Minutes General Assembly 2011 17th-18th October 2011, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Monday - 17th October 2011
Plenary Session 1
Opening Remarks
Esther Paterson, Chair of the IGLYO Board, opened the conference. She began by thanking the sponsors of the event: European Commission Progress Programme, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science in the Netherlands and the City of Amsterdam. She welcomed the guests and delegates, in particular the 18 new member organisations and the new members from 4 countries not previously represented – Hungary, Georgia, Cyprus and Montenegro. She explained that statutory meetings were very important for a youth-led organisation as an opportunity to get the views and feedback of members.
Eunis, Board member from COC Nederland, addressed the GA and outlined COC Nederland's work on youth and education. COC is a 65 year-old organisation with 22 regional offices and national programmes on issues including health and Human Rights. Some of their recent work includes lobbying for legislation to protect gay and lesbian teachers in private and religious schools. She also outlined COC's programmes in schools which include Jong en Oot (Young and Out), GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) and Pink Elephant.
Ben Baks, political advisor to government of the Netherlands, addressed the GA and introduced the current policy document in the Netherlands, which includes a commitment to double the number of GSAs, and the number of rainbow cities. He said that the Ministry was glad to support IGLYO and other member organisations (through Dutch embassies). He explained that the international challenges include the fact that there are no binding documents for LGBTQ rights in the UN. He also said he felt that there was too little progress in Europe. He congratulated IGLYO and expressed the government’s willingness to continue support in upcoming years.
Oisin O'Reilly, (OR) IGLYO Board Member introduced himself, Jordan Long (JL) Programmes and Policy officer, Virginija Prasmickaite (VP) Office Manager, Bjarne volunteer from COC NL.
Adoption of the Chair
The Board nominated Ruth Baldacchino (RB) as Chair. The nomination was approved by the General Assembly.
Adoption of the Minute Taker
The Board nominated Daniel Winstanley (DW) as Minute Taker. The nomination was approved by the General Assembly.
RB said she was honoured to be asked to Chair the meeting as an ex-IGLYO Board member 2003-2005. She has since moved to ILGA Europe as Board member for 4 yrs and has also been a Board member for ILGA World and her organisation Malta Gay Rights Movement. She explained her role will be to facilitate the GA and began with a few ground rules. GA’s can be exciting and fun, but timekeeping is very important so we need cooperation and understanding. Since few delegates are native speakers she asked that native speakers pause a moment before speaking. In terms of questions and answers – there will be an order of speakers. Delegates must say their name and organisation. Mobile phones should be on silent mode or off. Please try to limit the use of laptops. Finally in terms of photographs and video recording – delegates must approach board members during coffee break if you do not wish to appear in these.
OR also introduced Melinda, a researcher from Hartford University in the US, doing research on LGBTQ activism who would be observing during the GA.
Roll Call
RB explained that the purpose of the roll call is to establish quorum for the GA and distribute voting cards. If voting cards are lost then the organisation will not receive a right to vote.
OR pointed out that DIH (association for Integration of Homosexuality, Slovenia) had membership fees outstanding. Existing members voted that DIH could have voting rights despite this.
OR explained that there were 2 General Assemblies going on at the same time, since two organisations exist, one registered in the Netherlands and one in Belgium. The Dutch association exists for funding purposes. Organisations who are members of both associations have two voting cards. Members who joined after Dec 2009 are only members in one country but have the same rights. There would be a ‘speed GA' of IGLYO (Netherlands) tomorrow to ensure that both organisations have the same statutes.
Adoption of agenda – GA 2011-1
The agenda was approved by the General Assembly.
Membership ratifications - GA 2011-19
OR noted the resignation of HELEM. He explained that members were terminated on two criteria: either the organisation is confirmed to no longer exist or has not paid their funds for four years with no contact with IGLYO.
Alan Bailey (NUS LGBT, UK): asked whether one of the criteria had to be met or both. OR said that it was either of the criteria.
