File talk:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg

Archives 1, 2

Vietnam?

@Kaleetan: @AnonMoos: @TenorTwelve: @Jedi Friend: @Prcc27: @Aréat: SS cohabitation is legal.[1] Unregistered cohabitation is illegal.[2] (As you need to register where you live.) Since you need to register your cohabitation, does this count as "registered cohabitation"? I've never been clear on what that phrase is supposed to mean. AFAICT, there are no rights associated with SS cohabitation, other than the right to cohabit. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Kaleetan, if you didn't see the refs you requested, they're in Archives 2. Kwamikagami (talk)

Somalia

Should we change Somalia so it's orange except for the three southernmost provinces (Jubaland)are dark red where courts have imposed the death penalty? Kaleetan (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kaleetan: Do you have a ref for that? There's no mention in the WP-en LGBT rights in Somalia article. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Somalia ( Jubaland), where Islamic courts have imposed sharia-based death penalties in some southern regions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_for_homosexuality#In_current_state_laws Kaleetan (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kaleetan: Okay, adding Juba under 'death'. But do you have any sources that executions have actually been carried out? Kwamikagami (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: In my opinion being sentenced to death should be enough to color a country dark red. Kaleetan (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you have sources that anyone's been sentenced to death? Not just generic statements that they can be, but that the law's being used? I wouldn't be surprised, just think we should have RS's to back up our claims, just as we do for BLP articles. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been almost a year with no evidence presented. I'm removing Somalia, apart from the striping for Al-Shabab. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Saudi

The reports of the death penalty amount to little more than,

The Saudi authorities raided a resort south of Saudi capital, Riyadh in February 2017, and detained 35 Pakistani citizens, describing them as “ faggots”, and releasing photographs of some of the individuals who were cross-dressing. Corroboration of the event has not been obtained, but it is reported that two members of the group were brutally killed by the authorities, a claim that the State denies.

Besides that not being confirmed, an abuse of police power is not a legal penalty. By that standard, you could argue that being black is punishable by death in the US. So I'm moving Saudi from death to prison -- any sources to the contrary? Kwamikagami (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Saudi should definitely be dark red. The Riyadh raid is different than police brutality in the USA because the law is on the books in SA to kill gay people whereas in the USA there isn't a law backing Black police violence. Kaleetan (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

But it's not a penalty meted out by the courts. I'd like to see the Saudi law where it says it's legal for the police to go around killing people without a judgement from the courts. That would be a violation of shariah.

Also, they were beaten to death. That happens in countries without the death penalty. Besides not being corroborated, there's the question of whether it was an execution or a beating that went too far. So we don't have evidence that it was the imposition of the death penalty. I would prefer to be cautious in saying countries are a bunch of savages, unless we have good evidence. The same as with BLP's -- people (and companies) may be crooks, but we should be careful in saying so. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone changed Saudi to red because of a mass execution of "terrorists" (e.g. mullahs who advocated peaceful coexistence between Sunni and Shi'a), and 5 of them were accused of being gay. But not clear in any of the refs that they were executed for being gay, as opposed to that being an attempt to slander ppl they were going to execute anyway. No arguing that Saudi isn't a barbarous country, but still no RS evidence I can see that ppl are being executed for being gay. Kwamikagami (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yemen

Married men may be executed by stoning. However, this is the penalty for adultery, not homosexuality. Also, according to the WP-en article Capital punishment in Yemen, stoning hasn't been carried out for centuries. So moving Yemen from death to prison. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Supposedly no executions since the end of Taliban rule. A summary of Taliban executions since their loss of power didn't include any for homosexuality,[3] so removing the striping from Afghan pending contrary sources. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Libya

An execution by ISIS was the first in modern history.[4] But ISIS no longer controls territory in Libya, so removing the striping (which I'm the one who added not too long ago). Kwamikagami (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nigeria

Do we have any RS's that executions have been carried out in the north of Nigeria? Kwamikagami (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

According to this[5] (no date, but apparently 2010), there was one known case, on death row awaiting execution, with no previous cases known. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A 2017 report[6] notes no recent executions, with lashings instead. Absent any sources that people are being executed, I'm removing Nigeria as well, though leaving state borders. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Some northern areas have attempted to impose an extreme version of Sharia law (see Hudud, Amina Lawal), and a theoretical death penalty apparently exists: [7] -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely a possible legal remedy. But prison is a legal remedy in Guyana and Namibia too, and no-one's going to prison. Also, in a couple of the sharia states, it would seem that death is for adultery rather than homosexuality per se, as is the case in Yemen. Not to say that the possibility isn't used to terrorize or blackmail people, just as the threat of prison is in some of the yellow (and even some of the grey) countries. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Color for unenforced death penalty?

We have yellow for unenforced prison penalties. The threat of prison can be used to intimidate even if it's not carried out. Same with the death penalty. I think it's misleading to color a country for death if no-one's been executed in decades, or ever. But the law could still be used to terrify people, so it's worse than just having prison on the books. Is it worth adding a color for this? Because, other than Iran, informally in Chechnya, and ISIS-type militias in Somalia and maybe elsewhere, I don't know that the death penalty is in active use. We've seen claims of N. Nigeria and now Jubaland, but not any RS's that it's actually happening. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe #ff0000 for unenforced death penalty. Kaleetan (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I followed the list at Death penalty for homosexuality except for Qatar, where it's a punishment for adultery, or the UAE, where they themselves are debating whether they have the death penalty or not. Pending further sources, of course. I used a light brown, though -- I found the bright red difficult to distinguish from life in prison, and it's the color we use for constitutional bans on SSM. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan

Sources saw law is 'rarely' enforced. (One arrest recently was for a SS wedding, which is illegal, not just for SS.) And no indication of life. So should Pak be orange or even yellow? But in the Taliban-controlled NW, there may be executions, so striped brown there? Kwamikagami (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

No mention of life so it should be orange. Kaleetan (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

No mention in the main article, but there is at LGBT history in Pakistan, and it's easy enough to find w a Google search. But I'm not finding anything about people actually being sentenced to life.

But, if we adopt the unenforced-death color, the question is moot. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: The death penalty that is on the books in Pakistan is for adultery, as in Qatar. Homosexuality is a separate law, only punishable by prison. Should we change Pakistan to orange to reflect this? Kaleetan (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kaleetan: Sorry, despite your pinging me I didn't see this. I'll change it to orange. Kwamikagami (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, sect 377 says "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or ...," the same law as in Bangladesh. So Pakistan should be red as well. But it appears the law has not been enforced for some time, which means the country should be yellow, right? Kwamikagami (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Uganda

An interview after the recent law was passed, that s.o. could go to prison for life. But the law was overturned. How is life relevant if the older law already provided for life in prison? I'm confused. Is the old max penalty not enforced? Kwamikagami (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

