Recognising LGBTQ community rights as human rights: a case for mandatory legalprotection of equality rights under international law.

INTRODUCTION 

The term “LGBTQ+” is an umbrella concept embracing individuals of diverse sexual  orientations and gender identities, including those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual,  transgender, queer, or questioning, with the plus sign representing other identities beyond these  categories.1Human rights are universal norms that aspire to protect all individuals from severe  political, legal, and social abuses.2 They include rights such as the right to freedom of religion,  the right to a fair trial, the right against torture, and the right to education.3The promulgation  of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 made a difference in  recognising these principles globally, shaping how individuals relate to their states and to one  another.4 

Despite growing social recognition of the LGBTQ+ community, international law still lacks  obligatory, enforceable mechanisms to guarantee equal protection for sexual and gender  minorities. Many states continue to criminalise or neglect to safeguard LGBTQ+ individuals,  leaving their basic human rights vulnerable to discrimination and violence. Therefore, this  article argues that international law must evolve to recognise LGBTQ+ equality and non discrimination as binding human rights obligations, requiring all states to enact and enforce  laws that protect this community from discrimination and abuse. 

MAIN BODY 

Evolution of LGBTQ+ Rights in International Law 

From a historical perspective, the evolution of LGBTQ+ rights has shifted from severe  criminalisation to gradual recognition and limited protection. This criminalisation can be traced  back to colonial-era laws, such as England’s Buggery Act , which imposed the death penalty for same-sex acts.5 These laws influenced sodomy statutes that were spread across the British  Empire.6This legal legacy persisted for centuries, as exemplified by India’s Section 377 and  similar laws in Caribbean and African countries that continued to criminalise consensual same sex conduct into the 21st century.7 

Recent cases of decriminalisation, such as Motshidiemang v Attorney General of Botswana  and decisions from the High Court of Barbados, represent significant domestic milestones in  recognising the unconstitutionality of colonial-era offenses.8 Regionally, the Inter-American  Commission on Human Rights affirmed in Henry and Edwards v Jamaica that the  criminalisation of same-sex intimacy violates international human rights obligations.9 Additionally, the Kenyan Supreme Court upheld the rights of LGBTQ+ groups to associate,  even though national laws still prohibit same-sex acts.10 

These rulings collectively indicate a gradual shift from punishment to recognition and limited  protection for LGBTQ+ rights, primarily driven by domestic courts and regional human rights  mechanisms. However, at the international level, recognition remains mostly symbolic and  non-binding. This is evident in soft law instruments, such as UN Human Rights Council  resolutions and the Yogyakarta Principles, which articulate LGBTQ+ rights but do not have  enforcement mechanisms.11 Therefore, while there has been significant progress at national and regional levels, the absence of a binding global treaty underscores the ongoing gap between  recognition and enforceable protection for LGBTQ+ individuals. 

Gaps and Challenges in Current International Law 

A recent incident in the United States highlights the vulnerability of LGBTQ+ rights when they  clash with other protected rights. In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favour of Christian  and Muslim parents in Maryland who opposed their children being exposed to LGBTQ+- inclusive content in public education. The Court emphasised religious freedom over inclusivity,  indicating that even well-established legal frameworks may prioritise rights of equality when  they lack mandatory international commitments. 

1. Mahmoud v Taylor Case Summary 

From 2022 to 2023, the Montgomery County Board of Education incorporated various  “LGBTQ+-inclusive” books into the school curriculum to reflect the diverse family structures  of the community. Initially, parents were allowed to opt-out their children out of these lessons,  but after receiving an increasing number of opt-out requests, the board rescinded this policy,  citing concerns about social stigma and isolation for students represented by the books. 

In response, parents filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, arguing that the no-opt-out policy  violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, referencing the Wisconsin  v. Yoder case. The court denied their request for a preliminary injunction and upheld the board’s  policy. The plaintiffs, who are Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox families,  appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected their  request. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the parents, mandating that  Montgomery County’s public schools must allow elementary students to opt out of classes  where LGBTQ+-themed books are read. 

