The Argentine Congress continues to postpone the debate on reforming Law 23.592, a demand of sexual diversity organizations that has been going on for twenty years and the main demand of the 2016 Pride March.

By Amanda Alma 

Photo: Ariel Gutraich  The final session of the legislative year in the Chamber of Deputies failed, thus halting the debate on updating Law 23.592, which penalizes discriminatory acts. The long-standing demand from LGBTQ+ organizations to adapt the law to the new regulatory framework approved in recent years has once again been postponed until next year. Sexual diversity organizations have been working for over 20 years to ensure the law is updated. clearly include discrimination based on “sexual orientation, gender identity or its expression” But Congress continues to postpone its approval. Among the four draft opinions, there is consensus on expanding the categories of discriminatory acts, but some also point out that the majority opinion aims to increase punitive measures. These differences are what ultimately prevented the debate from reaching the floor and being approved, thus failing to address a demand that impacts the bodies of lesbians, gays, transvestites, transgender people, intersex people, and bisexuals. In mid-October, a joint session of the Human Rights and General Legislation committees had been held, where the differences were presented and an agreement was reached to move forward, considering the impact this legislative change would have. In these years of struggle to update the legal framework, the idea of ​​punishment has prevailed over the consolidation of new social norms that neutralize the violent reactions of intolerance. Together with LGBTQ+ organizations, 30 amendment bills have been presented since 2003, and despite the legislators' commitment, The dispute between the blocs proved stronger than a social demand driven by an entire community. The majority opinion, spearheaded by PRO and Libres del Sur—and signed by La Cámpora, Peronismo para la Victoria, Frente para la Victoria, and Frente Renovador—was developed in conjunction with the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transvestites, and Transgender People (FALGBT). It aims to reverse the burden of proof: it is not the victim who must prove they suffered discrimination, but rather the perpetrator. The second opinion, signed by Diana Conti (FpV) on behalf of the Argentine Homosexual Community (CHA) and 100% Identidad y Derechos, maintains that educational policies are essential to achieving a society free of discrimination. The three opinions from the left—Myriam Bregman (PTS) and Pablo López (FIT)—warn that another point (present in the bill's rationale) under discussion concerns xenophobic comments circulating online. According to them, “the majority opinion opens the door to a system of exceptions, enabling discriminatory measures by the State in the name of 'the existence of a legitimate and overriding public interest.'” Twenty years later, the amendment to a law that aims to dismantle xenophobia, racism, and homophobia/lesbian/transphobia remains mired in disputes between sectors that do not favor consensus. We will have to wait another year to see if the positions converge, or if this bill ceases to be used as a bargaining chip in other, more widely publicized debates.

The main points of the debate

* Incorporates immigration status, refugee status, linguistic variety, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and/or its expression, age, skin color, marital status, family situation, parentage, pregnancy, family responsibility, criminal record or status, work or occupation, place of residence, disability, genetic characteristics, psychophysical capacity and physical, mental, and social health, personal, social, and/or cultural habits, and/or any other personal, family, or social condition or circumstance, whether temporary or permanent. * Reverses the burden of proof to determine civil and/or administrative liability. The defendant will be responsible for justifying their action. If the State is the defendant, it must demonstrate the existence of a legitimate and overriding public interest. * Prioritizes a cross-cutting approach to core learning areas, such as the socioeconomic perspective of poverty, gender, sexual and gender diversity, generational diversity, ethnic diversity, and disability. * Establishes the National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Racism (INADI) as the authority responsible for enforcing the law.

Follow us:

In Twitter In Facebook In Instagram]]>