United Nations experts call for immediate release of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, denounce blatant human rights violations in Nigeria

Nigerian prisoner Yahaya Sharif-Aminu
  • Experts with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention call for the immediate and unconditional release of Nigerian Yahaya Sharif-Aminu. 
  • Sharif-Aminu currently remains in prison while awaiting Supreme Court appeal following death sentence for sharing allegedly “blasphemous” song lyrics on WhatsApp; ADF International is supporting his appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. 
Nigerian prisoner Yahaya Sharif-Aminu

GENEVA (3 DECEMBER 2024) The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) has called for the immediate release and reparations for Nigerian Yahaya Sharif-Aminu in a just-published opinion. Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging in 2020 for sharing allegedly “blasphemous” song lyrics in a closed WhatsApp group. He is currently awaiting appeal at the Nigerian Supreme Court with the legal support of ADF International. 

In their opinion, the WGAD finds that Nigerian authorities deprived Sharif-Aminu of various fundamental human rights in international law, including freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression, and urges Nigerian authorities to “take the steps necessary to remedy the situation” without delay. The WGAD also urges the government of Nigeria to “ensure a full and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention of Mr. Sharif-Aminu and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.” The full opinion can be read here. 

“We are grateful to the members of the WGAD for speaking out on Yahaya’s behalf and for their denouncement of the blatant human rights violations he has been enduring,” said Sean Nelson, legal counsel for ADF International. “It is past time for Nigerian officials to heed the advice of human rights advocates across the globe, release Yahaya and abolish the blasphemy laws that have plagued religious minorities in Nigeria for far too long. No person should be punished, prosecuted, or threatened with death for their peaceful expression and their faith. We pray for Yahaya’s unconditional release and for all people worldwide to continue to raise their voices on his behalf.” 

Kola Alapinni, international human rights lawyer and lead attorney on Sharif-Aminu’s case, said: „The WGAD has reviewed the full facts of the unjust charges against Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, and have come to a clear and decisive statement that his rights have been violated grievously. I thank them for their call for his immediate release. Officials in Nigeria should listen—Yahaya’s ongoing detention is indefensible.“ 

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

A video from ADF International features testimonies from Yahaya’s mother, father, and uncle, who recount the traumatic experiences endured by Yahaya and their family.

Death sentence for “blasphemy”   

In 2020, Sufi Muslim Yahaya Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging for “blasphemy”. His alleged crime involved sending song lyrics on WhatsApp that were deemed blasphemous toward the prophet Mohammed.    

With support from human rights legal advocacy group ADF International, Sharif-Aminu has appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Nigeria and is challenging the constitutionality of Sharia-based blasphemy laws. He remains in prison awaiting the Supreme Court appeal. His case is far from an isolated incident. Together with minority Muslims, the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is especially severe. In 2022, approximately 90% of all Christians worldwide that were killed for their faith were in Nigeria.   

International pressure has been mounting to free Yahaya and end blasphemy laws. Last year, the European Parliament overwhelmingly called for the immediate release of Sharif-Aminu, and a group of 209 international and Nigerian human rights advocates wrote to then-Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, calling for Sharif-Aminu’s immediate release. 

In addition, in May of this year, United Nations experts called for Sharif-Aminu’s immediate and unconditional release.  

Sharif-Aminu’s potentially landmark Supreme Court appeal could end blasphemy laws in his home state of Kano and across northern Nigeria. A positive decision could lead the way toward abolishing blasphemy laws around the world.  

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

WIN: Brazilian Supreme Court unanimously rejects attempt to ban religious symbols from public buildings

  • Win for religious freedom as country’s highest court rejected attempt to ban religious symbols such as crucifixes from public spaces on the basis of “hurt emotions”  

  • ADF International submitted a “friend of the court” legal brief which was cited in the court’s reasoning

Brasília (28 November 2024) – The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) this week unanimously voted to allow religious symbols in public spaces, in line with a legal brief filed by ADF International.

All 11 justices of the country’s highest court affirmed that displaying symbols such as crucifixes and images in public spaces does not conflict with the secular nature of the Brazilian state.

The plaintiff in the case had argued that removal of the symbols was necessary to protect religious freedom and that the symbols can cause emotional hurt.

A legal brief, known as an amicus brief, submitted by faith-based legal advocacy organisation ADF International, was considered by the court and directly cited as part of the concurring opinions.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes wrote: “It is also worth noting the lengthy statement submitted by ADF INTERNATIONAL… in which it demonstrates the real direction of the international courts‘ statements on the matter, exactly along the lines proposed by the Honorable Rapporteur, that symbols in public spaces are allowed, as long as they do not go beyond the manifestation of the country’s history, culture and tradition.

“By the way, it is important to emphasize the correctness of the thesis of the judgment insofar as it associates the display of such symbols with the ‘objective of manifesting the cultural tradition of Brazilian society’.”