The motion was adopted.
Emergency motion to admit USI LGBT (Ireland).
This motion was adopted.
Roll call of new members.
Roll call was completed and voting cards distributed to the new member organisations present.
End of first session.
WORKSHOPS
RB opened the next session with a technical announcement. There had been some queries concerning voting procedures. Roll call was a quick run through of the members in order to hand out voting cards. In almost every case members will be told what is expected (show of hands, applause etc.) If there is a clear majority then the motion has passed and the agenda can move on. If a member organisaton is not happy with that then there can be a count.
Members then moved into three workshops
1. Policy development, facilitated by JL 2. International development (Membership policy and the organisation's role), facilitated by OR with Pink Life and Kaos presenting. 3. Inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue (ICIRD), facilitated by Zara Shushanyan (ZS)
Plenary Session
RB clarified voting procedures - a show of hands is asked for members are approving something. When the Chair feels that a vote count is called for this will take place but there is not time for a vote count on every issue. Delegates must show voting cards. In votes the Chair asks who is in favour, and then abstentions and who is against. Two tellers are required – RB asked for approval of Augustas Cicelis (AC) and Felix Konig (FK) as tellers.
The GA approved AC and FK as tellers.
Gisela Janis (SFQ, Sweden) commented that while they were not objecting to this submission, it was felt that these should be open nominations rather than the Board nominating someone.
EP responded that there were a limited pool to choose from because the tellers must not be from member organisations as they will be counting the votes for new Board members. Otherwise this would have been opened up to other delegates.
Gisela indicated that it was alright to proceed.
Feedback from Workshops and Policy Paper Amendments
Policy developements: Jordan Long (JL) presenting
The group had discussed relationships which IGLYO was building in EU. The biggest work area is the horizontal anti-discrimination directive, which will provide protection from discrimination in all areas at the same level (e.g. sexual orientation is only protected in the workplace but not other spheres of life).
IGLYO has had high-level meetings with officials in the European commission and European Parliament and works closely with the Intergroup on LGBT rights. The Board is part of an information exchange with other equality bodies in Europe.
Important developments include the council of minister recommendationsof Council of Europe and the report from the Commissioner on Human Rights Thomas Hammeberg. Recommendations are positive on LGBTQ issues for the 47 member states and IGLYO is incorporating these recommendations into the work plans.
IGLYO's key relationships in Europe include IGLA-Europe, OBESSU, ESU, European Disability Forum, Mental Health Europe, Age Platform, and TGEU. IGLYO tries to ensure that LGBTQ youth and student issues are reflected in the work of these organisations and also that youth and student issues are represented in mainstream LGBT work.
IGLYO has also responded on national issues, including those in Lithuania and Spain.
Intercultural and Interreligious dialogue – Presented by Zara Shushanyan
ZS said that presentations would be made by two groups – one on intercultural dialogue and one on interreligious dialogue sections of the position paper. She invited Despina Michaelidou (ACCEPT LGBT, Cyprus) to present on Intercultural Dialogue section.
Proposal: Page 5, 1st para 1st line: 'living in…. queerphobia' insert 'and intersexphobia and lesbophobia'.
Explanation: group wished to use inclusive language and also bring attention to the issues around lesbophobia and intersexphobia.
Motion is passed by a clear majority. 5 abstentions. None against.
Proposal: Page 5, Para 4, Line 2: Delete 'cultural'
Explanation: Delete the word 'cultural' since the whole paper is about intercultural dialogue.
ZS clarified that there wasn't a separate section for cultural since it was felt that culture was coverd under linguistic and ethnic sections.
Karoline Borner (Lambda Jugendnetzwerk Berlin-Brandenburg, Germany) said that it seemed to suggest there would be a section on this topic.
AC said that if the word cultural were removed the sentence would not make sense.