China

Long Discussions

I believe China should be changed back to "laws restricting freedom of expression and association" for legislation banning content depicting gay relationships in the media. I have read arguments in Archive 2 for the light blue color, but was not convinced because: The "cohabitation" arrangement through legal guardianship is merely a "loophole" in a legislation designed for something else. While it may have the effect of limited legal recognition of their relationships, this arrangement does not signify legal affirmation of homosexual relationship (because the guardianship law clearly isn't intended for homosexual couples), and may be revoked at any time. Therefore it shouldn't be represented on a map that intends to give readers a general overview of legal treatment of LGBT people by country. The registered cohabitation arrangement only exists in Beijing and Hong Kong (rather than nationwide), and therefore should be colored in small dots only. On the other hand, the anti-gay media censor law is clearly aimed at the LGBT community, and therefore should have a larger bearing when we consider China's "general legal standing" about LGBT people. Vakrieger (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC) I'm rolling back until you can provide some evidence for that interpretation of the law. The only thing I've seen in the sources is the anti-NGO law, and that doesn't target LGBT. And the govt stepped in when state media tried banning discussion of LGBT issues. What's the evidence that there's anything in China comparable to Russia, Iraq or Syria? Beijing and Hong Kong are small dots. Yeah, the guardianship law is novel. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. But not allowing coverage because it *might* be revoked is a violation of CRYSTAL. For all we know, the govt has decided after the fact this is just the right minimalist approach to get people used to the idea. The public praise of Taiwan and notes that China is too conservative to accept SSM *yet* certainly gives them maneuvering room, should they decide to start down that route. Very different from the Russian approach. But any such speculation is just that, and has no place here. We need sources, and better still, 2ary RS interpretation of those sources. In the WP-en article, the evidence for China's anti-prop law was this map! Yes, the guardianship law was almost certainly not designed for SS couples. But the CU laws in quite a few countries are not SS-specific either. What matters is that SS couples have access to those rights. As they do in China now. There have been a couple dozen unions, in various cities across the country, and so far no reports of them being revoked or any govt push back. Kwamikagami (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC) The censorship law is definitely there, albeit English-languaged sources are scarce. One authoritative one I can find is the US State Dept's Human Rights Practice Report, that says[8]: "... remained banned following SAPPRFT’s 2017 pronouncement listing same-sex acts/relations as an “abnormal sexual relation” and forbidding its depiction. ... Meanwhile, in May a nationally popular Hunan-based television broadcaster blacked out parts of Eurovision, a European music performance, that depicted gay relationships and pixelated an image of the gay-pride flag." If you look at Chinese-language sources it is much more common. Look at the reference section of this.-- Vakrieger (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC) About the guardianship law, many of the Chinese sources I read (from that Chinese Wikipedia page & Sources from Archive 2) suggests the guardianship arrangement is not a legislative decision, but rather individual actions by public servants in the country's a few out of so many notary public offices. As I said, I wouldn't give that too much weight in considering the Chinese authorities' general attitudes. --Vakrieger (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Striping China might be the way to go, then. But the Hunan TV station is irrelevant -- I'm sure you can find things like that in Europe and the Americas. Regardless of intent, if couples have those rights, they have those rights. If the govt steps in and reverses them, then we'd need to do the same, of course. Kwamikagami (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC) and so far no reports of them being revoked or any govt push back is plain false. Again from the US Dept of State report: "In May and June, authorities in the southwest interfered in several public LGBTI-related activities in honor of Pride Month. In one case police interrupted a film screening. In another case they pressured a reserved venue to cancel a panel discussion on LGBTI access to health care." Yeah, there's lots of anti-NGO activity, LGBT or otherwise. That's not the same as an anti-prop law. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I'm sure you can find things like that in Europe and the Americas for example? & don't forget Hunan TV is state-run. --Vakrieger (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC) What does an interrupted film screening have to due with legal guardianship? I'm not following. Yeah, Hunan TV is state-run. But the state is not a monolith. Coloring the whole country tan suggests that there is a monolithic anti-prop law, and I'm not seeing it. In the US, we still have county clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses -- they're state-run too! As with just about everything in China, reality seems to be confused and contradictory. But there is at least sporadic govt defense of the LGBT community, and there's nothing at least at the national level about the gay agenda seeking to corrupt our children, like we have in Russia. When Sina Weibo 'cleaned up' the web by removing all LGBT content, the govt stepped in. The WP-zh article suggests that's due to competing factions in the govt. I have no idea, but if that's true, the "the govt" is not enacting anti-prop legislation. And if it's not true, then "the govt" has chastised Sina Weibo for its censorship. I suspect, given how authoritarian the Chines govt is, we're going to see plenty of anti-LGBT govt official placing restrictions on people, just as we've seen anti-LGBT judges and clerks do in the US. (And much like what we've seen in Mexico, if not nearly as transparent.) But that's not the same as a nation-wide law banning LGBT "propaganda". Kwamikagami (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC) You seem to be arguing that only something like Russia's national all-out anti-LGBT legislation would warrant a pale brown color on the map. But the definition of light brown color is "Laws restricting freedom of expression and association". I do concede that China's anti-LGBT laws aren't as pernicious as Russia's, but still, they clearly reach the threshold of "restricting freedom of expression and association". Therefore, China should have the pale brown color on this map, just so the world is not blinded to what the government is doing. --Vakrieger (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC) How about we each take one step back? Stripe China or add more blue dots for cities that have reliable sources telling they have notary publics implementing the guardianship arrangement. --Vakrieger (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC) The guardianship arrangement depends on local officials to implement, so they only apply in some cities. But the above cited censorship law applies nationwide, so I'm afraid the whole country will have to be filled with the dishonorable colour. --Vakrieger (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC) If we mark individual cities, it would suggest that these are local ordinances, like we have for SSM-spouses in Beijing and Hong Kong. They're not -- this is a national law. Also, 'restricting freedom of expression and association' means laws targeting the LGBT community. China restricts *everyone's* freedom and expression! From the 2ary sources I've seen, the govt is targeting LGBT NGOs because they're NGOs, not because they're LGBT. Sorry, I haven't seen any sources in your comments that there's a nationwide anti-LGBT law in China. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC) There's a lot of nasty stuff going on all over the world. This map is meant to reflect the legal situation, not overzealous or bigoted govt officials, vigilantes or the like. The police may arrest people on spurious charges, harass them, blackmail them, beat them to death, all sorts of things, but trying to reflect all than on a global map would be Sisyphean. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC) [9] [10] Just a few examples of sources. Technically the censorship rule is just a departmental "ordinance", but the NRTA has direct control over all broadcast media in the country (public & private) and strictly enforce all of their ordinances like laws. There has been a legal challenge, but it wasn't successful. Therefore, I would argue that there is a de facto law which restricts LGBT people's freedom of expression even more than other people's. I would argue these laws are well known and have a serious impact on the lives of the Chinese LGBT community, so they deserve representation on this map.--Vakrieger (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC) See this link, allowing legal guardianship is the action of Beijing Guoxing Notary Public office, among others. It just happens to not stand in contrast of any existing national laws, and are not laws in themselves. --Vakrieger (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC) This link to the China Daily outlines the situation more clearly. Notary public officers in Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu, Juangsu, Hunan and Hubei handles these cases. It doesn't apply to other regions, at least not yet. To say it is a nationwide law is misleading. --Vakrieger (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC) The national guardianship law was amended in Oct 2017 to apply to all adults. I don't see how a national law can be argued to be a local law. You need a source that actually says what you're claiming. The fact that only people in certain cities have taken advantage of the law -- or that it's only been reported from certain cities -- is irrelevant. Not all counties in the US have issued SSM licenses either, but that doesn't mean that SSM is not available in those counties. As for the anti-LGBT laws, I still don't see any refs. What you're saying could easily be true. I'd just like to see evidence for something more coherent than some local bureaucrat or TV station censored something or refused to allow some public event. Kwamikagami (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I have reinstated my version. If you want to revert again, don't forget that you also share some burden of proof. Provide some reliable sources of your own. Vakrieger (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC) You need to remember that yourself. These edits have sat here with comments but no objections for some time. You have unilaterally decided they're wrong -- and they may be -- but you've provided no evidence. You've only linked to at best peripherally relevant matters and made vague claims about what LGBT people in China feel. You need actual SOURCES for your edits. Sorry, restoring the consensus version until you can be bothered to do that. Kwamikagami (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Light blue color -- we have multiple sources that since 2017 there has been a national law allowing legal guardianship, and that this is being used by same-sex couples. You have provided zero evidence to contradict those sources. Tan color -- you've noted a lot of conflicting governmental actions, but again zero evidence for any national LGBT-law, or anything to contradict our sources that the govt is acting against NGOs instead of against LGBT specifically. Sorry, EVIDENCE -- you need EVIDENCE for your claims. Zero evidence for anti-prop law means we don't color China tan. Evidence that there are minimal rights for same-sex couples means we do color China light blue. Find the evidence to convince a reasonable person to the contrary, and I have no problem with changing the map. Kwamikagami (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vakrieger (talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (a) is the guardian law national (b) does China qualify for anti-prop law

