prohibits same-sex acts – branding them “unnatural carnal knowledge” – with punishment of up to three years in jail. The seven-member panel, presided over by justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, said reasons for their decision would be given at a later date, Reuters reported. Under the criminal code – inherited from legislation dating back to British colonial times – LGBTQ+ people in the country already face discrimination, but if the Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill is passed, things will only get worse.

Government offices in the EU can ban employees wearing religious symbols such as Islamic headscarves, even when they do not have contact with the public, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled Tuesday (28 November). Such a rule can be imposed “in order to put in place an entirely neutral administrative environment,” the court said. The judgement derived from a case lodged by a worker in a Belgian local government office who challenged a ban on her wearing an Islamic headscarf, feeling that it infringed on her freedom of religion and she was being discriminated against. The Luxembourg-based court said a prohibition “of any sign revealing philosophical or religious beliefs… is not discriminatory if it is applied in a general and indiscriminate manner to all of that administration’s staff and is limited to what is strictly necessary”.

continue reading

Abortion Notification Upheld. Opponents of the bill warned of the importance that roe v. Supreme court upheld a montana parental notification law that was similar, but not identical, to nevada’s. Federal court upholds block on Indiana 'parental notification' abortion from angelusnews.com Wade the court has had 7 chances to deal with the 2 types of minor's rights cases: “arizona is seeing an…