February Update

There's been lots of legal excitement recently. Anyone who follows ECHR blog would know that there's a new article on the ECHR and gays! All the more exciting because on the 25th of February the Court will hear Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, about a same sex couple who were refused marriage and who are claiming that Austrian authorities violated their rights under Article 12 and Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8.

Although the Court has recognised the right to non-discrimination of same sex couples in Karner v Austria, it has not gone as far as recognise same sex couples as a de facto family. The Court has recognised all sorts of families (including transsexuals who have a right to marry under the Convention - Christine Goodwin) and therefore, granting same sex couples the same rights is a logical step. The Court in 2008, overturned its decision of Frette v. France and the case of EB v France to hold that homosexuals cannot be discriminated against when single parent adoption is made available by legislation. The Court seems to be narrowing the margin of appreciation in relation to morals in certain matters where there is a growing or international consensus (see recent violation of Article 10 case in Akvas v Turkey, about literature and patrimoine europeenne).

Of course, the above topic is particularly on my mind today after participating in the TCD student law colloquium in Dublin. The inaugural lecture was given by Justice Catherine McGuinness who spoke about children's rights under the Irish Constitution. Her speech included a brief discussion of McD v L: the Supreme Court in this case found that lesbians were not a family under the Irish constitution and that a sperm donor had access to the child. The Supreme Court in Ireland is also due to hear the appeal from Zappone and Gilligan v Tax Revenue Commissioners about two lesbians wishing to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland.

The decision of the ECHR will thus have great repercussions in Ireland and in the Member states in general who are still refusing to guarantee and respect fundamental equality rights.

Something else at the conference also struck me: the ratio of female to male speakers. Although some panels tended to be more female or male than others, in general, the organizers had ensured a gender balance of speakers and chairs of each panel. This of course, didn't guarantee that gender issues were always considered, although on my panel chaired by Prof Sandeep Gopolan, I was happy that one of the other panelists spoke about child soldiers and especially about the invisibility of the girl child in disarmament and reintegration programmes. The Lubanga trial featured in both the international law panel and the international post-conflict panel, and the critiques of the lack of charging for sexual slavery is welcome.

On the whole, the event was a success and an opportunity to see many familiar faces and some new ones too. Topics ranging from Crucifixes and Minarets (Ciara M. CoE), facebook consent agreements (Oisin T. tcd) etc. made for lively discussion during, but most of all, afterwards during the law school reception!