Tomás Henríquez, Director of Advocacy for Latin America & the Caribbean for ADF International, reacted to the decision: “This ruling is a resounding victory for religious freedom in Brazil. ‘Hurt emotions’ are no justification for banning religious symbols.

“We welcome this decision and commend the court for so clearly upholding religious freedom.”

In its expert legal brief, ADF International argued that any principle of “state neutrality” should not amount to hostility towards Christianity. Additionally, it demonstrated the relevance of the social, cultural, and historical context of Christianity in Brazil.

Finally, it reasoned that the law does not protect the “hurt emotions” the plaintiff alleged he experienced due to the presence of religious symbols in public places.

The decision has similarities to a case decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2011. In Lautsi v. Italy, the Grand Chamber ruled that Italy was within its rights under the Convention to allow the display of crosses in classrooms.

In that case, ADF International was given permission to provide legal expertise, submitting arguments on behalf of 33 Members of the European Parliament, representing 11 different nations.

Background

The Brazilian case stemmed from a Brazilian citizen who issued a complaint to the Federal Public Ministry (FPM), Brazil’s Public Prosecutor’s Office, alleging he suffered “hurt emotions” due to the presence of religious symbols in public buildings.

The FPM filed a civil action against the Brazilian Federal Union, requesting that all religious symbols be removed from Federal and State of São Paulo buildings.

The FPM argued it was seeking to promote and protect the religious freedom of all citizens who entered public offices across Brazil and that displaying religious symbols and images in public spaces violated the principle of non-discrimination.

The lawsuit was dismissed by both the trial and appeals court. The FPM filed an extraordinary appeal before the appellate court, which was not admitted.

The FPM then filed an extraordinary appeal before the STF, resulting in the latest ruling that upholds religious freedom. This decision binds all state and federal public entities in Brazil.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

PICTURED: Tomás Henríquez, ADF International’s Director of Advocacy for Latin America & the Caribbean

International body to rule on case of Canadian man who spent time in prison for holding sign outside abortion facility almost 30 years ago

  • Jim Demers was criminally convicted and spent almost two months in prison in 1996-97 for holding a sign quoting the American Convention on Human Rights: “Every person has the right to have his life respected” 
  • With no recourse left in Canada, Demers filed for redress with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2004 and has waited twenty years for justice.  
  • ADF International now representing Demers after 20-year wait: “As we grapple with the spread of censorship across the globe, this case presents an opportunity for a key human rights watchdog to reassert the very rights they were established to defend“ 

WASHINGTON, DC (21 November 2024) Jim Demers, a lifelong resident of British Columbia, Canada, was criminally convicted and spent almost two months in prison in 1996-97 for standing silently on a public sidewalk outside of an abortion facility. He held a sign quoting Article Four of the American Convention on Human Rights: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.”  

Demers was standing in a censorship zone around the facility, which bans expression critical of abortion. 

Demers was criminally convicted for his peaceful expression, for which he was given a suspended sentence of two years, subject to the condition of not returning to the public area surrounding the abortion facility. 

After failing to obtain redress from the Canadian Supreme Court, Demers took his case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2004. The Commission admitted his case in 2006, but almost 20 years later, has yet to rule.  In the face of this egregious failure to deliver timely justice, ADF International assumed representation of Demers.  

“I hope I’m never silent when bad things are happening, and I hope nobody else is silent either when bad things are happening. I have dedicated my life to speaking out in defense of the unborn, and because of this, I was criminally convicted and even spent time in jail,” said Demers.  

“I have waited for almost 20 years for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to rule on my unjust conviction over the exercise of my freedom, and that of all people, to stand up, speak truth, and defend those that cannot defend themselves. I am grateful to ADF International for its efforts to bring this ordeal to an end. I will continue to advocate for the right to life of every person and look forward to the day when I can speak up without fear of criminal prosecution and punishment in Canada.”  

“All human rights are in peril when the fundamental right to free speech is ignored,” stated Tomás Henríquez, lead lawyer on this case for ADF International. “For peacefully expressing his pro-life views on a sidewalk outside of an abortion facility, Jim Demers was convicted as a criminal and forced to spend time behind bars with serious felons. Even if you disagree with Jim’s beliefs, everyone should defend his right to voice them without fear of criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Now is the time for the Inter-American Commission to exercise its authority to deliver justice for Jim.” 

“All human rights are in peril when the fundamental right to free speech is ignored.” 

Demers stood outside of an abortion facility in Vancouver, British Columbia before Christmas of 1996, holding a sign quoting Article Four of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Access to Abortion Services Act of British Columbia, in force to this day, establishes so-called “bubble zones” around abortion facilities, creating a censorship zone that bans free expression. Notably, the law imposes viewpoint discrimination, as it only penalizes expressions that are critical of abortion, but not others.  

Demers stood silently on the sidewalk outside of the main entrance, never engaging verbally or otherwise with any member of the public or of the abortion facility, or impeding entrance to the facility in any way.  