Long Threaded Discussion -- Concensus Reached

Ok bud, cool down a bit. Let's stop arguing for now and wait for opinions from someone else. --Vakrieger (talk)08:01, 27 August 2019 I have presented arguments about why the legal guardianship arrangement should not be considered, and both of us have laid out our terms clearly up there. For those uninitialised, here is the original text of the national law in question. The law does not mention homosexual people, but can be interpreted to allow same-sex couples to appoint each other as their legal guardian (depending on what the officials believe the term 'qualified according to laws and regulations' means in Clause 30). It is not black-and-white clear cut (otherwise why have only a handful municipalities implemented this?). Kwamikagami asked for evidences for China's systematic and specific censorship of homosexual content, based on a law-equivalent government ordinance. Here is a list I just found with two easy Google searches: [11] Vocativ -- "The Chinese government has just banned a whole host of things from appearing on TV, including homosexuality, which it called “vulgar, immoral, and unhealthy.”" [12] New York Times -- "...the government has publicly called for a merging of censorship standards for online and traditional television content. New guidelines lay out an array of subjects that will be prohibited, including depictions of gay relationships..." [13] Mashable - "China bans homosexual, supernatural, drugs and sex themes from TV" [14] Variety - "Regulations currently ban online providers from carrying content that “present abnormal sexual relations or behavior,” such as incest, homosexual relations, sexual harassment and sexual violence. Any such content is considered pornographic or vulgar, opening the platform or broadcaster to penalties." [15] China Times (Taiwan) -- In Chinese [16] The Guardian -- "Content that ‘exaggerates dark side of society’ is banned from TV – from homosexuality to adultery, showing cleavage and even reincarnation" [17] Quartz -- "China’s new television rules ban homosexuality, drinking, and vengeance" Has English Original Text of the By-Law" [18] "Following these comments, in December 2015, a slew of new directives were issued, which included a ban on “abnormal sexual relationships and behaviours.”" [19] Medill Reports Chicago -- "The regulation, translated here into English, states: “No television programs should display abnormal sexual relationships and behaviors, such as incest, homosexuality, sexual perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse and sexual violence.”" [20] South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) -- "A member of the public...demanding the regulator provide a legal basis for censoring audiovisual content on the internet that depicts homosexuality." [21] The Independent -- "New regulations issued by Beijing will prohibit portrayals of homosexuality, prostitution and drug addiction" [22] The Initium (Hong Kong) -- In Chinese [23] BBC Chinese -- In Chinese [24] Original text of the government ordinance Please decide if these are enough to warrant representation in the map. Thanks in advance for going through all these mess --Vakrieger (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Okay. First guardianship, which is the easy one. You say, "It is not black-and-white clear cut (otherwise why have only a handful municipalities implemented this?)." It doesn't matter. That's not our job. News coverage suggests that word is just starting to get out, that couples would've done this earlier but that they didn't know about the law. Now that there's been so much coverage, that should change. But even if that's wrong, all we have is our ignorance of the situation. Ignorance is not evidence. We can only go by sources, and sources report that this is a national rather than a local law. That is therefore what we need to go by. BTW, Jedi Friend was able to find the law in English.[25] But we still need to go off 2ary sources. As for the anti-prop stuff, everything you have is about TV and media decency laws. Is that sufficient to put China in the same category as Russia, Syria, Palestine (where LGBT groups are illegal), etc.? This is not a factual question, but one of opinion, and thus one we need to decide based on consensus rather than on the facts. What is our criterion for a country to qualify? Or better, what do we want our criterion to be? I removed the tan color from China following the sources I found at the time (e.g., that China was anti-NGO rather than anti-LGTB), and all of these laws/actions are for media content for the masses rather than targeting individuals for spreading a gay agenda or something. Is it enough? If we decide that China does qualify, are there other countries out there with similar laws / govt actions that would need to be added to the map? Kwamikagami (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Pinging updaters of the world maps -- @Jedi Friend: , @Nice4What: , @Paullb: , @Delusion23: , @Mcdlee: , @Hoffsson: , @Buyerseve: , @Glentamara: , @Kaleetan: , @Buen Ciudadano: About legal guardianship arrangement. This is exactly what I am saying. The law isn't clear cut and is being interpreted in different ways across China, so it's our job to simply present the fact that this (legal guardianship) is only available in a few regions, by putting dots. I agree that it's not our job to interpret the law; the only reason I put the law up is to show that your argument "I don't see how a national law can be argued to be a local law" is in some way misleading. If in the future it changes (for example if the CPC issues an interpretation) we can update the map then. About Censorship Laws. Still, I would argue that "whether we should put China in the same category as Russia, Syria, Palestine, etc" is irrelevant in this discussion. All I'm trying to say there is de-facto-legal limitation on LGBT community's rights of expression. What we need to work out is whether this (TV censorship laws) is so trivial we can ignore it in our map --Vakrieger (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC) This is a serious question and I'm looking for a serious answer. Is there any other country which 1) has a similar blanket ban on homosexual portrayal in popular media, and 2) is coloured as a grey or better in this map? --Vakrieger (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I've asked you again and again to present your evidence, and you fail to do so. You say, "it's our job to simply present the fact that this (legal guardianship) is only available in a few regions". "This fact". What "fact"? What is your evidence? You know, an actual source that says what you say, as opposed to the multiple sources which contradict what you say. This is not a difficult concept. EVIDENCE. You need EVIDENCE. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, so SHOW IT TO ME. Let me show you this link again [26]. Remember it's the China Daily, representing Chinese government's official view [27]. I quote: "Li Chenyang, assistant to the director at Shanghai Putuo District Notary Public Office, said that the office has handled more than 10 applications from LGBT partners to have each other as their appointed guardians. The provinces of Jiangsu, Sichuan, Hunan and Hubei have also handled such cases. (emphasis added)" Is it such a leap of faith to conclude that legal guardianship is not available outside these few mentioned regions? (otherwise why would they need to point out these individual regions)? And now means "Updated: 2019-08-16". BTW this also implies it's the "directors" of local notary public offices who decide to issue these guardianships, rather than people higher up in the legislative agencies. A simple Google News search would turn up more similar stories (don't make me send you an LMGTFY link). Now, do you have any EVIDENCE contrary to this knowledge? Remember WP:CRYSTAL --Vakrieger (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC) One more report, less than a month old, from another Chinese media: "...This summer, notary offices in Beijing and the eastern city of Nanjing publicly announced they had approved same-sex guardianship agreements, making them members of a select but growing group... ...There are still a lot of unknowns regarding legal guardianship arrangements made by same-sex couples, both for the couples themselves and for the notary offices that issue them..." From [28]. --Vakrieger (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC) From these very recent news reports I count no more than 20 cities that implement this arrangement. China has 334 perfectual-level cities (or similar divisions) [29], so it's a long way before this can be described as "nation-wide". --Vakrieger (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC) As for the second, I believe we're on the same wavelength here. Are TV censorship laws reason to color a country tan? Though your argument is backwards -- "whether we should put China in the same category as Russia, Syria, Palestine, etc" is exactly the question, because that's the category we're coloring tan. Okay, let's hear what others have to say about this. Just please be aware that countries don't HAVE to be as bad as Russia, Syria, Palestine, etc. to get listed in that category. --Vakrieger (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC) As for your final question, yes, that is a serious question. We need to treat countries equivalently. If there are other countries with Chinese-type media laws, they should be the same color as China. Kwamikagami (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC) One more thing @Kwamikagami: . You keep chastising me for my "zero evidence". That's some valid points, and I totally own up to them. Now that I presented my evidences, could you provide yours to support the following: "'the govt' has chastised Sina Weibo for its censorship" "sporadic govt defense of the LGBT community" "overzealous or bigoted govt officials, vigilantes or the like" (which you claimed my evidences portray) "the govt is targeting LGBT NGOs because they're NGOs, not because they're LGBT" "sources report that this is a national rather than a local law" Among others. --Respectfully, Vakrieger (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I'll have to answer those tomorrow, but to start, (1) how about nearly every news report of the case? (2) is the same. (3) vigilantes would be other countries, not China that I'm aware of. (4) I'll have to look that up. I quoted or cited it on one of these Commons pages not long ago. (5) how about nearly every single source, including ones you cited and the law itself that Jedi found? "Just please be aware that countries don't HAVE to be as bad as Russia, Syria, Palestine, etc. to get listed in that category" -- Perhaps they do. That's what we're here to discuss. How bad do they have to be? People may decide that they do need to be that bad. I don't know. It should be whatever makes the map most useful, but that of course is an opinion that will differ from person to person. "Is it such a leap of faith to conclude that legal guardianship is not available outside these few mentioned regions?" -- Yes, it is! You don't seem to get it. This is a violation of OR. We don't imagine what things MIGHT be, we report what we can demonstrate they ARE. I take it from this that you still have zero evidence that the guardianship law is local. Unless some other editor comes up with actual EVIDENCE, I consider this issue closed. China stays blue (or striped blue-tan, depending). Kwamikagami (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC) You're not the owner of this image (no one is) & have no authority of final arbitration in this regard. I find your last sentence very inappropriate and request that you withdraw that without delay. If you don't want to talk like rational, civil human being, perhaps we should meet on COM:AN. Otherwise, please provide specific, verifiable evidences (shouldn't be too difficult considering your confident tone). --Vakrieger (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC) As I said, I will answer tomorrow. And as I said, I'll be happy to accept evidence from other editors. But not you. You're not stupid, so either (a) you're being purposefully obtuse, (b) you're editing in bad faith, or (c) you're so blinded by your POV that you're unable to understand your own sources. Either way, you've demonstrated that it's a waste of time to argue with you about this -- it's like you're demanding to make the map square because the Earth is flat. I'll be happy to discuss the issue with anyone who understands what OR means. But it would appear that that's not you. On WP there's the meme of IDONTGETIT. I'm not playing that game with you. Kwamikagami (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Now is time to talk about the substance of your argument. "how about nearly every news report of the case?" -- talk is cheap, show us the link "how about nearly every single source, including ones you cited and the law itself that Jedi found?" -- only the generic law, which does not specifically mention same-sex couples' rights, are national. As the Sixth Tone Article pointed out, decisions to grant same-sex couples guardianship is made by people like the district notary public offices, which naturally have no jurisdiction over other regions. "Perhaps they do. That's what we're here to discuss." -- Acknowledged. "Yes, it is! You don't seem to get it." -- Please answer the question "why does the newspaper need to point out individual regions". It's clearly not because they don't know about other regions, because the newspaper itself is part of the Central Government. "We don't imagine what things MIGHT be, we report what we can demonstrate they ARE." -- It's you who haven't presented any evidence that the law (one that specifically allows same-sex couples guardianship) is national. All signs so far points to no. That's it. As a friendly stranger, I recommend everyone here to stay near the top of the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement; that way you'll have a much higher chance of convincing me (yes I can and have been convinced) and other people. --Vakrieger (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I cannot speak for the propaganda/freedom of expression colour, but for the guardianship system considering a national law put it into effect, I would argue in favour of colouring China light blue. Here is an English translation of this law, named the General Rules of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, which was passed by the National People's Congress in March 2017. It's true that only a handful of select cities have currently issued guardianship papers, but in no way are other Chinese cities prevented from doing so. As far as I can tell, the law applies nationwide (though I'm unsure of Hong Kong or Macau). There's a similar situation in the U.S., as quite a number of counties have yet to issue marriage licenses to gay couples; it's not that gay marriage is not allowed, it's simply due to the fact that no couple has yet presented themselves. The same can be said of Chinese cities. Not to mention that there has been very little media coverage of this guardianship system; it's possible that several more cities and provinces have already dealt with such cases. Jedi Friend (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Admittedly, you (and Kwamikagami) have good points about this. I'll still argue that on a de facto basis, the guardianship certificate is difficult to obtain outside of the select cities, but I don't really have direct evidences beside personal anecdotes, so I concede that they don't need to be presented on this map. On a de jure basis, your argument on nationwide applicability is quite sound (except Hong Kong and Macau, because their Basic Laws prohibit Chinese national laws from automatically taking effects there). I withdraw my opposition to the light blue colour. --Vakrieger (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I uploaded a striped version here, which I now can fully support. Personally, I think this version captures the sense of, well, ambiguity about China's situation well, and doesn't really paint China in such a bad light as Russia, Syria, Palestine etc. --Vakrieger (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Yes, if people decide that we want to color China tan, that's the way to go. Though, we might want to leave Macau grey. I have no idea if the law applied there or not, but given that national laws don't automatically apply, I'm leaning toward Jedi's POV, that we need a RS saying it applies rather than one that it doesn't apply. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC) There actually is a map depicting the county situation the US [30]. I would suggest to do the same for China, in perhaps the Asian map. But in this case, most of China would fall into the "not performed" category. --Vakrieger (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC) If you have RS's that certain jurisdictions within China (apart from Macau) have refused to implement the law, have opted out of it, say it doesn't apply to them or to SS couples, then yes, certainly, they should not be blue. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

--Vakrieger (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

• I'm surprised we don't rely on some reliable international source for this map. For instance, for Europe https://www.rainbow-europe.org/country-ranking exists. Ukraine, Belarus, Turkey and the others should get their colours. Poland is not in a better situation than Bulgaria and Romania, Italy is not better than Slovakia. And so on; many changes are necessary, from a cursory view. Can we find a trusted international ranking (or maybe a set of regional rankings)? As for China, I find it hard to believe anyone would claim there are no restrictions at all on freedom of expression and so on, so at least some kind of shade to illustrate the complex situation is warranted. Nemo 17:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's because there are no RS's. ILGA has proven to not be very reliable. We used to have [CU nearly equiv to marriage] like Italy vs [CU not at all equiv to marriage] like Czechia, but people decided that the distinction was untenable. (I had nothing to do with that decision, but I haven't contested it.) Also, a list of rankings would be a different map. This is specifically a legal map.