This case highlights the global issue of LGBTQ+ rights, emphasising that without a binding  legal framework affirming LGBTQ+ equality as a fundamental human right, domestic courts  may be influenced by cultural or religious biases. Moreover, the National Women’s Law Center  argues that allowing parents to opt out of LGBTQ+ content threatens the establishment of safe and inclusive schools for all students.12By implying that LGBTQ+ families are optional or  controversial, such rulings can foster stigma and isolation.13 

A pressing issue arises in South Africa, where progressive constitutional rights clash with  systemic violence. The tragic murder case of S v Mokoena in Sebokeng underscores the  fragility of protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, despite the country’s legal recognition of  same-sex marriage and constitutional safeguards against discrimination based on sexual  orientation. Bonang Gaelae, perceived as a lesbian, was brutally murdered, highlighting the  ongoing danger faced by the LGBTQ+ community.14 Gaelae’s fiancé, Chippa Mohanoe, has  been steadfast in his pursuit of justice, reflecting the widespread fear and frustration over the  government’s failure to act.15 

Lawyers for Human Rights argues that since the dawn of democracy, LGBTQ+ individuals in  South Africa have faced brutal violence, including rape and murder, yet countless hate crime  victims remain unrecognised.16 The absence of dedicated hate crime legislation exacerbates  this crisis.17 Kim Harrisberg further argues that Activist groups Queer Lives Matter and Vaal  LGBTI have denounced these killings as nothing short of a “war on queerness,” calling on the  government to finally pass the long-awaited Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and  Hate Speech Bill.18 

The persistence of such violence starkly reveals the inadequacy of national frameworks alone  and highlights an urgent need for binding international legal obligations to ensure LGBTQ+  equality rights. The case of Bonang exemplifies the chasm between legal protections and the  lived realities of LGBTQ+ individuals, a gap that international law must bridge through enforceable equality measures and accountability mechanisms. These cases collectively  illustrate a troubling global inconsistency that, without international norms that carry real  consequences, courts and states can choose to limit or ignore LGBTQ+ rights, rendering  equality a mere illusion rather than a guaranteed reality. It’s time for the international  community to act decisively and uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals, regardless of  their sexual orientation. 

The Case for Mandatory Legal Protection. 

The inconsistency of national responses to LGBTQ+ equality and non-discrimination highlights a significant flaw within the current international human rights framework. While  fundamental principles of universality, dignity, and equality are articulated in key global  instruments, the UDHR and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),  their application to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity is largely interpretive rather  than codified. This selective enforcement undermines the very essence of human rights, which  asserts that every individual deserves equal protection under the law, without exception.19 

Recent jurisprudence in Africa shows an increasing judicial agreement that discrimination  based on sexual orientation infringes upon fundamental human rights principles of equality and  dignity. In the case of Non-Governmental Organisations Co-Ordination Board v. Eric Gitari &  5 others, the Court ruled that the right to freedom of association applies to LGBTQ+  individuals, emphasising that constitutional equality provisions should be interpreted  inclusively, even when sexual orientation is not explicitly mentioned.20 

Uniformly, in the case of Dausab v The Minister of Justice, the Court declared colonial-era  sodomy laws unconstitutional, and it also held that enforcing private moral beliefs cannot be  considered a valid governmental purpose.21 Both this decision and others reinforce the idea that  discrimination based on sexual orientation is incompatible with the principles of dignity and  equality. These principles are grounded in the UDHR and ICCPR, thus supporting the  development of a customary international norm against such discrimination. 