For this peaceful expression, Demers was arrested, placed in jail pending trial for seven weeks, alongside violent criminals, and was ultimately convicted on criminal charges. 

Demers filed a petition against Canada in 2004 with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission agreed to rule on the merits of his case in 2006 as to whether it was lawful to use criminal sanctions against Demers for his peaceful expression. Almost twenty years later, the Commission has yet to decide his case, in what is perhaps the most egregious case of alleged backlog at any international human rights body.   

“ADF International is proud to stand with Jim as he seeks justice in his case at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission has slept on Jim’s case for almost 20 years. We call on the Commission to rule decisively that these actions by Canadian authorities violated Jim’s fundamental right to freedom of speech,” Henríquez continued.  

“Both international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee the fundamental right to freedom of expression. As we grapple with the spread of censorship across the globe, this case presents an opportunity for our human rights watchdogs to reassert the very rights they were established to defend.”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

Barbados debates criminal law carrying 7-year prison sentence for online content causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress”

  • „The government aims to intimidate us into forced silence,” concerned citizens appeal to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

  • Cybercrime Bill before Barbados Senate would impose $70,000 BBD (approximately $35,000 US or £27,000) in fines and 7 years in prison for citizens that “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” for the purpose of causing “annoyance, inconvenience,” “embarrassment, anxiety” or “substantial emotional distress.“ 

ADF International legal counsel Julio Pohl alongside Barbados citizens and presenters at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights hearing, including Donald Leacock, Shaquani Hunte, Timon Howard, and Ferdinand Nicholls 

WASHINGTON, DC (14 November 2024): A cybercrime bill currently being debated in the Barbados Senate threatens to significantly undermine freedom of speech in the country, so testified concerned citizens during a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C. on Monday, 11 November.  

The proposed law would make it a crime to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” or disseminate images or words that are “likely to cause or subject a person to ridicule, contempt, or embarrassment.” The bill lists “causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, embarrassment, insult, injury, humiliation, intimidation, hatred, anxiety or causes substantial emotional distress to that person” as criteria to be found guilty of an offence. 

Citizens convicted of these crimes could be subject to $70,000 BBD (approximately $35,000 US or £27,000) in fines and a 7-year prison sentence.  

Its adoption by the House of Assembly generated national criticism, prompting the bill to be sent to a Joint Select Committee for further review. Rather than improve the bill, the Committee recommended the penalty be increased up to 10 years and $100,000 BBD (approximately $50,000 USD). 

The bill introduces the ambiguous crimes of “malicious communications” and “cyberbullying,” weaponizing the state security apparatus to criminalize peaceful expression in the name of “cybersecurity”. 

At the hearing on the problematic elements in the legislation, Donald Leacock, a citizen of Barbados and social media influencer, stated: “Freedom of expression is blatantly being stripped from us in this draconian cybercrime bill that the government of Barbados is forcing onto the citizens. This is evidenced by the fact that section 20 of the bill seeks to criminalise internet use that is considered to have caused anxiety or emotional distress with potential fines of up to $50,000, prison terms of up to 10 years, or both. Should our citizens be thrown in jail for a decade simply for posting something online that the political elite can claim makes them ‚anxious‘ or ‚emotionally distressed‘?“  

Leacock continued, stating: „The law’s deliberately vague language leaves it open interpretation, and therefore, abuse… the government aims to intimidate us into forced silence. The objections to this bill are evident and widespread.“ 

Julio Pohl, legal counsel for ADF International, stated: “Any law that seeks to criminalize online content that is subjectively deemed annoying, embarrassing, or anxiety-inducing is absurd in a free society. Core to the free interchange of ideas is the ability to voice views in the digital marketplace that may offend someone. The sweeping criminalization of online expression will engender large-scale free speech violations for Barbados.” 

“While the Barbados government should protect its citizens from real issues online such as hacking and incitement to violence, it should not be wielding the state’s authority to police security online to restrict free speech in order to spare people from ‘annoyance’. Article 19 and 20 of the Cybercrime Bill violate the basic human right to freedom of speech, enshrined in international law and the Constitution of Barbados,” added Pohl. 

ADF International is conducting international advocacy, including at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to oppose the adoption of the censorial bill.  

The bill has passed through the House of Assembly and is under consideration in the Senate. It defines criminal conduct in vague, broad, and indeterminate terms, making it a crime to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data” that is subjectively deemed offensive. Such an ambiguous definition of criminal conduct violates international human rights protections for free speech, including the American Convention on Human Rights. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

Algerian pastor convicted of “illegal worship” shares his story, advocates for re-opening churches

  • Christian convert and pastor Youssef Ourahmane shared the story of his arrest, conviction, and court appeals for “illegal worship” this week in Washington, DC, and called for the re-opening of evangelical churches in Algeria.   
  • An Algerian appeals court earlier this year upheld Pastor Youssef’s conviction and prison sentence for the so-called crime of “illegal worship” for leading his church.    
  • ADF International is advocating for his acquittal, supporting the legal defence of the persecuted across the globe.  