There are definitely restrictions on expression in China. The question is how much they target LGBT, as opposed to civic groups in general. As well as whether we want to put China in the same category as Russia, Lithuania, Iraq, Palestine, and how many other countries would belong if we do. (Though AFAICT the situation in Lithuania isn't as severe as the others.) Though, as Vakrieger pointed out, with China striped blue-tan it doesn't look as severe as Russia et al. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment – freedom of expression (or lack thereof) in China

start of debate

collapsed due to length

As for Sina Weibo reversing itself under govt pressure (in addition to the public outcry), I'm not finding where I cited that on another page (and possibly another Wikimedia project). But there are numerous tangential accounts. source quotes The Independent[31] said, "the People’s Daily, the official paper of China’s ruling Communist Party, also appeared to criticise Weibo in an editorial on Sunday. 'Intellectually speaking, there should be a consensus around respecting other people’s sexual orientation,' the column said, adding that comparing homosexuality to pornography and violence and regarding it as 'abnormal' would go down badly with the public." The head of the site whose shut-down started the protest said, "Like China, which has developed so quickly in such a short time, sex education in the country is a work in progress." Business Insider[32] says "It was unclear whether Sina's measure was a direct result of a censorship directive from the government or an initiative taken by the company itself. ... The official People's Daily newspaper of the ruling Communist Party on Sunday encouraged tolerance toward gay people, but added that 'vulgar' content must be removed regardless of sexual orientation." They quote an LGBT activist of saying that "she believes the government is not actively anti-LGBT. Just that it has no clear idea how to deal with the issue." The South China Morning Post[33] has the same story, and continues with her saying "But the bigger problem is the culture of strict censorship. Social media used to be an open space, but in the last year things have started to change." There are lots of sources that the govt 'clean-up' of the internet is having a deleterious effect on LGBT. The question for me is whether it's targeting LGBT. Not companies or local officials who are confused as to what they need to censor, but that there's an actual govt decision or push behind it. If Yemen applies the death penalty for adultery, and that includes gay men committing adultery, can we say they have the death penalty for homosexuality? Personally, I think that would be misleading, unless we have a RS that they use the law to target gay men. I think the same thing here -- is the LGBT community being targeted by the national govt? Sources vary, but even many LGBT activists doubt that's the case. On the other hand, CNN[34] notes that "activists and experts agree that prejudices and discrimination -- as well as periodic government crackdowns -- persist." But should periodic govt crackdowns be coded as a law? (And this is a map of laws.) The BBC[35] said "Some saw the Sina Weibo ban as part of a larger trend of sidelining the LGBT community, including a move last year by an official media watchdog that deemed homosexual content as 'pornographic and vulgar'." Note however that that watchdog's announcement is not being implemented, at least not across the board, and is contradicted by other govt statements. I'm frustrated I haven't located my post where I quoted a source wondering whether this is due to competing factions within the Chinese govt. But again, if it is, that's not the same as a law either. It is quite a messy situation, as such things often are, and not easily encoded by a few colors on a map. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC) source quotes The China Digital Times[36] in quoting CNN, said, "CNN’s James Griffiths writes that both this and last year’s Weibo incidents illustrate how difficult it can be for China’s internet companies to know what content to take down when they are largely left to regulate themselves. While there are some hard and fast rules for what content is banned in China — pornography, separatism, terrorism, for example — for the most part companies are expected to regulate themselves. There is no comprehensive blacklist of sensitive topics, so companies, and their legions of censors, must second-guess whether individual posts or discussions are to be allowed, based on their interpretation of public pronouncements and campaigns. “Due to the lack of transparency in censorship decisions by the Chinese government and Chinese social media companies, we won’t be able to really know who was behind the censorship and then the reversal,” Yaqiu Wang, a researcher at Human Rights Watch and expert on Chinese media, told CNN. She said that a vague clause in the recently passed Cybersecurity Law, on respecting “social morality,” may “have driven Weibo to censor LGBT content.” The general lack of certainty about what they’re supposed to police often leads companies to err on the side of caution, fearing potentially ruinous punishments for failing to censor something they should have. Yes I agree with you that the situation on Sina Weibo is hectic and confusing, but there are also reliable sources [37] [38] [39] that suggests the government's reversal of ban and subsequent defense of the reversal is merely a response to public, international outcry. One telltale sign is that roughly a year after the original ordeal, they tried again. This time it's pushed back by outcry again; we don't know that they won't do this yet one more time. Therefore, your evidences aren't enough to suggest the Chinese government is defending gay rights of expression and association. On the other hand, I would like to reiterate that there is an official directive, with the authority of a law, that specifically singles out homosexuals as to be banned on broadcast TV & films (I have 14 reliable sources above for this). It has always been strictly enforced since its release [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. That law doesn't apply to Sina Weibo because Weibo is not TV or film, not because the law isn't strictly enforced. --Vakrieger (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC) So the only question that remains, is whether the TV & Film ban, plus the "periodic government crackdowns" on other medias, is enough a "restriction on freedom of expression" to be placed on the map. --Vakrieger (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Yes, that is the question. And not even just that, really. I'd go a bit further: if independent companies are over-zealous in their self-censorship because the law is vague or contradictory and they want to err on the side of caution, and so violate freedom of expression by the LGBT community even though the govt doesn't mandate that, should that count as "restriction on freedom of expression" on a map that according to its title is about laws? Maybe -- some countries, like Saudi, don't really have laws, and others like Russia aren't governed by their laws, so the concept of "law" is vague internationally. But I disagree on another point. If the govt backs down under public or international pressure, it's still backed down. Why it backed down (assuming we can even determine that with any certainty) should be covered by the WP articles, but is immaterial for a simple map like this -- the question for us is just whether the legal situation meets our (unstated) criteria for inclusion. Anyway, I think you may be right that going back to the tan-blue striping (except for Macau?) is the best way to represent this. But I think we should get the input of other editors, as to whether they think the situation should be classified as anti-LGBT expression laws, or just anti--freedom of expression laws that sweep up the LGBT community along with everyone else. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I have already conceded that Sina Weibo's situation is unclear so there's no need to keep throwing red herring. What do you think about the TV & Film ban? Is it not a restriction on freedom of expression or is it too trivial to meet our criteria for inclusion? --Vakrieger (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I'm ambivalent. How many of the grey countries have similar, perhaps de facto rather than de jure, bans? AFAICT, the Chinese restrictions are not targeted at individuals. For me, that's where the real freedom of expression issues come in -- if someone is arrested for something they say or post because it's considered propaganda or corrupting to public morality, as opposed to censoring media designed for mass consumption. Like pulling books from the public library rather than arresting people for having those books. India doesn't allow kissing in movies or on TV (at least until recently). That kind of censorship of public display or broadcast of anything suggesting sex is quite common. Of course, you can very strongly imply hetero kissing on Indian TV, which you probably can't with gay couples on Chinese TV (I don't know). Does India have a state ban on gay characters on TV and in movies? What I thought was interesting was finding at least a couple Chinese LGBT activists saying that they didn't believe the censorship was specifically targeting LGBT, at least not in its conception, but rather anything that might disturb the public order (and therefore the Party's grip on power -- they seem to be quite afraid of any grassroots activism). But the TV law does seem to target LGBT. So ... I don't know, and I don't want to try to make a concrete decision on what is so ambiguous an issue. I'd rather get some feedback from the people pinged above to see if we as a community can clarify what we want. I mean, what about a country where there are no anti-LGBT laws, but the police go around arresting gay people for public indecency, throwing them in jail, beating them, outing them in ways that might encourage vigilante attacks, etc. Such a country would be coloured grey on our maps, though the situation on the ground could be quite horrendous. (I understand this kind of thing happens in China, too, but not a badly, and there are govt statements that people shouldn't be mistreated for their sexuality.) And Russian-type anti-prop laws give a green light to harrassment as well, by suggesting that there is a public threat to morality that needs to be resisted -- there are always some who will take that as permission for violent 'resistance'. Chinese censorship laws may slow down the ability of LGBT groups to affect public opinion, but they don't give implicit permission to do violence. So why should a country like some of the ones in Central Asia, where the authorities seem to condone anti-LGBT violence, be grey, but a country like China, that has rather ridiculous censorship laws but otherwise doesn't target LGBT, be coloured tan? It seems disproportionate to me. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC) "So why should a country like some of the ones in Central Asia, where the authorities seem to condone anti-LGBT violence, be grey, but a country like China, that has rather ridiculous censorship laws but otherwise doesn't target LGBT, be coloured tan?" -- I thought we already agreed that this map is about what the laws (de jure) explicitly says? After all, this map has "laws" in the title, instead of "on-the-ground situations". If we talk about situations on the ground (perhaps we can in another map), then this will be a lot more complicated. For starters, the legal guardianship will not be nationwide, because that's not what the on-the-ground situation is at the moment. --Vakrieger (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Except the police generally are using decency laws in such cases. In many of the countries we mark as having prison sentences, homosexuality isn't explicitly illegal. Instead, it's considered a violation of decency or the natural order. So it's not just what the law says, but what it's interpreted to mean. source quotes For your first link, on the film "Call me by your name", the Psychiatric Times says it's about sexual predation.[47] A film like that's going to be banned in China, gay or not. Though, AFAICT, it wasn't banned in e.g. India or Turkey. Your 2nd source says "If upheld, Chinese producers can no longer make television shows depicting ”abnormal sexual relations or sexual behavior” including “homosexuality” or “perversion” [or] smoking, drinking, adultery, sexual freedom or reincarnation," and that "the art must serve a social purpose." This is far broader than restricting gays. Again, I'm not saying China shouldn't be tan because of this, just not sure this is where we want to draw the line. Banned if it "expresses or displays abnormal sexual relations or sexual behavior, such as incest, homosexuality, perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and sexual violence," but also if it "promotes unhealthy views of marriage and relationships, including extra-marital affairs, one night stands, and sexual freedom; contains shots that give sensory stimulus, and similar manifestations and indirectly related to or suggestive of sex; contains shots, lines, music and sound effects that are obvious allusions to sexual advances, sexual harassment, sexual humiliation; exposes of male and female sexual organs and other hidden parts, or contain sexually suggestive clothing; uses vulgar language; contains sex-related images, lines, music, sound effects that are not suitable for minors." China is a really sexually repressed country. It's not just an issue of LGBT, though evidently this is the first time that homosexuality has been singled out. So... if the rules are upheld ... and "if enforced as written the rules would force many of China’s most popular shows off the air" and could ban adaptations of the Four Great Classical Novels. 3rd source, "in January, China’s media regulator banned tattoos from appearing on television." But this and the 4th are about particular broadcasters, not about the law. Etc. Yes, the Chinese censorship authorities certainly have a problem with LGBT, along with a lot of other things. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry for making this so long, but I'll have to correct you when you make a factually misleading statement. The 2nd source is reporting on the content of the law when it is under challenge or still a draft. From other more recent sources, it's clear that the law has been upheld. Consider the big picture. --Vakrieger (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC) "AFAICT, the Chinese restrictions are not targeted at individuals." -- this is not entirely true. The law applies to all audiovisual streaming channels, including Youku, Chinese equivalent of YouTube, where individuals upload videos themselves. For example, this individual's indie documentary have been deleted from internet platforms because of the policy. --Vakrieger (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Well, admittedly, this happened even before (2015) the TV censorship law was enacted. But my point still stands that there definitely exist LGBT-specific restrictions on the individual level. This report from Variety says: "Regulations currently ban online providers from carrying content ... such as ... homosexual relations...". This report from New York Times indicates "...the government has publicly called for a merging of censorship standards for online and traditional television content. ... subjects that will be prohibited, including depictions of gay relationships..." --Vakrieger (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC) "at least a couple Chinese LGBT activists saying that they didn't believe the censorship was specifically targeting LGBT, at least not in its conception, but rather anything that might disturb the public order" -- irrelevant. To quote your own words, "Yes, the guardianship law was almost certainly not designed for SS couples ... What matters is that SS couples have access to those rights ... so we color the country light blue." --Vakrieger (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Again, I don't follow your logic. You say one thing is irrelevant because it's equivalent to another thing that is relevant. If they're equivalent, they're either both relevant or both irrelevant. I'd argue they're both irrelevant -- if neither law targets or excludes LGBT, they we can't characterize them as targeting or excluding LGBT. We wouldn't color China tan if the law were LGBT-neutral. Your point is just the opposite, that it's not LGBT-neutral. I agree. Just not sure this is what we want a category of "Laws restricting freedom of expression and association" to include. Anyway, we can write reams and reams at each other, saying the same thing over and over, but that's only going to discourage other people from chiming in -- TLDR. I suspect hardly anyone is reading this at the length it already is. So I suggest we stop dancing around and wait for others to comment. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC) What's so hard to follow? Your quoted text is trying to argue that the censorship law is irrelevant; I pointed out your double standard. Both laws are relevant. So we apply both colours (stripes). --Vakrieger (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC) What I don't follow is how you argue something is relevant because it's not, or not because it is. But I don't dispute that China censors LGBT content. However, your own sources say if the rules are upheld. That is, per your sources it appears this might not be the law. And is a series of guidelines by a censoring agency a "law" at all? So no, I don't follow your logic. But that's irrelevant, because I'm not arguing over whether this occurs (as you were with the guardianship law), but whether it's sufficient to put China in the same category as Russia etc. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC) So, if the rules are upheld, they will be the first overt mention of homosexuality in broadcast-media censorship. But you asked about other countries. I thought there would be in India, but it appears not. But in Turkey ... This[48] is a few years old, but it says, RTÜK, the state agency responsible for monitoring and regulating radio and television content, is heavily involved in censoring content. The cable broadcast of Sex and the City 2, for example, was blocked due to its “twisted and immoral” depiction of a gay wedding. In 2011 the Telecommunications Communication Presidency (TIB) prohibited Turkish Internet-hosting providers from using the word “gay,” along with 137 other potentially inflammatory words, in domain names and websites, according to Freedom House. TIB has also shut down LGBT Internet forums. So that would appear, at first glance, at least, to be similar to the situation in China. So should both China and Turkey be tan? Both left grey? Kwamikagami (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC) source quotes This is a fair point, but the Wikipedia page LGBT rights in Turkey have conflicting information: "LGBT-themed movies are not banned in Turkey. Brokeback Mountain, as an example, was seen in Turkish cinemas without any government censorship. Anyone eighteen years of age or older could buy a ticket to watch the film. LGBT-themed DVDs can also be legally sold in Turkey, albeit DVDs with sexually explicit content may only be sold to people eighteen years of age or older. In 2013, a Turkish vendor was charged with selling "immoral" DVDs because the DVD movies featured gay sexually explicit content. Judge Mahmut Erdemli from the court in Istanbul overturned the criminal charges. He ruled that gay sex is "natural", stated that an individual's sexual orientation should be respected, and cited examples of same-sex marriages in Europe and in the Americas." These sort of things does not happen in China; at least not since the censorship law was passed. --Vakrieger (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC) --Vakrieger (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Without any recommendation as to the colours, I would argue that, in regard to censorship of LGBT-related content, Turkey is a lesser offender compared to China. --Vakrieger (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC) By the way, unless you object, I recommend collapsing some of our earlier debates. --Vakrieger (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry I missed the point. More about the substance of your arguments. "And is a series of guidelines by a censoring agency a "law" at all?" -- I have already provided arguments that for the purpose of this map, this should be treated as law. At the risk of sounding like a wikilawyer, I'll summarise it again: The agency is very closely related to the NRTA, an official government agency (see "just about all" of my sources) NRTA (and its closely related sibling NFA) is known to enforce their rules without mercy (see this and this), which make this "guideline" legally enforceable These rules, indeed, are upheld (after that report, obviously) and strictly enforced (see my numerous sources above) Further, I argue that there is no need for something to be called "law" to warrant consideration on this map. Think about this: this map includes a colour for "not enforced penalty", which considers some fact (non enforcement) that is not officially part of the law (what law says no one should enforce it?). Therefore, this map can consider some facts that are not part of the official law code. In conclusion, I would argue that "the guidelines by a censoring agency" should be considered like-law for the purpose of this map. Now, Kwamikagami, if you still want to contradict me, that's totally fine. You just need to provide sound, specific & verifiable reasoning and/or evidence to refute my arguments above. (For the record, I wish you do -- that's how we learn new things and how the Wiki projects grow.) Otherwise, you'll just sound like a broken record. --Vakrieger (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Vakrieger (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit break