However, recognition without enforceability results in a vulnerable system of protection. South  Africa, which is often praised for incorporating sexual orientation into its constitution, still  grapples with widespread anti-LGBTQ+ violence. The murder of Bonang Gaelae, along with  at least five other hate-crime killings during that time, highlights the disparity between  constitutional ideals and the realities people face.22 

In a powerful 2021 Joint Statement, over twenty South African LGBTIQ+ organisations united  to condemn the alarming rise in hate-crime murders, they highlighted the insincerity of  government responses, which only amount to “lip service,” and called for the enactment of the  Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill.23 This compelling plea  underscores the deep frustration within civil society that, despite having strong legal  frameworks for equality, these provisions remain ineffective without meaningful enforcement  and accountability under international law. 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor illustrates how religious freedom can be  prioritised over access to LGBTQ+-inclusive materials in public schools. This case underscores  that equality rights can be vulnerable, even in jurisdictions with established constitutional  protections. It highlights the lack of a consistent, binding global standard that can effectively  reconcile competing rights without placing equality at a disadvantage. 

Together, these cases reveal both progress and danger. From the juridical advancements in  Kenya and Namibia to the ongoing violence in South Africa and the judicial setbacks in the  United States, a clear pattern emerges, equality and dignity cannot depend solely on domestic  goodwill. Without codified, binding international norms that recognise non-discrimination  based on sexual orientation as a fundamental or customary rule, the protection of human rights  will remain inconsistent and vulnerable. 

Comparative Insights 

The global landscape of LGBTQ+ rights shows significant differences between progressive  and restrictive governments.24 Some countries have established equality through constitutional,  legislative, and judicial measures, while others continue to implement punitive laws that criminalise same-sex relationships and suppress advocacy efforts. These disparities highlight a  persistent global inequality, emphasizing the need for binding international protections for  LGBTQ+ rights. 

1. Progressive States: Expanding Rights and Recognition 

In several countries, courts have made strides to protect LGBTQ+ rights, as seen in the Kenyan  Supreme Court’s ruling in Non-Governmental Organisations Co-Ordination Board v Eric  Gitari. The Court held that LGBTQ+ individuals have constitutional rights to freedom of  association and protection from discrimination, even though sexual orientation is not expressly  included in the Constitution.25 Despite this progress, Kenya still faces challenges, including the  criminalisation of same-sex relations under the Penal Code and the introduction of the Family  Protection Bill in 2024, which aims to criminalize homosexuality further.26 This situation  underscores the tension between judicial advancement and legislative restrictions in Kenya. 

In other countries, progress has been seen as more consistent. For example, Thailand’s  Marriage Equality Act legalised same-sex marriage, making it the first Southeast Asian nation  to do so.27 Similarly, South Africa and Canada illustrate how strong constitutional and  legislative protections can establish equality. South Africa’s Constitutional Court  decriminalized same-sex relations in the case National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality  v Minister of Justice and later recognised marriage equality in Minister of Home Affairs v.  Fourie.28 Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms also enshrines non-discrimination and  equal protection.29 These examples demonstrate that a synergy between judicial and legislative  systems fosters lasting equality. In contrast, where such harmony is lacking, like in Kenya,  progress remains uncertain and susceptible to political regression. 

2. Restrictive Regimes: Criminalisation and Human Rights Violations 

In contrast, several states have laws that criminalise same-sex relations, perpetuating inequality  and legitimizing persecution. For example, Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act reintroduced  severe penalties, including life imprisonment for consensual same-sex conduct.30 This law also  targets advocacy, making it a crime to “promote homosexuality,” which effectively silences  human rights defenders and civil society organisations.31 Such a legal environment fosters  widespread discrimination, arbitrary arrests, and violence, leading to state-sanctioned  violations of international human rights norms. 

Similarly, Mali’s Penal Code criminalises same-sex relations, creating a culture of fear and  exclusion.32 These laws contradict the principles of equality and dignity enshrined in the  UDHR and ICCPR. They illustrate how national legislation can undermine regional and global  human rights commitments. The persistence of these punitive regimes obstructs access to  justice, public health, and equal participation in civic life. 

