A Glimpse of Hope from the U.S. Supreme Court: Bostock v. Clayton County

A Glimpse of Hope from the U.S. Supreme Court: Bostock v. Clayton County

by Rowena Kosher2 Comments
Guest Contributor Rosa Celorio is an Associate Dean for International and Comparative Legal Studies and Burnett Family Professorial Lecturer in International and Comparative Law and Policy, [email protected], https://www.law.gwu.edu/rosa-celorio. (Full Bio at end of  article). On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court released its historic decision in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, ruling that employers are prohibited from discriminating against any individual on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity in the employment setting. The case relates to three employees who claimed they were fired after revealing they were homosexual and transgender. The Court firmly ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its prohibition of sex discrimination applies to gay and transgender persons.  This decision is momentous and noteworthy for the respect and guarantee of human rights in the United States for several reasons.  First, it continues the trend of the Supreme Court in protecting the rights of persons historically discriminated against...
Read More
Fait Accompli: Singapore Again Upholds Section 377A Criminalising Homosexuality

Fait Accompli: Singapore Again Upholds Section 377A Criminalising Homosexuality

by Rowena Kosher12 Comments
Co-authored by guest contributors Paras Ahuja and Rahul Garg.  Paras Ahuja is an undergraduate student pursuing law at the National Law University, Jodhpur. Her research interests include human rights, constitutional law and feminism.  Rahul Garg is an undergraduate student pursuing law at the National Law University, Jodhpur. His research interests include gender studies, human rights and international humanitarian law. On 30th March, 2020, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore in Ong Ming Johnson v. Attorney-General upheld the constitutional validity of Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code, 1871. Section 377A punishes any male person who commits an act of “gross indecency” with another male person, whether in public or in private. The judgement marks itself as a regressive touchpoint in Singapore’s progression towards inclusiveness and equality.  Article 14(1) (a) of the Constitution of Singapore guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. The petitioners in this case contended that Section 377A derogated this right by failing to recognize one’s...
Read More