And there I went, missed the point. My argument FOR the tan colour, is that the censorship is far from trivial. No other country with a similar policy (a strictly enforced blanket-ban on gay depiction in popular media) has a grey or better colour on the map. So China should have the tan colour. (Of course, "no other country" is only as far as I know of; contradiction with evidence is more than welcome)

Note that the ban affects all portrayal of homosexual relationship and related topics -- not just explicit scenes like kisses or sex. Perhaps simply mentioning the term "gay" is still okay, but even something as innocuous as implicit references to Mercury's sexuality in the film Bohemian Rhapsody has been banned [49]. --Vakrieger (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Another point Kwamikagami has raised is that the restrictions are "far broader than restricting gays". Specifically, "...television shows depicting ”abnormal sexual relations or sexual behavior” including “homosexuality” or “perversion” [or] smoking, drinking, adultery, sexual freedom or reincarnation," (are banned) . This is a very valid point. However, compared to the other banned topics, listing homosexuality as an instance of abnormal sexual relations causes by far the most outcry [50], as it runs contrary to the global medical consensus that homosexuality is not an abnormality or disease. Certainly there is still an element of hostility directly towards LGBT+ people here, (unless you think that homosexuality is as bad as incest, deserves hostility like incest and perversion do and hence doesn't stand out in the list, that is). So, yes, the restriction is exceedingly broad, but still, it is homophobic in nature. --Vakrieger (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(I collapsed the entire preceding debate, as I'm afraid having so much text will put off other editors from joining in. Kwamikagami (talk))

• Comment This isn't a support or oppose for coloring China tan, but rather a query as to how egregious a country needs to be to qualify. Both of us have found some interesting sources above.
• Re. the Sina Weibo case, which Vakrieger concedes is ambiguous, a couple LGBT activists at least have stated that they don't think the govt is targeting LGBT so much as civic groups and NGOs in general, and that they don't really know how to handle the LGBT issue. I think it's relevant that the LGBT community, or at least a part of it, doesn't feel that the govt is actively hostile. Or there may be competing factions within the govt that have different approaches.
• The recent censorship rules specify homosexuality for the first time, and they do indeed mention it right alongside perversion. Several of the sources say this is the first time homosexuality will be singled out if the rules are upheld, and that the rules as currently written would ban the most popular shows currently running on Chinese TV and even the Chinese classics. For us, do anti-LGBT censorship rules by the govt's TV and cinema watchdog count as legal restrictions on expression? Do they even effect newspapers, much less what private individuals do and say? What of the 'if the rules are upheld' comments?
• Is there any restriction of individual expression? Internet sites have purged LGBT material and then reversed themselves, with sources saying they aren't sure how to implement govt censorship rules when left to do it themselves. Any restrictions on association? NGOs etc. have been shut down, but with activists saying this reflects a general hostility to NGOs, not to their being LGBT.
• If we color China tan, we're putting it in the same category as Russia, Iraq, Palestine. And Lithuania. (I'm wondering if the latter belongs, but that's a separate discussion.) So, for me, it's a question of how broad or narrow we want the category to be. Kwamikagami (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Note - for anyone who's reading this after this point, I have prominently marked the only 2 comments that did not come from me or Kwamikagami, so that their voices don't get drawn out. --Vakrieger (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Zambia