3. Comparative Lessons and Global Implications 

This comparative analysis reveals that legal recognition and judicial safeguards lead to  significant advances in equality, while criminalization and lax enforcement lead to increased  violations. Countries like South Africa, Canada, Kenya, and Thailand, which possess  constitutional protections and independent judicial systems, demonstrate that effective legal  frameworks can reduce prejudice and promote equality. In contrast, nations such as Uganda  and Mali, with laws influenced by moral or colonial legacies, reveal how such regulations can  perpetuate exclusion and violence. These global differences highlight the pressing need for  mandatory international legal protections that go beyond national boundaries. Without binding  global standards, the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights remains inconsistent and susceptible to  setbacks driven by political or cultural factors. While strong constitutional and judicial systems  are beneficial, the evidence suggests that achieving universal protection requires a united  international commitment to human dignity and equality for all. 

Conclusion 

The comparative analysis highlights a distinct reality, while some states have made  commendable strides in advancing LGBTQ+ equality through judicial and legislative reforms,  many others continue to enforce laws that criminalise LGBTQ+ identities and fail to uphold  basic protections. This disparity between progressive and repressive regimes underscores a  vital truth, LGBTQ+ rights are fundamentally human rights. The principles of equality, dignity,  and freedom from discrimination are universal and should not be subject to the whims of  national policies or cultural attitudes.  

While domestic initiatives are crucial, they fall short in the absence of global accountability.  To attain genuine equality, the international community must move beyond mere symbolic  actions and establish mandatory, binding legal frameworks that ensure dignity, security, and  justice for every individual, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Let us  unite in this critical endeavour to hold all nations accountable and uphold the rights that belong  to everyone, everywhere. 

References / Bibliography 

Books 

1. Global Citizenship Commission, Human Rights and a Global Ethic, in Gordon Brown  (ed), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century: A Living  Document in a Changing World, vol. 2, 1st edn (Open Book Publishers 2016) 105–08.  JSTOR accessed 21 October 2025. 
2. Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites (eds), Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and  Gender Identity in the Commonwealth (University of London Press 2013) 83–124.  JSTOR accessed 21 October 2025. 

Case Laws 

1. Motshidiemang v Attorney General of Botswana, Court of Appeal of the Republic of  Botswana, Appeal No CACGB-157-19 (2021). 
2. René Holder-McClean-Ramirez et al v Attorney General of Barbados, No CV 0044 of  2020 (Supreme Court of Barbados, 12 December 2022; published 25 May 2023).
3. Gareth Henry and Simone Carline Edwards v Jamaica, Inter-American Commission  on Human Rights, Report No 400/20, Case 13.637 (31 December 2020)  OEA/Ser.L/V/II Doc.418. OAS accessed 21 October 2025. 
4. Board v Eric Gitari and 5 Others, Petition No 16 of 2019 (Supreme Court of Kenya). 
5. NGOs Co-ordination Board v Eric Gitari and Others, Petition No 16 of 2019  (Supreme Court of Kenya, 22 March 2019). 
6. Eric Gitari v NGO Co-ordination Board and Others [2023] Petition No 16 of 2019  (Supreme Court of Kenya, 24 February 2023). 
7. Dausab v Minister of Justice (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2022/00279) [2024]  NAHCMD 331 (High Court of Namibia, 21 June 2024). 
8. S v Mokoena (CC27/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 504 (22 June 2022). 9. National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home  
9. Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another (CCT 60/04) [2005]  ZACC 19. 

Journals 

1. Christopher R Leslie, ‘Creating Criminals: The Injuries Inflicted by “Unenforced”  Sodomy Laws’ (2000) 35 Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 103. 
2. Phillip Ayoub and Kristina Stoeckl, ‘The Global Resistance to LGBTIQ Rights’  (2024) 35(1) Journal of Democracy 59–73. 
3. ‘Pushing Back: Civil Society Strategies to Address Punitive Anti-LGBTQI Laws in  Uganda, Ghana, and Kenya’ (2024) 26(2) Health and Human Rights Journal 61–67.  PMC accessed 23 October 2025. 
4. Ella J J Weggen, The Yogyakarta Principles Soft Law? – Sexual Orientation and  Gender Identity in International Human Rights Law (Master’s thesis, University of  Amsterdam, December 2009). Yogyakarta Principles accessed 21 October 2025. 