WASHINGTON, DC (18 October 2024) Pastor Youssef Ourahmane, a Christian convert and pastor in the Protestant Church of Algeria, has been sentenced to heavy fines and a prison sentence for the so-called crime of “illegal worship” for leading his church.  

This week, Pastor Youssef was in Washington, D.C. to share his story and advocate for religious freedom and the re-opening of evangelical churches forcefully closed in Algeria. In an event hosted by ADF International in Washington, D.C., Pastor Youssef appealed to the audience, saying “We have had a lot of opposition… by 2019 most of the Evangelical churches in our country had been shut down. When the churches were closed, a lot of the Christians felt that something was gone in their Christian faith because the building had been part of their identity.” 

When asked about why he is willing to go to prison for his faith, Pastor Youssef responded „God knows the number of my hairs on my head, and none fall without His will.” He continued, saying “We have to accept God’s will, and God’s sovereignty… I try by my best, by His grace, to be a good testimony to others.”  

In May 2024, the Court of Appeal in Tizi Ouzou, Algeria upheld the conviction of “illegal worship” against Pastor Youssef for leading the Emmanuel Church in Algeria. This was his second appeal in the case.  

Pastor Youssef, who was born into a Muslim home but converted as a student to Christianity, was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 Algerian dinars on 2 July 2023 for his involvement as the leader of his church, although authorities could provide no evidence of a crime. In November 2023, his prison sentence was reduced from 2 years to 1 year. Upholding his conviction in May of this year, the court added an additional 6 months of suspended prison time to his sentence of 1 year imprisonment and fines of 100,000 Algerian dinars.   

Also speaking at the event, Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Advocacy for Global Religious Freedom for ADF International, said “Despite their small numbers, Algeria has systematically been working to prevent the Evangelical community from being able to simply worship together…. Pastor Youssef’s case is one of roughly 50 spurious cases against Christians in the past few years…. His advocacy throughout the years on behalf of the entire evangelical church in Algeria, even in the face of potential imprisonment, is an inspiration.” 

Zorzi continued, saying “We stand with the persecuted Christians around the world, and especially those who are under such dire threat as the Evangelical community in Algeria. The United States and the international community must take a strong stand against the unlawful church closures and unjustified arrests and imprisonments of pastors.” 

ADF International is coordinating with other NGOs to support Pastor Youssef and his right to worship freely with international advocacy and to raise his case with government officials from over 40 countries.   

Video: remarks from Kelsey Zorzi

Background 

Pastor Youssef Ourahmane, who has been leading Christian congregations in Algeria for over 30 years, appealed his conviction for illegal worshipping in his church on 26th March 2024, the date of his 36th wedding anniversary.   

Pastor Youssef is one of the leading figures in the Èglise Protestante d’Algérie (EPA), the Evangelical Protestant group whose 43 churches have been forcibly closed by the Authorities since 2019, leaving only one with its churches open today. Over the past five years, security police in Algeria, with orders from the Ministry of Interior, systematically alleged that the denominations’ church buildings were in violation of various “health and safety” codes. These alleged building code violations, they claimed, justified putting locks over the doors and declaring worship inside the buildings to be illegal. In one case, they physically beat a Pastor in front of his young child because he was peacefully protesting the closure of his church.   

Pastor Youssef has faced baseless criminal prosecutions for his peaceful Christian activities since 2008. He is only the latest person out of 50 Christians to have been convicted by the Courts over the past few years, under the vague offenses of “shaking the faith” of Muslims, illegal worship, or embezzling of tithing donations. The convictions are thought to be a reaction to the large numbers of local Christian converts in the country. “In the 1970s”, Pastor Youssef said at the event, “the government gave out licenses to churches which were largely full of expats. Today, the government is concerned that our churches are almost entirely filled with large numbers of Algerian converts”.   

On 27 March 2024, a different Pastor and four Elders from the church also appealed their three-year prison sentences and fines of 200,000 Algerian dinars. 

Pictured: Pastor Youssef’s church in Algeria

Religious persecution in Algeria 

Algeria is home to nearly 43 million people, with 99% of the population identifying as Sunni Muslim. Christians fall into the 1% of religious minorities. Islam is the official state religion, but Algeria’s constitution recognizes the right of all to worship and speak freely. The Algerian government limits religious freedom and expression through the enforcement of laws, including egregious blasphemy and anti-proselytism laws, which intentionally target and violate the religious freedom rights of Christians and other religious minorities.    

Algeria’s penal and information codes criminalize blasphemy, with punishments including imprisonment for up to five years and fines. The Criminal Code also censors publications by prohibiting content that is “contrary to Islamic morals”. In particular, the government has systematically cracked down on the Evangelical Protestant Church through church closures and raids.   

Violations of the rights of religious minorities are in violation of both international and domestic law. Algeria is a signatory to major human rights treaties, committing it to upholding the rights to freedom of religion and expression.    

