In a boost for gay rights in India, where a 145 year old law dating back to British colonial rule is still used by police to harass gay people, the National AIDS Control Organisation’s (NACO) statement calls for section 377 of the Indian penal code to be abandoned.

Although few homosexuals are actually arrested, the law is seen to legitimise harassment of gay people by the police. As a result the NACO has observed that the places considered by gay men to be safe to meet often have poor access to condoms, health care and safe sex information.

The statement said “The fear of harassment by law enforcement agencies leads to sex being hurried, leaving partners without the notion to consider safer sex practices.”

In India a country with 5.7 million HIV positive people, gay men are considered to be amongst the groups with the highest levels of risk. It is thought that about 8% of the practising gay population are HIV positive.

Gay rights organisation Naz has for the last few months been trying to push legalisation through the Delhi Supreme court. Rahul Singh, who runs the outreach programs for Naz said: “Parents say it’s a passing phase and once (my son) is married it will pass. They say I don’t want him to be criminalized. Many of them end up living a dual life.”

Opponents of a law change say India is not ready to accept homosexuality. This concern has also been echoed by the government.

But Mr Singh said: “Change in a society takes time, but the law has to take the first step.”

Whether their statement of support from the NACO will help the legal challenge facing Naz remains to be seen.

The commission’s report generated a lot of controversy in June when it was revealed that John Howard’s federal government had issued a ban on federal departments issuing submissions themselves, a decision which led to him being criticised by many in the gay community.

Despite a lack of commitment from the government, 330 submissions have already been received providing details about different incidents of discrimination which people have endured.

Individual submissions vary from several that refer to the visa problems same-sex couples face when a partner is employed abroad, to the poignant retelling of the humiliation faced by same-sex couples at weddings when, according to Attorney-General Ruddock’s directions, it must be announced that “according to Australian law, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.” The individual submissions showed how the legal situation currently in place seriously disadvantages same-sex couples in financial terms and often led them to worry about their partners should they die.

Organisations such as the National Union of Students, the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and the Australian Medical Association have provided detailed explanations of where they see discrimination and the need for change to take place.

The submissions are not however exclusively dominated by progressive voices. Several anti-gay organisations have also presented their case before the commission. The Association of Independent Schools of South Australia, a group representing many religious schools, issued a twelve page legal report which after systematically laying out their case for only employing people that “conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the principles of the school both within school hours and outside”, concluded by saying:

“[We call] on HREOC to recognise the importance of religion and religious beliefs and to recommend that exemptions which protect the right of faith based schools to operate in accordance with the religious tenets and beliefs upon which they have been founded remain protected.”

The submission of another group, the Festival of Light Australia who describe themselves on their website as “A Christian ministry to our nation promoting true family values”, to the enquiry consisted of an explanation as to why accommodating same-sex couples would encourage them and thus be detrimental to society.

Gay rights campaigner, Australian Peter Tatchell commented on the commission’s work saying: “It’s a great idea. I am sure they will come up with good recommendations but so long as John Howards government remains in power there s virtually no chance that any progressive recommendations will be implemented. The surest way to advance LGBT rights in Australia is to get rid of the homophobic Howard regime.”

The gay marriage debate is currently arousing a huge amount of attention and emotion on both sides especially after the perceived victories for the anti-gay marriage lobby in Nebraska and Tennessee.

Last Friday the Federal Court of Appeal on reinstated Nebraska’s 70% majority voter approved ban on gay marriage. The ruling was in response to District Judge Joseph Bataillon’s overturning of the ban last year on the grounds that it was motivated by an “irrational fear of homosexuals”.

Confirming the ban on state recognition of same-sex partnership rights on the basis that heterosexual marriage was the “optimal partnership for raising children”, the three judge panel, according to gay rights campaigner Michael Gordon, “put two bolts and a padlock on the door to the Legislature”.

Gordon, who is an activist within the Citizens for Equal Protection, an organization that works on behalf of Nebraska’s gay and lesbian citizens, said the case was “never about marriage” and instead about basic rights which he argues have been once again denied to the gay and lesbian community through this judgement.

In the same week the Tennessee supreme court threw out an appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union which attempted to stop the state’s attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to ban it. Same-sex marriages are already illegal according to Tennessee law, but the state wanted to pass an amendment to ensure that even if the law was overturned there would still be legal obstacles to gay marriage.

Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, was not surprised by either the Nebraska nor Tennessee ruling.

He put the Tennessee decision down to legal technicality whilst claiming that the Nebraska ruling “relied on the same irrational and homophobic arguments that came out of the New York decision to find there is a rational basis to deny gay couples the right to marry.”

Despite the successes for the anti-gay marriage lobby at a state level, the constitutional amendment is still expected to fail when it comes before the House of Representatives this week.

According to gay Representative Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin, the amendment “certainly is a tool that the right wing is using, but i think it has lost the impact it had in 2004″ when the issue was seen to contribute to states like Ohio swinging to the Republicans.

He went on to say that voters are more interested in issues like the war in Iraq and health care costs and are far from oblivious as to just how politically motivated the issue is.

With the vote in Congress this week and the November elections including plebiscites on the issue in several states, the debate is set to remain high on the American political agenda for the foreseeable future.

“Free Jerusalem” and “God is on our side” feature on walls in the holy city.

The writing on the wall comes after a recent poster campaign by opponents of WorldPride offering a reward for anyone who kills “one of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah” and is a response to the relentless attempts of the “unholy” alliance of Orthodox Jews, Christians and Muslims to cancel WorldPride.