News Reports

1. Kim Harrisberg, ‘Fear Breeds Bravery as LGBT+ South Africans Resist “War on  Queerness”’ The African Mirror (13 May 2021). The African Mirror accessed 22  October 2025. 
2. Lawyers for Human Rights, ‘JOINT STATEMENT Hate Crime Murders – LGBTIQ+  People Say More Must Be Done’ (22 April 2021). LHR accessed 23 October 2025. 

Official Websites 

1. Annie E. Casey Foundation, ‘LGBTQ+ Definitions, Terms and Concepts’ (25 April  2023). AECF accessed 21 October 2025. 
2. James Nickel and Adam Etinson, ‘Human Rights’ in Edward N Zalta and Uri  Nodelman (eds), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition).  Stanford Encyclopedia accessed 21 October 2025. 
3. National Women’s Law Center, ‘The Devastating Impacts of Mahmoud v Taylor on  Inclusive Education, From An Impacted Student’s Perspective’ (4 August 2025).  NWLC accessed 22 October 2025. 

Statutes 

1. Buggery Act 1533 (25 Hen 8 c 6). 
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217  A(III), art 7. 
3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966,  entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171, art 26. 
4. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 9(3). 
5. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act 1982, being  Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK) 1982, c 11. 
6. Uganda, Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023, Act No 6 of 2023 (assented to 26 May 2023,  commenced 30 May 2023). ULII accessed 24 October 2025. 
7. Thailand, Civil and Commercial Code Amendment Act (No 24) B.E. 2567 (2024),  commonly known as the Marriage Equality Act (assented to 12 August 2024,  commenced 23 January 2025). 
8. Mali, Penal Code 2024, art 325-2 (adopted October 2024, entered into force 13  December 2024). Human Dignity Trust accessed 24 October 2025.
9. Kenya, Family Protection Bill 2023 (draft legislation, sponsored by Hon. Peter  Kaluma, Member of Parliament, 2023).

1 Annie E. Casey Foundation, ‘LGBTQ+ Definitions, Terms and Concepts’ (25 April 2023)  https://www.aecf.org/blog/lgbtq-definitions accessed 21 October 2025 

2James Nickel and Adam Etinson, ‘Human Rights’ in Edward N Zalta and Uri Nodelman (eds), The  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition)   https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/rights-human/ accessed 21 October 2025

3Ibid 

4 Global Citizenship Commission. “Human Rights and a Global Ethic.” The Universal Declaration of  Human Rights in the 21st Century: A Living Document in a Changing World, edited by Gordon Brown, 1st  ed., vol. 2, Open Book Publishers, 2016, pp. 105–08. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bpmb7v.14  Accessed 21 Oct. 2025.

5 Buggery Act 1533 (25 Hen 8 c 6) 

6 Christopher R Leslie, ‘Creating Criminals: The Injuries Inflicted by “Unenforced” Sodomy Laws’ (2000) 35  Harv CR–CLL Rev 103 

7 Human Rights Watch, ‘This Alien Legacy: The Origins of “Sodomy” Laws in British Colonialism’ in  Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites (eds), Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the  Commonwealth (University of London Press 2013) 83–124 http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv512st2.7 accessed 21 October 202 

8 Motshidiemang v Attorney General of Botswana, Court of Appeal of the Republic of Botswana, Appeal  No CACGB-157-19 (2021) ; René Holder-McClean-Ramirez et al v Attorney General of Barbados, No CV  0044 of 2020 (Supreme Court of Barbados, 12 December 2022; published 25 May 2023) 

9Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No 400/20, Case 13.637, Gareth Henry and  Simone Carline Edwards v Jamaica (31 December 2020) OEA/Ser.L/V/II Doc.418  https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2020/JM_13.637_EN.PDF accessed 21 October 2025 

10 Board v Eric Gitari and 5 Others, Petition No 16 of 2019 (Supreme Court of Kenya) 

11 Ella J J Weggen, ‘The Yogyakarta Principles Soft Law? – Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in  International Human Rights Law’ (Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam, December 2009)  https://yogyakartaprinciples.org/wp content/uploads/2016/10/Thesis_Weggen_Yogyakarta_Principles_Soft_Law.pdf accessed 21 October  2025