Governments and the international community have highlighted the ongoing plight of religious minorities in Algeria. The U.S. Department of State has placed Algeria on its “Special Watch List” since 2021 for its severe violations of religious freedom, and USCIRF advised in its 2024 Annual Report that the country be once again included on the State Department’s “Special Watch List”. In 2021, several U.S. Senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling on him to address the increased persecution of religious minorities in Algeria.   

In addition to Pastor Youssef, ADF International also advocated for the release of Hamid Soudad, a Christian-convert in the Evangelical Church of Algeria, who was finally released from prison following a five-year ordeal. In January 2021, Soudad was arrested, convicted, and sentenced in an expedited trial to five years in prison for allegedly insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad in 2018. He was finally released from prison in 2023 following advocacy from religious freedom leaders from across the globe, including ADF International.    

Pictured: Pastor Youssef

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

Collegiate and Olympic athletes, global human rights leaders call on UN to protect safety and fairness for women in sports

Save girls' sports
  • Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies, U.S. collegiate athlete Lainey Armistead, Alliance Defending Freedom CEO Kristen Waggoner and global leaders appeal to UN to keep women’s sports fair and female-only. 
  • ADF International convenes UN event alongside Paraguay, Cameroon, Morocco and Malaysia to advocate for human rights of female athletes across the globe.  
Save girls' sports

NEW YORK CITY (17 October 2024): At United Nations Headquarters in New York City yesterday, female athletes and international leaders called on the international community to preserve and protect fairness and safety in sports for women and girls.  

Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies, U.S. collegiate athlete Lainey Armistead, and ADF CEO Kristen Waggoner, UN Rapporteur Reem Alsalem, were among those that addressed government and UN officials during an event convened by ADF International as part of the ongoing 79th session of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, 16 October.  

In her address, Armistead, a former West Virginia collegiate athlete represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, shared: “West Virginia has a law that ensures that only biological women can compete in women’s sports. Yet during my time as WVSU, I began to hear stories of women getting sidelined – and even getting hurt – while competing against males in women’s sports. In just the last three years, the one male athlete who has been allowed to compete against girls in West Virginia has already displaced nearly 300 girls. And that’s just one athlete.” Armistead’s lawsuit to defend West Virginia’s protections for women in sports has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

Armistead continued, saying “I’m here today because we’ve all seen what happens when males are allowed to compete on women’s teams… it’s demoralizing and unfair, and just plain wrong.”  

“Females are at a physical disadvantage. This doesn’t mean that we’re worse or better, it just means that we’re biologically different,” said Davies, who competed as a swimmer at three different Olympic games and addressed the gathering virtually. “I don’t know a single person that wants to exclude anybody. However, we do want to see women have fair and safe sport. And we cannot wait until a woman is seriously injured or worse still, killed, to be able to deal with the science and the obvious and the common sense.”  

Video: Sharron Davies‘ virtual remarks

The U.S. and International playing field 

Kristen Waggoner, CEO, president, and general counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom and ADF International, joined the athletes on the panel, testifying to the work being done by the organizations to protect women’s sports: “International law has long recognized equality and non-discrimination – including on the basis of sex – as a fundamental pillar of human rights. Unfortunately, many countries have fallen short of their human rights obligations toward women and girls in sports. We’ve learned the hard way that if female sports aren’t protected, it does grave harm to women and girls.”  

Waggoner continued, saying “Our hope at ADF is that the international community will turn its attention to this critical issue – ensuring women and girls can pursue sporting opportunities should they desire AND protecting female athletes from harm and indignity. Our plea to the world is to learn from the mistakes that have been made – and that are now being corrected – so that your daughters can walk into a future of fair and safe sports.” 

In addition to advocacy in the international community by ADF International, Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Lainey Armistead and other female athletes who are looking to protect women and girls from having to compete against males. The Alliance Defending Freedom is also challenging the Biden-Harris Administration’s rewrite of Title IX protections for women and girls.  

Pictured: Lainey Armistead & Kristen Waggoner

Global protections for women and girls 

Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, joined the calls to protect female-only sports at the event, remarking that,“Women and girls in sport are experiencing new forms of discrimination based on their sex. One glaring example is the opening the female category of sports to males, further undermining their access to equal opportunities and the right to participate in safety, dignity and fairness. In fact, I do not hesitate to say that the failure to protect the female category is one of the most egregious forms of violence against women and girls as the essence of being ‘female’ is willfully pushed aside and ignored resulting in distress, pain, humiliation, frustration, and anger at the loss of dignity and sheer injustice confronted.”  

In December 2023, Alsalem publicly warned the Biden Administration that altering the definition of women in “Title IX” would result in “loss of privacy, an increased risk of physical injury, heightened exposure to sexual harassment and voyeurism, as well as a more frequent and accumulated psychological distress due to the loss of privacy and fair and equal sporting and academic opportunities.”    

Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy for ADF International, said: 

“Female sports and spaces belong to women and girls. Under international law, States have an obligation to prohibit and prevent discrimination on the basis of sex. The voices of women and girls whose achievements have been directly affected by male participation in female sports categories can no longer be ignored. It is past time for States and sports bodies across the globe to follow the science and uphold safety and fairness in female sports.” 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

𝕏 back online in Brazil after a 39-day blockade

  • Justice Alexandre De Moraes lifts ban on social media platform following conclusion of national elections
  • Brazilians prevented from engaging in online conversations during election period
  • ADF International, who have filed petition before Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, highlight a “breach of human rights“

Brasília (8 October 2024) – After a 39-day blockade, social media platform „𝕏“ is back online in Brazil.

Justice Alexandre De Moraes, who controversially banned the platform in August, has lifted the blockade following the conclusion of national elections.

The stated objection of the ban was to prevent „misinformation“ and „hate speech“ ahead of the election. Free speech advocates at ADF International described the censorship of Brazilians as „a breach of human rights“.

ADF International has filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in relation to the social media ban, representing five Brazilian legislators who were obstructed from communicating with their audience of millions ahead of a national election.

The legislators – Senator Eduardo Girao & Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques & Ricardo Salles – claim severe violations of their free speech rights from persistent state censorship, dating back to 2019, reaching a head with the 𝕏 ban.

In September, over 100 global free speech advocates – including UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, journalist Michael Shellenberger, five US Attorneys General and Senior UK, US, European and Latin American politicians and professors united in an open letter to call for free speech to be restored in Brazil.

Reacting to the end of the 39-day blockade, Tomas Henriquez, ADF International's Director of Advocacy for Latin America said:

„That people can freely exchange ideas is a good thing. In that sense, that X is back online in Brazil is good, though let’s not forget that de Moraes’s demands were and remain unlawful.

„De Moraes is only now agreeing to lift the blockade, after the elections are over. Censorship has been a persistent and escalating problem in Brazil since 2019. We will continue to make the case that the actions of De Moraes and the greater climate of censorship are unacceptable, until the day that freedom of expression and information are once again secured for all in Brazil.“

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

PICTURED: Tomas Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Advocacy, Latin America

Akkreditierung für Pro-Life Hochschulgruppe nach jahrelanger Diskriminierung in Sicht: Uni Regensburg gibt rechtswidrige Position auf 

  • ProLifeEurope Hochschulgruppe wurde über Jahre hinweg von der Universität Regensburg diskriminiert und nicht zugelassen.
  • Nach einer Klage hat die Uni einen Vergleich vorgeschlagen, der einem Anerkenntnis des Anspruchs der Gruppe gleichkommt: Die Gruppe wird nun akkreditiert.
  • ADF International stützte die rechtlichen Bemühungen der jungen Pro-Life Gruppe. In Kürze soll die Einigung durch das Gericht bestätigt werden. 

Regensburg (01. Oktober 2024) – An der Universität Regensburg wurde eine neue Pro-Life Hochschulgruppe über mehrere Jahre lang diskriminiert. Die Hochschule verweigerte ihr die Akkreditierung. Ohne Akkreditierung ist keine aktive Teilnahme am Hochschulleben möglich. Auftritte u.a. beim Erstsemestertag wurden der Gruppe verwehrt, pro-life Äußerungen damit faktisch zensiert. Die Gruppe klagte Anfang 2024 gegen die Universität. Jetzt zeichnet sich – kurz vor Semesterbeginn – eine Lösung ab: Die Universität nimmt das rechtswidrige Verbot zurück und bietet der Gruppe die Akkreditierung an.  

“Eine Hochschule ist ein Ort für Diskurs, nicht für Zensur. Es ist nicht hinnehmbar, dass ausgerechnet die lebensfreundliche und vom Grundgesetz geschützte Botschaft des Lebensschutzes vom Uni-Campus verbannt werden soll."

- Dr. Felix Böllmann, deutscher Rechtsanwalt und Leiter der Europäischen Rechtsabteilung bei ADF International

Seit 2021 bemühten sich die in der Gruppe aktiven Studenten der Universität um eine Anerkennung im dafür vorgesehenen Verfahren. Die Anträge wurden mehrmals ohne spezifische Begründung zurückgewiesen und die Ziele der Lebensschützer als „allgemein schädlich“ beschrieben. Der Fall, der schließlich vor Gericht ging, ist ein Beispiel für die zunehmende Zensur bestimmter Weltanschauungen an Universitäten.  

„Eine Hochschule ist ein Ort für Diskurs, nicht für Zensur. Es ist nicht hinnehmbar, dass ausgerechnet die lebensfreundliche und vom Grundgesetz geschützte Botschaft des Lebensschutzes vom Uni-Campus verbannt werden soll. Wir sind hoffnungsvoll, dass die Pro-Life Gruppe jetzt bald akkreditiert wird und mit den Studenten in Dialog treten kann. Die langjährige juristische Arbeit hat sich ausgezahlt“, sagte Dr. Felix Böllmann, deutscher Rechtsanwalt und Leiter der Europäischen Rechtsabteilung bei der Menschenrechtsorganisation ADF International.  