In my opinion, Zambia should be orange. Evidence: https://www.news24.com/Africa/News/zambia-police-hunt-girls-suspected-of-breaking-anti-gay-laws-20180131 Kaleetan (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• 15-yr sentence given, so now it is. (I said 'Zimbabwe' by mistake in the file upload.) Kwamikagami (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Myanmar

Should Myanmar be orange? A prominent gay man was arrested in November 2018 in Yangon under Section 377. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2018/11/02/gay-man-with-hiv-charged-under-myanmar-sodomy-law/ Kaleetan (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, it's a rape trial, not just gay sex, and no prison sentence has been given, which is what orange means. The police murder gays in Russia, but we don't color it brown because it's not a legal penalty. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Poland's "LGBT-free zones"

Should we color the parts of Poland with these new laws the same color as Russia? https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/25/third-of-poland-lgbt-free-zone-atlas-of-hate-homophobia/ Kaleetan (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We stripe Cambodia and Japan for local ordinances, so I think striped tan is appropriate for Poland. Kwamikagami (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the LGBT-free zones are only symbolic and don't actually mean anything, so striping Poland with the same color as Russia and Iraq isn't necessary. @Kwamikagami Kaleetan (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverting then. Also demoted Israel, as foreign rec is only partial. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Gabon

Law passed but not yet applied to penal code? Ppl arrested but never charged? Not sure what to do with this, but changing from orange to yellow for now. Kwamikagami (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(Law was later rescinded.)

Enforcement

I'm not sure of the criteria for the map but I've done some research into enforcement and imprisonment and these are my suggestions. I couldn't find any evidence of life imprisonment actually carried out so perhaps that category is no longer needed. Zambia, Barbados and Guyana also allow for life imprisonment in theory.

Bangladesh - Unenforced

The Kaleidoscope Trust, an NGO supporting the rights of LGBTI persons, stated in a 2015 report that ‘There have been two recorded arrests under Section 377. Both arrests were later charged under other [provisions of the Penal Code]. To date no single case of punishment has happened under Section 377.’50 The 2015 OFPRA FFM Report noted that, ‘Although a few cases have been registered under Article 377, none of them have led to legal proceedings or convictions, usually due to lack of witnesses or evidence.’51 CPIT, in the sources consulted, could not find any further reports of legal proceedings or convictions.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/880555/BGD-SOGIE-CPIN-v4.0__April_2020_.pdf

The Gambia - Unenforced

“There have been improvements in the general human rights environment since the former President Yammeh was ousted in December 2016. However, consensual same-sex sexual activity for both men and women remains illegal. The new government has stated that LGBTI persons would not be prosecuted - and there are no recent reports of arrests and prosecutions.”

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/825234/Gambia_-_SOGIE_-_CPIN_-_v2.0___August_2019_.pdf

Oman - Unenforced

The 2018 penal code criminalises consensual same-sex sexual conduct with a jail term of six months to three years, but it requires a spouse or guardian complaint to initiate prosecution. The government did not actively enforce this law.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/oman/

anti-gay laws are almost never enforced unless there are circumstances that draw police attention such as rape, violence, under-age abuse, drugs or gross violation of Muslim social norms.

https://www.globalgayz.com/gay-life-in-oman/1841/

Burundi - Unenforced

There were no reports of prosecution for same-sex sexual acts during the year.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/burundi/

Homosexual acts were criminalised in 2009. Punishment includes a prison sentence of between three months and two years, and a fine, although there have been no prosecutions to date.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/burundi/local-laws-and-customs

La première condamnation pour homosexualité sur la base de l’article 567 du Code pénal a lieu en septembre 2014 et concerne un ressortissant vietnamien de 32 ans. Arrêté à Karuzi, dans la commune de Bugenyuzi, il est relâché au bout de trois jours après avoir payé une amende de 100.000 Francs burundais (49 euros). Il s’agit du seul cas de condamnation sur la base de l’article 567 du Code pénal recensé par les sources publiques d’information consultées. Le département d’Etat des Etats-Unis souligne qu’aucune source mentionnant une condamnation pour homosexualité n’apparaît pour l’année 2017.

https://www.ofpra.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/1901_bdi_lgbti.pdf

[The first sentencing for homosexuality based on Article 567 of the penal code took place in September 2014 and concerns a Vietnamese national aged 32. Arrested in Karuzi in the commune of Bugenyuzi, he was released after three days after having paid a fine of 100,000 Burundian francs (49 euros). It’s the only case of sentencing based on Article 567 of the penal code identified in the public sources of information consulted. The US State Department highlights no source mentioning a sentencing for homosexuality for the year 2017]

Ethiopia - Unenforced

There were no reports of persons incarcerated or prosecuted for engaging in same-sex sexual activities.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/ethiopia/

Although homosexuality is illegal in Ethiopia, same-sex behaviour is not prosecuted because the government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) views homosexuality as a low law enforcement priority. While this may suggest at first glance that the situation for same-sex attracted men is better in Ethiopia than in other countries that retain laws against homosexuality, in reality the illegality of same-sex relations functions throughout Ethiopian society to drive and justify social and economic exclusion and human rights abuses of same- sex attracted people. There is a powerful synergy between church and state and sections of the church are occupied with promulgating extreme homophobia by associating homosexuality with taboo superstition, undesirable foreign influence, child abuse and prostitution. Moreover, Ethiopia’s strong economic growth and geopolitical situation has limited the influence of other countries, donors and agencies in respect of human rights and economic or social policy in the country.

https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/6011/ER129_BOOSHTEE%21SurvivalandResilienceinEthiopia.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

South Sudan - Unenforced

There were no reports authorities enforced the law.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/south-sudan/

Eritrea - Unenforced

The government did not actively enforce this law.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/eritrea/

They also face a high risk of official discrimination due to the existence of Article 310 that, even if it is not actively enforced, makes them vulnerable to arrest or harassment.

https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/country-information-report-eritrea.pdf

The wikipedia article wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Eritrea provides sources on the contrary; that the Eritrean government regularly arrests people under the anti-gay laws. However, the Eritrean government is extremely opaque and they don't share what goes on in the country. 184.60.28.96 20:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Algeria - Unenforced

Amnesty International (AI) stated in its review of 2019 that ‘An activist in an Algerian LGBTI group ... [stated] that, while [the Penal Code was] rarely used, they made LGBTI people feel vulnerable and were used to pressure LGBTI victims of crime to withdraw their complaints.’31

4.2.5 The USSD report for 2019 noted that ‘LGBTI activists reported that the vague wording of laws criminalizing “homosexual acts” and “acts against nature” permitted sweeping accusations that resulted in multiple arrests for consensual same-sex sexual relations, but no known prosecutions during the year.’32

4.2.6 The HRW’s report on events in 2017 noted ‘[i]n 2015, several people were arrested for same-sex relations but none were prosecuted’ but did not indicate there were arrests in 2016 or 2017 . HRW’s annual reports on events in 2018 and 2019 also did not report any arrests or prosecutions of LGBTI persons .

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/885874/Algeria_SOGIE_CPIN_v3.0_May_2020.pdf

Lebanon - enforced

Article 534 of the Lebanese Penal Code prohibits sexual relations “contradicting the laws of nature” and effectively criminalizes consensual, same-sex sexual conduct among adults. The law was occasionally enforced in civilian and military courts, and it carries a penalty of up to one year in prison. On April 1 [2019], a civilian court in Saida ruled on a 2017 case, convicting two men accused of homosexual activity under Article 534. The initial sentence of jail time was replaced with a fine of LBP 500,000 ($333). On March 30, a military prosecutor in Beirut acquitted four military personnel accused of “sodomy.” The judge cleared the group of charges of committing sexual acts “contrary to nature” and declined to issue warrants for their arrest, commenting that the penal code does not specify what kind of relationship can be considered “contrary to nature.” The ruling was the first of its kind by a military prosecutor. Some government and judicial officials, along with NGOs and legal experts, questioned whether the law actually criminalizes same-sex sexual conduct.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/lebanon/

Zimbabwe - Conflicting reports but seems to have been enforced

Despite that, there were no known cases of prosecutions of consensual same-sex sexual activity.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/zimbabwe/

