

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

More than half of the world's remaining "sodomy" laws -criminalizing consensual homosexual conduct - are relics of British colonial rule, Human Rights Watch showed in a report published today. Human Rights Watch urged governments everywhere to affirm international human rights standards, and reject the oppressive legacies of colonialism, by repealing laws that criminalize consensual sexual activity among adults of the same sex.
The 66-page report, "This Alien Legacy: The Origins of 'Sodomy' Laws in British Colonialism," describes how laws in over three dozen countries, from India to Uganda and from Nigeria to Papua New Guinea, derive from a single law on homosexual conduct that British colonial rulers imposed on India in 1860. This year, the High Court in Delhi ended hearings in a years-long case seeking to decriminalize homosexual conduct there. A ruling in the landmark case is expected soon.
"Half the world's countries that criminalize homosexual conduct do so because they cling to Victorian morality and colonial laws," said Scott Long, director of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights program at Human Rights Watch. "Getting rid of these unjust remnants of the British Empire is long overdue."
On December 18, 2008, the UN General Assembly will hear a statement signed by over 60 countries affirming that human rights protections include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Some national leaders have defended sodomy laws as reflections of indigenous cultures. Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, for example, has called gays and lesbians "un-African" and "worse than dogs and pigs." The Human Rights Watch report shows, however, that British colonial rulers brought in these laws because they saw the conquered cultures as morally lax on sexuality. The British also wanted to defend their own colonists against the "corrupting" effect of the colonies. One British viceroy of India warned that British soldiers could succumb to "replicas of Sodom and Gomorrah" as they acquired the "special Oriental vices."
In the early 19th century, the British drafted a new model Indian Penal Code, finally put into force in 1860. Section 377 punished "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" with up to life imprisonment.
Versions of Section 377 spread across the British Empire, from Africa to Southeast Asia. Through it, British colonists imposed one view on sexuality, by force, on all their colonized peoples. Over time, these laws came to seek punishment against not particular acts but whole classes of people. The British, for instance, listed "eunuchs" - their term for India's hijras, or transgender people - as a "criminal tribe" because they were prone to "sodomy." Simply for appearing in public, hijras could be arrested and jailed for up to two years.
Today, international human rights standards have compelled former colonial powers to acknowledge that these laws are wrong. England and Wales decriminalized homosexual conduct in 1967. The European Court of Human Rights found in 1981 that a surviving sodomy law in Northern Ireland violated fundamental rights protections. In 1994, the UN Human Rights Committee - which authoritatively interprets the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - held that sodomy laws violate the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination.
The laws nonetheless persist in many of Britain's old colonial possessions. Moreover, the model British-era sodomy law made no distinction between consensual and non-consensual sex, or between sex among adults and sexual abuse of children. As a result, these surviving laws leave many rape victims and child victims of abuse without effective legal protection.
"From Malaysia to Uganda, governments use these laws to harass civil society, restrict free expression, discredit enemies, and destroy lives," Long said. "And sodomy laws add to the spread of HIV/AIDS by criminalizing outreach to affected groups."
Colonies and countries that retain versions of this British sodomy law include:
Eleven former British colonies in the Caribbean also retain sodomy laws derived from a different British model than the one imposed on India.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"The fund is stunningly, blindingly illegal, and the defendants must be prohibited from transferring money to this corrupt and illegal monstrosity," said a lawyer representing the officers.
A pair of police officers who defended the US Capitol from President Donald Trump's supporters on January 6, 2021 filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday challenging the Republican's "$1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and
paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name."
The so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" is part of an agreement finalized this week to settle Trump's "frivolous" $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax records. As part of the deal, the IRS is also "forever barred" from pursuing any other actions against the president and his family—which experts have warned violates federal law and puts agency officers at risk.
The complaint filed in a Washington, DC court on behalf of retired US Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department Officer Daniel Hodges argues that the fund is also "illegal," as well as "the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century."
"No statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law," the filing states. It also makes the case that the fund "endangers the lives and safety" of the plaintiffs by encouraging "those who enacted violence in the president's name to continue to do so" and directly financing "the violent operations of rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters who threatened plaintiffs' lives that day, and continue to do so."
"Although Trump and his cronies have been secretive about the fund's ends, reporting leaves no doubt that it will be used, among other purposes, to pay the nearly 1,600 people charged with attacking the Capitol on January 6, 2021," the complaint warns.
Trump—who was convicted of 34 felonies in New York after his first term—notably pardoned the Capitol insurrectionists when he returned to office last year. Some then went on to commit various other crimes, including sexual violence, illegal possession of weapons, and driving while impaired or under the influence.
"This fund creates enormous physical dangers for Officers Dunn and Hodges, who risked their lives on January 6, 2021, and who continue to do so by refusing to let that day be forgotten," said Brendan Ballou, founder of the Public Integrity Project, which is representing the plaintiffs. "The fund is stunningly, blindingly illegal, and the defendants must be prohibited from transferring money to this corrupt and illegal monstrosity."