Diskriminiert, zensiert, gecancelt 

Sie sehen gerade einen Platzhalterinhalt von YouTube. Um auf den eigentlichen Inhalt zuzugreifen, klicken Sie auf die Schaltfläche unten. Bitte beachten Sie, dass dabei Daten an Drittanbieter weitergegeben werden.

Mehr Informationen
Inhalt entsperren Erforderlichen Service akzeptieren und Inhalte entsperren

 

Nach dem ersten Antrag 2021, der abgelehnt wurde, bemühte sich die Gruppe in Regensburg im Oktober 2022 wiederum um eine Akkreditierung. Diese ist notwendig, damit die Pro-Life Studenten am Campus wie viele andere studentische Gruppen aktiv sein können.  

Jeder Student zahlt einen Semesterbeitrag, der die Infrastruktur für Hochschulgruppen finanziert. „Ohne Akkreditierung dürfen wir an der Universität eigentlich nichts machen. Wir kriegen keine Räume gestellt, wir dürfen keine Veranstaltungen bewerben, keine Plakate aufhängen, keine Flyer verteilen und keine Werbung für unsere Gruppe machen. Gleichzeitig zahlen wir mit unseren Semesterbeiträgen auch eine zugelassene Hochschulgruppe, die ‘Abtreibungen fördern’ möchte“, meint Clara, die Vorsitzende der ProLife Europe Gruppe. 

Klage gegen die Universität Regensburg 

Vertreten von Rechtsanwalt Prof. Dr. Torsten Schmidt (Leisnig) und mit Unterstützung von ADF International, klagte die Hochschulgruppe im Januar 2024 gegen die Universität vor dem Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg (AZ: RO 3 K 24.125). Laut Klageschrift sollte die Universität verpflichtet werden, „ProLife Regensburg als Hochschulgruppe zu akkreditieren“.  

„Die gezielte Ausgrenzung der Pro-Life Gruppen ist klar rechtswidrig. Lebensschutz ist ein Staatsziel und auch die studentische Zivilgesellschaft spielt dabei eine Rolle“, fügte Dr. Felix Böllmann hinzu.  

„Die Stimme der Stillen darf nicht zum Schweigen gebracht werden. Das Engagement der Gruppe, die sich für die Schwächsten in der Gesellschaft einsetzen wollen, ist richtig und wichtig. Lebensschutz darf nicht kriminalisiert und verboten werden“, sagte Ludwig Brühl, Sprecher von ADF International.   

Wird das rechtswidrige Verbot zurückgenommen? 

Im Sommer 2024 kristallisiert sich eine mögliche Lösung heraus. Als Reaktion auf die Klage bietet die Universität Regensburg der Hochschulgruppe einen Vergleich an und sagt die Akkreditierung der Lebensschützer zu. Kurz vor dem neuen Semesterbeginn könnten die Studenten dann ihre Arbeit aufnehmen. Sollte der Vergleich zustande kommen, werden wir darüber informieren.  

„Wir hoffen, dass wir unseren Einsatz für das Leben bald aufnehmen können.  Allerdings bin ich entsetzt, dass wir uns mehrere Jahre um ein Grundrecht bemühen mussten, dass uns unzweifelhaft zusteht. Wenn unser Motto ‘A little less judgement, a little more truth’ von einem Campus verbannt wird, welche Botschaft oder Überzeugung wird die nächste sein, die der Zensur zum Opfer fällt?“ fragt Clara von ProLife Regensburg. 

Neben Regensburg verweigerte auch die Universität Heidelberg einer studentischen Lebensschutzgruppe die Zulassung. ADF International unterstützt die Gruppe und verteidigt die akademische Freiheit sowie die freie Meinungsäußerung. Bereits im Juli 2023 reichte die Heidelberger Gruppe Klage gegen die Diskriminierung von Pro-Life Gruppen ein. Eine Entscheidung ist in diesem Fall noch nicht absehbar.  

„Der Fall zeigt deutlich, welche Rolle Zensur an Universitäten spielt. Hoffentlich stärkt der rechtliche Vergleich die Meinungsfreiheit für Studenten in ganz Deutschland“, so Dr. Felix Böllmann abschließend. 

Bilder zur freien Verfügung in Verbindung mit der PR. (v.l.n.r.: Leitung der Hochschulgruppe, Leiterin Clara, Dr. Felix Böllmann)

Swiss Supreme Court suspends threat of criminal charges for parents who refuse to enable daughter’s “transition”, following appeal filing 

  • In July, Geneva’s highest court demanded parents, under threat of criminal charges, enable child’s legal “sex change” by handing over her identity documents 
  • Swiss Supreme Court has “frozen” threat of criminal charges following parents filing appeal in court last week, pending outcome of case 
  • ADF International backs parents’ legal challenge, which can be supported HERE

Basel (25 September 2024) – The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has suspended the threat of criminal charges against parents separated from their daughter for refusing to enable her gender “transition”.  