12 National Women’s Law Center, ‘The Devastating Impacts of Mahmoud v Taylor on Inclusive Education,  From An Impacted Student’s Perspective’ (4 Aug 2025) https://nwlc.org/the-devastating-impacts-of mahmoud-v-taylor-on-inclusive-education-from-an-impacted-students-perspective/ accessed 22  October 2025 

13 Ibid 

14 S v Mokoena (CC27/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 504 (22 June 2022) 

15 Kim Harrisberg, ‘Fear Breeds Bravery as LGBT+ South Africans Resist “War on Queerness”’ The African  Mirror (13 May 2021) https://theafricanmirror.africa/lgbtqia/lgbt/fear-breeds-bravery-as-lgbt-south africans-resist-war-on-queerness/ accessed 22 October 2025 

16 Lawyers for Human Rights, ‘JOINT STATEMENT Hate Crime Murders – LGBTIQ+ People Say More Must Be  Done’ (22 April 2021) https://www.lhr.org.za/lhr-news/joint-statement-hate-crime-murders-lgbtiq people-say-more-must-be-done/ accessed 22 October 2025 

17 Ibid 

18 Kim Harrisberg, ‘Fear Breeds Bravery as LGBT+ South Africans Resist “War on Queerness”’ The African  Mirror (13 May 2021) https://theafricanmirror.africa/lgbtqia/lgbt/fear-breeds-bravery-as-lgbt-south africans-resist-war-on-queerness/ accessed 22 October 2025

19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A(III), art 7; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23  March 1976) 999 UNTS 171, art 26; Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 9(3)

20 NGOs Co-ordination Board v Eric Gitari and Others, Petition No 16 of 2019 (Supreme Court of Kenya, 22  March 2019, on appeal from Civil Appeal No 145 of 2015, Court of Appeal at Nairobi)

21 Dausab v Minister of Justice (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2022/00279) [2024] NAHCMD 331 (High Court of  Namibia, 21 June 2024)

22 Lawyers for Human Rights, ‘JOINT STATEMENT Hate Crime Murders – LGBTIQ+ People Say More Must Be  Done’ (22 April 2021) https://www.lhr.org.za/lhr-news/joint-statement-hate-crime-murders-lgbtiq people-say-more-must-be-done/ accessed 23 October 2025 

23 Ibid 

24 Phillip Ayoub and Kristina Stoeckl, ‘The Global Resistance to LGBTIQ Rights’ (2024) 35(1) Journal of  Democracy 59–73

25 Eric Gitari v NGO Co-ordination Board and Others [2023] Petition No 16 of 2019 (Supreme Court of  Kenya, 24 February 2023) 

26 Kenya, Family Protection Bill 2023 (draft legislation, sponsored by Hon. Peter Kaluma, Member of  Parliament, 2023) 

27 Thailand, Civil and Commercial Code Amendment Act (No 24) B.E. 2567 (2024), commonly known as  the Marriage Equality Act (assented to 12 August 2024, commenced 23 January 2025)

28 National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT  10/99) [1999] ZACC 17 ; Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another (CCT 60/04) [2005]  ZACC 19 

29 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act 1982, being Schedule B to the  Canada Act 1982 (UK) 1982, c 11

30 Uganda, Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023, Act No 6 of 2023 (assented to 26 May 2023, commenced 30 May  2023) https://ulii.org/akn/ug/act/2023/6/eng@2023-05-30 accessed 24 October 2025

31 ‘Pushing Back: Civil Society Strategies to Address Punitive Anti-LGBTQI Laws in Uganda, Ghana, and  Kenya’ (2024) 26(2) Health and Human Rights Journal 61–67  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11683571/ accessed 23 October 2025

32 Mali, Penal Code 2024, art 325-2 (adopted October 2024, entered into force 13 December 2024)  https://www.humandignitytrust.org/news/mali-criminalises/ accessed 24 October 2025