Graffiti on walls in Jerusalem frequently express political opinions and are often used as the forum for opposing groups to argue in an offensive, albeit non-violent manner.

Earlier this week Hagai El-Ad, the executive director of the Jerusalem Open House which is organising the event said “Jerusalem is a very powerful international symbol…that has been hijacked and is being abused by religious leaders that proclaim to have a monopoly over the interpretation of what Jerusalem is about.

“It’s very cynical of them on the one hand to be inciting violence and on the other to be talking about Jerusalem’s holiness.”

Referring to the rumours about the march being moved from Jerusalem spokesperson Cathy Renna told PinkNews, “It would be an astonishing setback for freedom of speech if the police opts to surrender in advance in the face of violent threats. I have faith in Israeli democracy.”

Daniela Meilmann, UK Coordinator of World Pride, said; “World Pride 2006 is a call for freedom, freedom of expression, freedom to be different, and tolerance. It seeks to embrace diversity, and is adamant that it will address and raise awareness of all forms of discrimination and injustice.”

WorldPride runs from 6-12 August.

Graffiti artists express support for Jerusalem WorldPride on the streets of the Holy City

In a landmark ruling, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead explained how Mr Majrowski’s boss, Sandra Freeman, allegedly “bullied and intimidated him” because he is homosexual and she is homophobic.

Mr Majrowski worked at Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust in London as a clinical auditor co-ordinator. Although a formal complaint was first tabled in April 1998, it was not until 2003 that he claimed damages for distress and anxiety under the Protection from Harassment Act against the hospital trust itself.

A county court judge threw out his request claiming that the Act was not supposed to create another level of liability by enabling a case to be put against an employer. The Court of Appeal, however has decided by a majority that the case can go to trial.

Lord Nicholls explained that “his claim was based exclusively on the trust’s vicarious liability for Ms Freeman’s alleged breach of the statutory prohibition of harassment.”

The trust argued that the employers were blameless because the legislation was intended to punish the perpetrators themselves for the anxiety they had caused and not the employers who are targeted just because they have the money.

Explaining the decision, Lord Nicholls said that the legislation is intended to provide protection against bullying at work, amongst other things. If one employee assaults another, then the employer is liable; the same is true in a case of harassment.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead explained how Mr Majrowski’s boss, Sandra Freeman, allegedly “bullied and intimidated him” because he is homosexual and she is homophobic.

Mr Majrowski worked at Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust in London as a clinical auditor co-ordinator. He first tabled a formal complaint in April 1998 which was followed by an internal inquiry confirming the allegations. After the subsequent resignation of Mrs Freeman, Mr Majrowski pursued the case against the trust itself.

He explained his reasons for furthering his complaint: “For me the issue has been about the right to go to work and not be harassed.” He went on to say, “I felt i had to bring legal action against the Trust because they were responsible and accountable for Mrs Freeman’s actions, particularly as it appears they were aware of her conduct but did nothing to address the issue.”

A county court judge, however, threw out his request claiming that the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act was not intended to create another level of liability by enabling a case to be put against an employer.

The trust had argued that the employers were blameless because the legislation was intended to punish the perpetrators themselves for the anxiety they had caused and not the employers who are targeted just because they have the money.

The Court of Appeal’s judgement today has firmly upheld Majorowski’s request for a hearing. Lord Nicholls explained that the legislation is intended to provide protection against bullying at work, amongst other things. If one employee assaults another, then the employer is liable; the same is true in a case of harassment. The legislation should ensure the protection of employees in the workplace from all forms of workplace bullying be they due to sexual orientation, ethnicity or freckles.

After the decision Mr Majrowski stated: “Any other outcome would have absolved employers of responsibility for what goes on in the workplace.”

For his lawyer, Nick Hanning of Reynold Williams the case is a call to employers to make positive steps to eradicate the culture of bullying which is still prevalent in many organisations.”

Alistair Kelman of PinkLegal.co.uk said “This is a very sensible and reasonable interpretation of the law. An employer must provide a safe place of work for his employees. Bullying at work makes the workplace an unsafe place and an employer must stop this happening.

“Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 created a new civil tort of harassment and lawyers and judges need some time to work out how this was to work out in practice. It is good to see the Court of Appeal putting this point of interpretation beyond doubt.”

Alan Howitt, 38, a former soldier had admitted to eleven charges of indecent assault. His lover, 33 year old James Rae, a mannequin dresser in Marks and Spencer, had denied any involvement in the abuse of the child.

The victim’s mother, a ten year long friend of the couple that would frequently babysit for her son, first realised what was going on when he started imitating sexual acts at home. When questioned he said “they would do rude stuff to me”. Pictures found by police on the couple’s home computer indicate that the earliest incident of abuse happened when the child was as young as six months old.

In an attempt to thwart his lover’s conviction Howitt claimed that Rae had no knowledge of the abuse and that he did not know the passwords to access the files on the computer.

John Price, prosecuting, pointed out that though he does not appear in the pictures Rae would almost certainly have held the camera.

The testimony of the four year old child was further proof of his involvement as he accused them of making him sleep naked in between them. Rae’s claim that the mother was aware of this arrangement was denied by her and clearly thrown out by the jury in their unanimous decision.

Howitt and Rae, who both live in Reading, will wait until October when probation and psychiatric reports have been prepared before they are formally sentenced.

This case follows a similar one only two weeks ago when a gay couple from West Yorkshire were imprisoned for the sexual abuse of children that they were fostering.