The decision was made following the parents filing an appeal at the court (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht) last week. The parents, with the legal support of ADF International, are appealing a ruling ordering them to facilitate their 16-year-old teenager’s legal “sex change” by handing over her identity documents.  

“As a parent you want to protect your children. The state should not have the power to criminalise loving parents who want the best for their child."

- Father

The parents, whose identity is being kept anonymous, were separated from their daughter over a year ago by court order after they objected to their child’s “transition”, in a case that has garnered  worldwide attention. A video of the parents explaining their harrowing story has been viewed over 66 million times.  

Speaking about the appeal, the father said: “Our hope lies now with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

“As a parent you want to protect your children. The state should not have the power to criminalise loving parents who want the best for their child.” 

The parents are appealing a July ruling from the highest court in the canton of Geneva, the Court of Justice.  

Before the intervention of the Supreme Court, the ruling meant the parents could have been criminally charged if they did not hand over their daughter’s identity documents for her recorded sex to be changed from female to male in the civil registry records, in a legal “sex change”. 

A legal “sex change” could lead the daughter down the path of harmful physical interventions of puberty blockers, “cross-sex” hormone drugs, and, ultimately, body-altering surgeries. 

Case background 

The case centres on parents who responded to the mental health struggles of their daughter, who expressed “gender confusion”, with care and support, including obtaining mental health care for her.   

Concerned their daughter was being pushed to make hasty and potentially irreversible decisions, the parents declined puberty blockers and explicitly rejected her school’s attempt to “socially transition” her.  

The school disregarded the parents’ wishes, “socially transitioned” the daughter and liaised with the state child welfare agency Service de Protection des Mineurs (SPMI), in a situation which led to a court ordering that the daughter be separated from her parents. 

The daughter now lives in a government shelter and the parents’ access to her is regulated by the state. 

Billboard Chris, a father of two who campaigns to defend children from gender ideology, today mentioned this case in a speech he gave at the UN, where he was hosted by ADF International, about the harms of gender ideology on children. 

Further case details can be found here. 

Appeal filed at Supreme Court 

In the appeal filed with the support of ADF International, the parents argue their daughter is not able to discern the implications of a so-called “sex change” under the law, which would make her vulnerable to an array of dangerous physical interventions, including puberty blockers and surgeries.  

Furthermore, they argue the long-term health consequences of “transitioning” cannot be fully assessed by a teenager, especially considering the outside influences, including from her school, to which she continues to be subjected. 

According to the parents, no psychiatrist or other medical professional has provided a conclusive assessment of their daughter’s ability to understand the consequences of her decisions, which is a fundamental requirement under the law.  

Additionally, they highlight that the daughter’s state-appointed lawyer failed to submit any medical certification regarding her capacity to discern the implications of her decision.  

The parents believe their daughter’s well-being, both mentally and physically, is in danger as she continues to reside in the government youth shelter. 

“Children who experience discomfort with their biological sex deserve to be treated with dignity and need compassionate mental health care, which these parents have gone to great lengths to provide. 

“Not only have these parents not had their concerns addressed by the court, but they have also endured a severe violation of their rights as loving parents, with the court transferring authority over their daughter’s medical care from them to the state, in addition to ordering that she reside in a government shelter. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to correct this grave injustice,” commented Dr Felix Boellmann, lead lawyer on the case for ADF International. 

The court is expected to take up to six months to reach a decision.  

Lower court judgment 

The decision in July by the Court of Justice confirmed a lower court’s ruling that the parents must hand over documents to enable their daughter’s “sex change” under the law.  

The Court of Justice based its ruling on Article 30b of the Swiss Code Civil, which does not require parental consent when a child capable of discernment is over 16 years of age.  

During the trial, the state child welfare agency failed in its duty to raise concerns about the child’s decision-making capacity.   

The court held a legal “sex change” could be considered in isolation from other steps to physically “transition”. However, the recent Cass Review in the UK demonstrated there is a clear path from “social transition” to irreversible medical interventions.  

Protecting children requires respecting families  

The parents’ legal team asserts that the ability to withhold the personal documents required for the daughter’s legal “sex change” is crucial to protect her from further harm posed by so-called “gender affirmative treatment”.  

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court is the last domestic recourse for the parents.  

Dr. Boellmann stated: “Safeguarding children from harmful agendas requires respect for the rights of parents. No child should be separated from their loving parents by the state. It is imperative that the Court recognizes, clearly and decisively, that the parents are the primary decisionmakers when it comes to the best interest of the child.  

“Now the court needs to step in to defend the wellbeing of this child, and in so doing, all other children in Switzerland. The Court must abide by Switzerland’s international human rights obligations to protect both the child and parental rights.” 

Read more about the background of the case here.  

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only