Ballou was previously a prosecutor at the US Department of Justice, where he worked on cases related to the Capitol attack.
Dunn—who became known nationally for his testimony to the US House of Representatives select committee that investigated the Capitol attack—urged "everybody else to sue" over Trump's slush fund during an interview with MS NOW on Wednesday.
"Everybody should, this can't happen," he said. "So, we believe that we, the officers in this suit, will be harmed by this. We have been subjected to countless death threats in addition to all the violence that we faced on January 6. But for just speaking out the truth, I mean, I guarantee you somebody's watching this right now and typing death threats to us right now. And deaths only continue to embolden and potentially continue to arm a militia that Donald Trump will have on retainer."
Also in DC on Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) demanded that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano supply documents and explanations for how they settled the Trump suit.
Raskin also moved to subpoena the trio, plus Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who signed the settlement, and Treasury Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey, who resigned as the deal was being announced. A vote by subpoenas by the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee committee is expected later Wednesday.
In a speech described as “Orwellian,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio blamed Cuba’s suffering on the military-run company founded by Fidel Castro’s brother.
As the US Justice Department indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro on Wednesday in what could be a prelude to military action, the Cuban government denounced the US for "cruel and ruthless aggression."
The 94-year-old Castro, who served as Cuba's leader until 2021 after taking over for his brother Fidel in 2008, was indicted on one count of conspiracy to kill US nationals for his alleged role in the shooting down of planes operated by the anti-Castro Cuban exile group Brothers to the Rescue in 1996, which resulted in the deaths of four Cuban Americans.
“For nearly 30 years, the families of four murdered Americans have waited for justice,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said as he announced the charges at Miami’s Freedom Tower. “My message today is clear: The United States and President Trump does not and will not forget its citizens.”
While Blanche described the four men as "unarmed civilians," the Cuban government said the group had repeatedly violated its sovereign airspace and that it had warned the US government before shooting down the plane.
Declassified documents from a month before the incident show that officials in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) viewed the Brothers' activities as "taunting" and feared the Cuban government might shoot a plane down.
"Is a sovereign state like Cuba obligated to tolerate illegal and continuous incursions into its territory? Under no circumstances," the Cuban embassy in the US said in a statement published on Wednesday on social media. "International law and global civil aviation conventions protect the sovereignty of nations over their airspace."
"When formal warnings to the [International Civil Aviation Organization], the FAA, and political authorities are sustainedly ignored, the defense of borders and national security becomes an unavoidable duty for the protection of the country."
The indictment comes as the Trump administration issues threats that have been widely interpreted as signals that another military regime change operation could soon be on the horizon, following the administration's attacks on Venezuela and Iran already this year.
"CUBA IS NEXT! Thank you [President Donald Trump] and [Secretary of State Marco Rubio]!" cheered US Rep. Carlos Giminez (R-Fla.), one of many Miami-based politicians who have called for aggressive action by the Trump administration against Cuba in recent days.
He was responding to a video posted by Rubio on Wednesday directed at the Cuban people in which he again denied that the crippling oil blockade imposed on Cuba by Trump bore any responsibility for the economic ruin the island's population currently faces.
After effectively cutting off Cuba’s primary supplier of oil in January when the US conducted its illegal operation to abduct Venezuela's president, Nicolás Maduro, Trump threatened to impose steep tariffs on any country that provided oil to Cuba, scaring off its other main suppliers, including Mexico, Russia, and Algeria. Last week, Cuba’s energy minister announced that the country had “absolutely no fuel oil, no diesel.”
But Rubio told the Cuban people in Spanish on Wednesday: "The reason you are forced to survive 22 hours a day without electricity is not due to an oil 'blockade' by the US. As you know better than anyone else, you have been suffering from blackouts for years. The real reason you don't have electricity, fuel, or food is that those who control your country have plundered billions of dollars, but nothing has been used to help the people."
He specifically laid the blame at the feet of the accused, the military-run company Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), founded by Raúl Castro in the 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The company has come to control large swathes of the Cuban economy, from hotels and grocery stores to gas stations and banks, and is estimated to control between 40-70% of Cuba’s overall economy, according to a recent New York Times report—though the secrecy of the organization makes it difficult to determine its true value.
Rubio said that the entrepreneurs running GAESA "have $18 billion in assets and control 70% of Cuba's economy," which was first reported by the Miami Herald last year based on balance sheets obtained from the company. But the Cuban government and other critics have disputed this figure, arguing that it actually refers to Cuban pesos, which would make its holdings closer to about $746 million.