Two inmates at Mutimurefu Prison here had an additional six-year prison term added to the sentences they are serving after they were convicted of sodomy recently.[2018]

https://www.herald.co.zw/sodomy-earns-inmates-more-jail-time/

Tanzania - Prison sentences are not life imprisonments

Human Rights Watch reported in June 2017 that the laws that punish same-sex relations are rarely applied in Tanzania and that the police and the authorities use them as a pretext to extort, abuse and marginalize LGBT people (Human Rights Watch 23 June 2017). An article from BuzzFeed News [2] indicated in April 2017 that, despite the serious crackdown on homosexual relations in Tanzania, there is no record of anyone serving serious time for it (BuzzFeed News 8 Apr. 2017). An article from October 2017 in the Tanzania Daily News also mentions that in Zanzibar “no prosecution [for homosexuality] has so far been made in any court of law” (Tanzania Daily News 18 Oct. 2017). Nevertheless, a number sources use the word “crackdown” to describe the treatment of sexual minorities and their defenders by the authorities in Tanzania since 2016 and 2017 (Human Rights Watch Jan. 2018; Freedom House 2018, sec. B4; The Guardian 26 Oct. 2017). Human Rights Watch reports that “[i]n an unprecedented crackdown, Tanzanian authorities are arresting and prosecuting people on homosexuality-related charges” (Human Rights Watch 6 July 2017). BuzzFeed News reports a “witch hunt” launched by Tanzania in July 2016 against anything it branded as “promoting gayism” (BuzzFeed News 8 Apr. 2018). Sources report the following arrests: in March 2017, a young man was arrested in Dar es Salaam, suspected of homosexuality based on his Instagram posts (Human Rights Watch Jan. 2018); in October 2017, a group of activists and human rights defenders, including two South Africans and one Ugandan, were arrested during a meeting on health services for LGBTI people (Amnesty International 22 Feb. 2018, 411; PassBlue 12 Dec. 2017), in Dar es Salaam (PassBlue 12 Dec. 2017); in December 2017, police arrested a woman following the publication of a video showing her kissing another woman (Mambaonline 4 Dec. 2017; Reuters 2 Dec. 2017); in December 2016, at least nine young men were arrested and detained in Zanzibar (Human Rights Watch 23 June 2017; BuzzFeed News 8 Apr. 2017) and charged with “homosexual conduct” (Human Rights Watch 23 June 2017); In September 2017, 12 women and 8 men participating in a workshop on AIDS in Zanzibar were arrested (Amnesty International 22 Feb. 2018, 411; Stop Homophobie 18 Sept. 2017) and charged with promoting the rights of LGBTI people (Amnesty International 22 Feb. 2018, 411).

https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2021657.html

Kenya - not enforced

HRW in a July 2016 report, Dignity Debased Forced Anal Examinations in Homosexuality Prosecutions, noted: ‘The law on “unnatural offenses” is rarely applied in cases involving consensual sex between adults. Only two cases are known to Human Rights Watch. One, filed in 2012 in Kifili, was dismissed in May 2015 for lack of evidence. The other case, filed in Kwale County in February 2015, is ongoing, and marks the only case known to Human Rights Watch in which forced anal examinations have been used in Kenya.’

‘Imani Kimiri of the NGLHRC's legal team, told AFP her office dealt with 15 prosecutions under the laws in 2018, but cannot recall the last conviction -- slamming the process as "just a frustrating endeavour"’ 63

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/879496/Kenya_-SOGIE-CPIN-v3.0__GOV.UK_.pdf

Uganda - not life. No convictions but charges and long arbitrary detention

Nineteen members of Uganda’s LGBT community are spending a 50th night in prison even though the country’s Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) dropped all charges against them.

https://76crimes.com/2020/05/18/facing-no-charges-19-lgbt-ugandans-remain-in-prison/

The Finish Immigration Service report, Status of LGBT people in Cameroon, Gambia, Ghana and Uganda, dated 3 December 2015, stated: ‘Individuals are arrested due to suspicion of homosexuality, which is often based on appearance that does not conform to gender norms. Despite a large number of individuals having been arrested and charged for “carnal knowledge against the order of nature”, no person to date has been convicted under this law. ‘The passing and entering into force of the Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2014 (AHA) resulted in increased numbers of arrests as well as suspensions and closures of organisations working on LGBTI issues...Despite the increased number of arrests, nobody was charged under the new law while it was in force. The effects of the AHA can be interpreted as being more about legitimising the violence committed against LGBTI people as well as making arbitrary arrests and detentions themselves serve as a punishment, rather 25

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/792036/CPIN_Uganda_SOGIE_EXT_April_2019.pdf

Liberia - not enforced

There continue to be instances of arbitrary arrest and detention of individuals suspected of engaging in same-sex sexual conduct in violation of Articles 2(1), 9, 17, and 26. Although there have been no reported cases of convictions under the Voluntary Sodomy provision of the Penal Code, the accused are often held in jail, without trial, for prolonged periods of time. The police have verbally and physically abused detainees and have confiscated their cell phones. The Penal Code criminalizes same-sex sexual conduct, which in practice makes state and non-state actors target not only people who are or are perceived to be lesbian, gay or bisexual, but also those who are or are perceived to be transgender. Police also exploit this provision of the Penal Code to harass and extort LGBT individuals, threatening to prosecute or to reveal the victims’ sexual orientation

https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/LBR/INT_CCPR_CSS_LBR_30237_E.pdf

February 2018

Guinea - not enforced

The law criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual activity, which is punishable by three years in prison; however, there were no known prosecutions. In August authorities arrested two persons suspected of being gay in Kankan, Upper Guinea. They remained in detention at year’s end.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/guinea/

The Criminal Code retains the criminalization of same-sex conduct characterized as “unnatural acts” which creates a climate of fear and has been used to harass LGBTI people. At least two people, including a 14-year-old boy, were arrested in Kankan, eastern Guinea, on 18 August, on the basis of their real or perceived sexual orientation and charged under the indecency provisions of the criminal code which include "unnatural acts".  In October, the charges against the boy were dropped and he was released.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/africa/guinea/report-guinea/

With regard to sexual orientation, homosexual relations are criminalized in most African Muslim countries. The laws in Guinea reflect the culture and morality of the country. This is why Guinea has made homosexual relations a crime. When the country's morality changes, the law will evolve and this phenomenon of sexual orientation will be accepted as an acquired right. However, it should be noted that despite this ban, no citizen is prosecuted for their alleged sexual orientation. Although frowned upon in Guinea, these people are currently tolerated.

https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/guinea/session_35_-_january_2020/guinea_-_full_draft_report_for_circulation_-_ad_referendum.pdf

UAE - not enforced

There were no reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex activity.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/united-arab-emirates/

Flaubb (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Flaubb: Thank you for all your hard work on this. I made the changes pretty much as you recommended. However, I made Guinea, Liberia and Uganda striped orange/yellow for detention w/o prosecution. I don't know if that's a viable category. Please review my changes and {{Ping}} me to comment.

(Also, can you tell what's happening in Somaliland or Jubaland?)

For everyone else, do you think it's viable to mark countries that detain people in prison without sentencing them to prison? Coloring them yellow would seem to belittle what people are going through, but coloring them orange would seem to overstate the case. But can we do this consistently? If you think we can't, then probably best to color them orange, as prison is on the books and people are going to prison, or at least to jail. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

UAE

Per WP-en, death at federal level in UAE, even if not enforced. But some of the sources say it's not clear if this is for sodomy or for rape. I'm changing the UAE from yellow to brown, should probably at least be orange. Anyone know? Kwamikagami (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Guinea, Uganda, Algeria

The yellow and orange striped countries should be orange because people are being put in detention for homosexual acts. 184.60.28.96 18:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That was my question above. But don't you think there is a significant difference between police custody and official sentencing? And what do we do with countries like Chechnya, where SS is legal but people are still placed in detention (or worse) for it? Kwamikagami (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Algeria should be orange, not yellow. Algerian police arrest people for homosexuality, even if no prosecution is given. 184.60.28.96 18:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I see from the sources above that Algeria should be treated the same as Guinea and Uganda. Whether striped or orange would depend on how we treat them. I'll change to striped for now. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Falta pintar a Bolivia

Falta pintar a Bolivia de color azul claro, para indicar que la Unión Civil ya es legal. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.12.249.193 (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Changed to blue. Also UAE to orange per above. Changed Burundi back to yellow, as not mentioned in edit summary, no response from editor. Striped India per other maps. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Iraq, Syria, Malawi

Per the ILGA report,[51] Iraq has arrests and is de facto illegal like Egypt, which is orange. Syria, Malawi also has arrests. Colored those (and recolored Burundi) per argument above. Kwamikagami (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Mexico

Could someone change the state of Tlaxcala to dark blue? They legalized same-sex marriage in December 2020. Kaleetan (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Is this event that took place in 2017 in Bangladesh enough to change it to orange? https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/bangladesh-arrests-29-from-lgbt-meet/1054965 Kaleetan (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hm. They weren't arrested for being gay. But they would have been, if the police had found evidence. (At least they didn't lie about it, as the police would do in some countries, and thus showed respect for the rule of law.) So the yellow color is IMO no longer appropriate, since there was a clear intent to execute the law. But it doesn't quite meet our criteria for orange either. This is the kind of thing I had the striping for, but since that's gone, IMO orange is more accurate than yellow. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I made the change but then reverted myself because this is from over 3 yrs ago, the cut-off we cite in the info-box for 'recent'. Still seems to be an intermediate case to me, though. Happy to reconsider. (Tlaxcala got caught up in the revert, but you can hardly tell.) Kwamikagami (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Japan

Kwamikagami Explain please. I can't find any change in the law in Japan. Kaleetan (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No change in law. It was a supreme-court ruling that under existing law (or the constitution?), SS couples have the same rights of domestic partnership as OS couples.[52] In this case, a ruling granting alimony that was appealed to the SC. If you can sue for alimony, you have at least some of the rights accorded to marriage. I just don't know if it should be light or medium blue: we had DP's as med blue, but there are different levels of DP. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought the court case only determined that it was unconstitutional for Japan not to recognize SSM, but the legislature still has to pass a law for anything to change. Kaleetan (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hungary

{{Edit request}}

Hello there! I'm from Hungary and the National Parliament recently passed a law, that limits the freedom (and speech) of LGBTQ communities, so Hungary should receive the light brown color that reflects "Restrictions of expression". — Preceding unsigned comment added by StSeffer2556 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

https://telex.hu/belfold/2021/06/15/parlament-orszaggyules-pedofilellenes-torveny-homoszexualitas-szavazas — Preceding unsigned comment added by StSeffer2556 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Has it been signed into law by Orban yet? Kaleetan (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleetan: It’s not the head of government Viktor Orbán’s duty to sign bills into law, but the head of state’s (currently János Áder). Anyways, the date that really counts is when it’s published in the Magyar Közlöny, which happened on 23 June. According to § 24, it went into force 15 days after that date, i.e. on 8 July (except for a certain part, which will go into force on 1 February 2022). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan II

Should we change Afghanistan to dark red because the Taliban are in charge again? Or are they not executing people for homosexuality this time? Kaleetan (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Changed to dark red until contrary evidence is provided. Kaleetan (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, dark red/brown is probably best. I'm not sure we can distinguish between vigilantes and the government. The legal penalty is death (AFAIK), and if people are being killed by vigilantes but the govt is composed of vigilantes, then there's no effective difference between extrajudicial killings and legal executions. Unlike e.g. Chechnya where it's not legally a capital crime and the killings are extrajudicial. (Though that's a bit iffy too, since Russia is not ruled by law.) Kwamikagami (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleetan: Been a claim that there is no such law, and only a case of one person reporting his boyfriend was killed extrajudicially. That would hardly count -- lots of that kinda stuff going on in other countries. Do we have any sources one way or the other?

