Silvia Falcetta’s research while affiliated with University of York and other places

All primary schools in England are under a statutory requirement to provide ‘relationships education’, which includes ‘ lgbt content’. The inclusion of content relating to sexual orientation and gender identity has attracted faith-based opposition. Such opposition, which is based on assertions about relationships education interfering with the right of parents to ensure that the education of their children is in conformity with their religious convictions, is likely to lead to legal action in the English courts and perhaps the European Court of Human Rights. This article anticipates the claims that would be made in any such legal action and critically interrogates them through the lens of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Following the enactment of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, same-sex couples in England and Wales have the same opportunities as different-sex couples to marry by way of a civil ceremony. However, same-sex couples who wish to marry by way of a religious ceremony are at a significant disadvantage to different-sex couples because only a small number of religious organisations, and a tiny number of places of worship, permit same-sex marriage. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, this article provides the first analysis of the experiences of same-sex couples who have married in a certified place of worship that has been registered for same-sex marriage. We argue that these experiences are shaped in complex ways within an environment in which same-sex religious marriage is lawful but nevertheless difficult to access. The analysis examines the experiences of couples at different stages of the marriage process, including the decision to have a religious marriage, seeking a place of worship, and negotiating the form of the ceremony. We show how many couples, unable to marry within the religious traditions with which they are most familiar, are effectively ‘funnelled’ towards particular traditions about which they have little prior knowledge. The article offers a unique insight into how English marriage law sustains faith-based discrimination against same-sex couples, and how some couples are able to overcome this.

All primary schools in England are under a statutory requirement to provide ‘relationships education’, which includes ‘LGBT content’. The inclusion of content relating to sexual orientation and gender identity has attracted faith-based opposition. Such opposition, which is based on assertions about relationships education interfering with the right of parents to ensure that the education of their children is in conformity with their religious convictions, is likely to lead to legal action in the English courts and perhaps the European Court of Human Rights. This article anticipates the claims that would be made in any legal action and critically interrogates them through the lens of the European Convention on Human Rights.

For six decades the European Convention on Human Rights has been a beacon of hope for people in Europe suffering discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Since the early 1990s, following the expansion of the Council of Europe to include 22 former communist states, the Convention has become an important means by which to promote sexual orientation equality in Central and Eastern Europe. In this article we provide a systematic examination of how the Convention is being used, in the European Court of Human Rights, to challenge sexual orientation discrimination in Central and Eastern European states. We discuss the issues relating to sexual orientation discrimination in these states that have been raised before the Court and, in turn, assess how the Court has developed Convention jurisprudence to address them. We situate this analysis in the broader context of the contribution of Central and Eastern European states to shaping the approach of the Council of Europe’s statutory organs to sexual orientation equality, which influences the work of the Court. Our overall conclusion is that, notwithstanding certain limitations and problems, there is significant scope for sexual minorities in Central and Eastern European states to use the Convention more systematically to challenge aspects of sexual orientation discrimination.

In 2014, the Constitutional Court of Uganda nullified the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014. Since that time, homosexuality has remained a key issue of debate in the Ugandan Parliament and there have been consistent calls from parliamentarians for the enactment of new anti-gay law. In this article, which is based on an analysis of the Official Report (Hansard), we provide a critical consideration of activity in the Ugandan Parliament relating to the issue of homosexuality since 2014. We examine how parliamentarians conceptualize the ‘problem’ of homosexuality and the claims they make about homosexuals. We show that calls for the increased regulation of homosexuality largely depend on problematic assertions about two related issues: the so-called ‘promotion’ of homosexuality in Uganda, and the imagined ‘recruitment’ of Ugandan children into homosexuality. We conclude by arguing that if the current level of support in the Parliament for anti-gay legislation is to be diminished, and the enactment of new anti-gay law is to be avoided, then it is crucial that some Ugandan parliamentarians speak out against homophobia and, importantly, are given support to do so.

Criminologists have long used the concept of social control to consider the ways in which societies respond to individuals or groups regarded as deviant or problematic. Although it is generally recognized that law and its enforcement is a cornerstone of social control, there is very little research on how human rights law might fulfil a social control function. Through an examination of a purposive sample of cases adjudicated by the European Court of Human Rights, we show how human rights law can facilitate forms of upward, inward and downward social control in contemporary societies. Our overall conclusion is that human rights law enables, produces and shapes contemporary practices of social control, often with significant and far-reaching consequences.

Issues relating to migration have long been aspects of the discrimination that gay men and lesbians in Europe have experienced and attempted to challenge by using the European Convention on Human Rights. In this article, we critically assess the ways in which the European Court of Human Rights has developed the protection of sexual minorities under the Convention in respect of two aspects of migration: residency and asylum. We consider a number of issues that have been addressed by the Court, such as the extent to which bi-national same-sex couples should have the right to remain together in a Council of Europe member state, and the protection that should be extended to gay and lesbian asylum seekers attempting to resist repatriation to a country where they would not be free to establish a sexual relationship with a same-sex partner. Our analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence shows the existence of a ‘two track’ system in which the Court adopts a dynamic interpretation of the Convention in respect of residency but a conservative interpretation of the Convention in respect of asylum. We argue that this approach is problematic because, not only is it inconsistent with the Court’s general principles on asylum, it systematically fails to protect gay men and lesbians from having to live in circumstances where they would have no opportunity to establish a private and family life.

The change in law in 2013 to allow same-sex couples to marry in England and Wales was a major milestone on the road to legal equality for gay men and lesbians in the United Kingdom. Same-sex couples in England and Wales now have the same opportunities as different-sex couples to marry by way of a civil ceremony in, for example, a register office or approved premises such as hotels. However, same-sex couples who wish to marry by way of a religious ceremony in England and Wales are at a significant disadvantage to different-sex couples. Only a small number of religious organizations, and the tiniest number of places of worship, permit same-sex marriage. As a consequence, same-sex couples have very little opportunity to marry in a place of worship or by way of a religious ceremony. Religious faith and homosexuality are not antithetical. Many same-sex couples who want to get married wish to do so according to the rites of their faith. This fact is recognized by those religious organizations that have taken the significant step of offering same-sex couples the opportunity to have a religious marriage ceremony. This report presents findings from the first piece of empirical research on religious marriage of same-sex couples in England and Wales. Drawing on a unique dataset, it provides an insight into why places of worship take the decision to permit same-sex marriage, their experiences of offering same-sex couples a religious marriage ceremony, and the consequences of doing so.

In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights held, for the first time, that the discriminatory treatment of an individual on the grounds of his sexual orientation amounted to a violation of Article 3, alone and in conjunction with Article 14, of the European Convention on Human Rights. This judgment is highly significant given that individuals in Europe have been arguing since 1959 that forms of ill-treatment based on sexual orientation amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In this article we provide a critical analysis of the evolution of the Court’s Article 3 jurisprudence in order to assess the ways in which this has developed the protection of sexual minorities in Europe. We identify major gaps in this protection, most notably in respect of asylum, and argue that the Court’s Article 3 jurisprudence should be further evolved to address these. Using the example of same-sex marriage, we conclude with a consideration of how sexual minorities might better and more creatively use Article 3 in the future to address discrimination against them.