Regardless, Rubio omitted any mention of the fact that even prior to the oil blockade enacted in January by Trump, the US still had a strict trade embargo in place against Cuba for more than 60 years, which the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America has estimated cost the country more than $130 billion since it was imposed—more than the total gross domestic product of the entire country in 2020.
Rubio said on Wednesday the US was ready to open a "new chapter" with Cuba, but that the thing getting in the way was "those who control their country."
In light of Trump’s persistent suggestions that he wants to “take” Cuba and “do anything I want with it,” the Cuban government described Rubio’s message as one meant to justify further US coercion.
“The reason why the US secretary of state lies so repeatedly and unscrupulously when referring to Cuba and trying to justify the aggression to which he subjects the Cuban people is not ignorance or incompetence,” said Carlos Fernández de Cossío, the deputy minister for foreign affairs in Cuba, in a social media post on Wednesday. “He knows full well that there is no excuse for such a cruel and ruthless aggression.”
Last week, the US offered to give Cuba $100 million in humanitarian assistance to deal with the crisis it has imposed through its oil blockade, but only if it agrees to “meaningful reforms” and “fundamental changes” to its government that would allow greater access to US companies.
Cuba’s current president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, contended that an easier way to alleviate Cuba’s suffering would be "by lifting or easing the blockade, as it is well known that the humanitarian situation is coldly calculated and induced.”
Update (2:00 pm ET): This story was updated to include comments from acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche following the announcement of a formal indictment on Wednesday.
"Never in American history has a president pursued corruption this brazenly or on such a colossal scale," wrote Reps. Jamie Raskin and Richard Neal.
Top Democrats on a pair of panels in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday demanded that Justice and Treasury department leaders answer for how they settled President Donald Trump's $10 billion "sham" lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax records.
In their letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) slammed the settlement as "one of the most brazen acts of public corruption and self-dealing in American history."
"Rather than protect the public fisc from obvious plunder, this DOJ and IRS caved," the lawmakers argued, condemning the creation of a $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" as a "taxpayer shakedown" intended to line the pockets of the president's allies, including pro-Trump rioters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
"This massive slush fund will be governed by a sham commission of the president's cronies," Raskin and Neal noted—and due to the terms of the agreement, "the public and members of Congress may never know who received payments."
CNN reported Tuesday that longtime Trump adviser and former administration official Michael Caputo has filed the first known claim, describing his family as "survivors of the illegal Russiagate investigations" and seeking $2.7 million.
"Congress and Congress alone has the power of the purse under the appropriations clause of the Constitution. But Congress never authorized or appropriated funds for a $1.776 billion political slush fund," the House Democrats stressed. "This settlement is a transparent attempt to circumvent the separation of powers and use the judgment fund for a scam Congress never contemplated: rewarding the president’s political allies at the expense of American taxpayers."
Additionally, under the settlement, the IRS is "forever barred" from pursuing any other actions against Trump and his relatives.
"Essentially, the federal government threw in a super-pardon for the president, his family, and related and affiliated entities, freeing them not only from any accountability for any taxes they may have dodged, but other pending federal criminal or civil investigations like insider trading, antitrust violations, false statements, or even sexual harassment," the lawmakers wrote.
Raskin and Neal called on the federal departments to "retain all documents, including both hard copies and electronically stored information (ESI), related to the settlement and establishment of the fund," including messages sent via "private email addresses, text messages, mobile applications (e.g., Signal), or other forms of electronic communications."
They also directed the agency leaders to send over the IRS memorandum on the settlement, other related records, and answers to their list of questions by next week, before Bessent’s scheduled appearance before the Ways and Means Committee.
Blanche was on Capitol Hill Tuesday to testify about the DOJ budget request. However, he faced various other questions, and attempted to counter Democrats' framing that, as Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (Wash.) put it, Trump is using "tax dollars to set up a slush fund to enrich his own friends."
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) questioned Blanche about public disclosures of payouts and measures to ensure Trump family members don't get any fund money, while Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked about the eligibility of January 6 rioters, including those who assaulted Capitol Hill police or committed sex crimes against children.
A pair of police officers who helped defend the Capitol during the 2021 attack filed a lawsuit in federal court on Wednesday with the aim of dissolving the fund, arguing that "no statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law."
After the House Democrats' letter was released Wednesday morning, Raskin moved to subpoena Blanche, Bisignano, Bessent, and other individuals involved in creating the fund: Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Treasury Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey.
"Mr. Blanche orchestrated this outrageous slush fund as part of the settlement with Donald Trump, which was also signed by Mr. Woodward, and Mr. Bessent will oversee the payout of these funds. Mr. Bisignano signed off on this settlement for the IRS, and Brian Morrissey remarkably resigned as this deal was being announced," Raskin said. "These individuals all possess critical insights into Trump's self-dealing scheme with his own agencies to create this fund and reward his supporters and friends."
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said a vote on that effort would be held at the end of Wednesday's hearing.