I changed back to orange, pending evidence of a law. Also not clear there are regular extrajudicial killings (the Taliban aren't monolithic) or if the govt is following a "higher law"; rather like WP:BIO, we should have evidence of wrong-doing before we make the claim. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam

Vietnam is colored light blue on the map, implying that it recognizes unregistered cohabitation. However, Vietnam does not have specific unregistered cohabitation laws. I can provide you with a list of reliable sources.

Kwamikagami claims that: "In Vietnam, you have to register where you live, so that is quite literally registered cohabitation." (Please, provide sources)

Kwamikagami has no actual sources, just empty words. All content must be verifiable. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Anyone can leave a note on the talk page asking for a source. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

It contains unlikely information, without providing suitable references;

It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic;

Kwamikagami's claim about "registered cohabitations" in Vietnam is somewhat misleading. A list of reliable sources are presented below:

The first source states that:

"While the ruling, which came into effect on New Year’s Day, allows same-sex couples to wed without fear of criminal prosecution, Vietnam’s Communist Party stopped short of extending ANY rights or privileges to same-sex couples — the government won’t recognize same-sex unions nor provide legal protection to them."

Source: https://www.metroweekly.com/2015/01/vietnam-removes-same-sex-marriage-ban/

The second source states that:

"The law no longer specifically prohibits same-sex marriages, but says they aren't recognized by the government. It does not allow same-sex partnership either, although the issue has been open for discussion during many house meetings."

Source: http://thanhniennews.com/politics/vietnam-allows-surrogacy-within-families-denies-samesex-marriage-27502.html

The final source states that:

"There is a major flaw in the law. According to Clause 2, Article 8 of the new law, although it allows same-sex weddings, such couples are neither recognized nor protected under the law. Although Vietnam abolished its ban on same-sex marriage, the law has a very limited effect in practice. If not recognized by the state, such marriages will not be protected by law for matters such as personal and property rights."

Source: https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/the-fight-for-lgbt-rights-in-vietnam-still-has-a-long-way-to-go/

The claim that Vietnam recognizes same-sex unions is MISSING CONTEXT, because without additional information it could be misleading. It is true that Vietnam abolished its ban on same-sex marriage and allowed symbolic same-sex weddings. However, same-sex couples are neither recognized nor protected under the law.

Every credible news source say that Vietnam doesn’t recognize same-sex unions. Therefore it should be changed to gray. Please, update the map. Provide sources of the opposite if you disagree. Cyanmax (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Paging User:KwamikagamiKaleetan (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to {{Ping}} someone for them to be notified. Linking to their user page doesn't do anything.

This complaint is a duplicated from the marriage map. He didn't get satisfaction there, so he's starting it over again here. We can discuss it there. Kwamikagami (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Now you see, I was right! I won! Cyanmax (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Uh, sure, you "won". That's what this is about, not providing good info. You could've "won" a long time ago if you'd participated in good faith rather than trying to "win". Kwamikagami (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Bolivia

Because they stripped Bolivia of the civil union, if since a couple was recognized through free union under the constitutional court of the State it has been recognized and that also opens the doors for the rest of the couples to civil unions. For you to check here are the sources.

https://www.efe.com/efe/america/sociedad/la-union-de-david-y-guido-un-hito-para-los-derechos-humanos-en-bolivia/20000013-4419728 https://www.hrw.org/es/news/2020/08/05/bolivia-los-registros-civiles-deben-reconocer-las-uniones-de-personas-del-mismo https://web.archive.org/web/20210102201944/https://www.elperiodico.com/es/internacional/20210102/david-guido-primera-union-civil-11415819 —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.12.255.197 (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC) --200.12.255.197 21:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

But just that one couple was recognized as a one-off, right? Never applied to anyone else? So maybe a blue ring for a single case, but so far we've only done that for marriages. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

World map broken

I have noticed that the borders of the world map are off again, and Iran is slightly stretched. I think that after so many edits via Inkscape and Illustrator, the map should be recreated from BlankMap-World.svg and Blank Map World Secondary Political Divisions.svg, and then made in a way so that the map can be edited by text editor. Sorry that I cannot do it, because I am busy right now.

Best, --Minoa (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Chile

Please, add Chile with same sex marriage recongized. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Chile recently approved a law who allow same sex marriage, also homo-parental adoption. An updated version is necessary 191.119.10.195 01:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, updates are currently blocked. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Muchas gracias!!! MiguelAlanCS (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Added Chile to the adoption maps as well. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan & Lebanon

I downgraded these two countries, but should be discussed. One possibility recommended for Afghanistan is orange + brown stripes like Somalia. Honor killings for LGBT legal, but that's not enforced by the state, and some extrajudicial killings recently, but maybe for more than just being LGBT? Might take a while for the situation to clarify.

And Lebanon's still confusing. Should it be orange because of the fines a few years ago, or yellow cuz the military court said the law was unenforceable because "unnatural" was undefined? Is the latter a precedent, or just one court's opinion? Kwamikagami (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The Taliban's stance on LGBT people is clear. There can be no ambiguity in that regard.

Sources:

1. The Taliban has a hit list for the Afghan LGBT community - france24.com

2. Afghanistan's LGBTQ community say they're being hunted down after Taliban takeover - CNN.com

3. The Taliban will have no mercy: LGBTQ+ Afghans go into hiding - theguardian.com

Dustssics (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No links, so I'm not changing anything. If you have some good refs you can link to, that would be nice. Also, what is the "hit list"? Beatings, imprisonment, executions? Are these extrajudicial or through the Taleban courts? Not trying to be difficult, just want to be sure we can justify any changes we make. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

North Korea

Any idea how to handle this? Leaving it grey doesn't seem quite right. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

We could use a question mark. Dustssics (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, a question mark the color of Russia on North Korea is probably the best option. Kaleetan (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, added. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What does the circles mean?

Could you explain me what does the blue circles mean? GogoLion (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It means that a same sex marriage or civil union was recognized in the country, but it is generally seen as an exception to the law. Kaleetan (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Gaza

Gaza (which currently is colored orange) should be red, since it is enforced, ost recently in 2016. See: wikipedia:Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip.Eccekevin (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Colored it dk brown.

@Eccekevin: What about the West Bank? It's currently striped tan for propaganda laws. Is death-not-enforced appropriate? 06:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC) Kwamikagami (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC) Kwamikagami (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: West Bank and Gaza have different laws. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2604:2D80:D296:700:55F8:EF98:B05:5664 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I know. My question was what the situation is. Is tan appropriate? Kwamikagami (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: No it should be counted as extrajudicial killings for Gaza Strip, just like Afghanistan and Chechnya. Hamas is a terrorist group listed by the EU and U.S State Department Govt. The group is also the de facto controller of Gaza if you're asking for recognition wise. Homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment in most cases following the old British Penal code See:wikipedia:LGBT rights in the State of Palestine https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2018-02-21/ty-article-magazine/.premium/what-its-like-to-be-a-gay-man-in-gaza/0000017f-f90a-d887-a7ff-f9ee85fd000. Gaza doesn't have a death penalty for homosexuality according to the ILGA, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. But Hamas is widely considered as a terrorist organization and has its own de facto policies for its own members of the group. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Eustatius Strijder: It's too small to stripe, unless we stripe all of Palestine, and Hamas is the government of Gaza. But do we want to indicate policies toward their own membership that apparently doesn't apply to the civilian population? Kwamikagami (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, managed to strip it. Still not sure we should have the red since this isn't happening to civilians. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I think we should have either orange (10 year imprisonment under Hamas) or maybe orange/red stripe for the extrajudicial execution. Kaleetan (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

okay. back to orange. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Antigua and Barbuda

Legalisation in July 2022 by highest court in country.

• Queer.de: Karibikstaat Antigua und Barbuda legalisiert Homosexualität

--92.76.96.207 14:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Nigeria II

Please change to dark red - three sentenced to death

source: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/07/05/nigeria-gay-death-sentence-islam/ Kaleetan (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

So, should med. brown for death 'not applied' mean not sentenced to death, or sentence not carried out? And if 'not sentenced', should we colour all of N.Nigeria dark brown, or just Bauchi State? Kwamikagami (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleetan: also, what would you do w Afghanistan? No links in the thread above, and I'm not finding any reports of executions in the news (of other groups, yes, but not of LGBT, just threats). Kwamikagami (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I think dark red should be used if sentences are passed down. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2604:2D80:D296:700:55F8:EF98:B05:5664 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

But all of N.Nigeria, or just Bauchi? These are state laws, so as in other countries, shouldn't we follow the situation in each state? Kwamikagami (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Just Bauchi if they're state laws. Kaleetan (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Will do.

Could you also comment on Palestine/Gaza above, if you have an opinion? Kwamikagami (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Slovenia

Same-sex marriages are allowed in Slovenia since July 8, 2022

• Rtvslo.si: Prepoved posvajanja otrok istospolnim parom ni ustavna. Mesec: Zakon je že v pripravi.
• Queer.de: Sloweniens Verfassungsgericht öffnet die Ehe (German) --92.76.97.150 17:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)