Laurynas Pliuskys (LGBT Youth Scotland, UK) asked whether the cultural aspect was being removed or if it was just a grammatical point.
ZS said that the content does not change it is just grammatical and that the paper does include cultural aspects.
Despina suggested perhaps culture does not need to be there.
David Debono (MGRM, Malta) proposes to delete the word 'cultural' and insert 'two' instead of 'three'.
Moved to vote. 17 for. 19 abstentions. 7 against. Motion failed.
Proposal: Page 6 para 4 line 3: Replace 'tolerance' with 'respect and acceptance'.
Roh Petas (SETA, Finland) proposed just 'respect' not 'acceptance'.
Ashot Gevogyan (We For Civil Equality, Georgia) proposed 'tolerance, respect and acceptance'.
RB pointed out that this is a policy in English so there might be linguistic issues with the text. Suggested the GA move to a vote.
Proposal: Page 6 para 4 line 3: Replace 'tolerance' with 'respect'.
28 in favour. 8 abstentions. 8 against. Motion passed.
Proposal: Page 6 para 4 line 3: Replace 'tolerance' with 'respect, tolerance and acceptance'.
Motion failed with clear majority against.
Proposal: Page 6 para 4 line 3: Replace 'tolerance' with 'respect and acceptance'.
25 in favour. The original motion passes by clear majority.
Zdravko Cimbaljevic (LGBT Forum Progress, Montenegro) said that there was confusion about what was being voted for.
EP clarified that members may however they like on each vote that passes, and can vote for conflicting motions if they wish.
Proposal: page 13 para 8 line 2: Insert: 'with a close focus on intersectionality'.
Giacomo Guccinelli (Arcigay, Italy) said that it was important to underline intersectional discrimination, in particular in relation to the previous amendment regarding homophobia, lesbophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia since a lot of discrimination towards LGBTQI people is intersectional e.g. lesbophobia is an intersectional discrimination because it deals both with gender and sexual orientation discrimination. We need to link aspects of geographical region, race, religion and LGBTQ issues when we speak about IC/IRD. Furthermore Giacomo proposed to add the definition of intersectionality to the glossary.
Miroslawa Makuchowska (KPH - Campaign against homophobia, Poland) asked the difference between intersectional discrimination and multiple discrimination.
Vytautas Valentinavicius (LGL, Lithuania) explained that one person can feel more than one kind of discrimination.
RB explained that multiple discrimination comes from EU jargon referring to the big 6 diversity strands, while intersectionality is more inclusive - reflecting the wider diversity of people’s experiences.
Micah Grzywnowicz (ANSO, Sweden) suggested that it should read 'intersectional approach', not 'intersectional discrimination'.
RB suggested that grammatically the word 'close' should be removed.
Micah Grzywnowicz (ANSO, Sweden) suggested 'with an intersectional perspective'.
Luis Moreira Navarro (LM) - Board Member, IGLYO - asked who should write the definition. The Board agreed JL should work on it during the session so it can be voted on at the end of the session.
Proposal: Page 14, para 5, line 3: Replace 'integration' with 'inclusion'.
Efstratos Voukelatos (Colour Youth, Greece) suggested that integration incorporates inclusion, since LGBT youth are included in the community (whether the community likes it or not) but they may not be integrated.
Gyorgy Meszaros (Symposizion Association, Hungary) commented that European documents prefer the term inclusion because it means 'I accept the diversity of the people included' rather than 'I want you to become part of us'.
Efstratos Voukelatos (Colour Youth, Greece) asked whether there was a difference between 'inclusion' and 'inclusiveness'. EP said there was not.
Motion passes by majority.
Nevin Oztop (KAOS SL, Turkey) said it was not clear what motion was being voted on.
RB explained that the Greek delegate made it clear that they did not wish to put forward a motion for ‘inclusiveness’.
Proposal: Page 14, para 1, line 1: Insert 'and encourage participation of '.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) asked what groups were being referred to.
Despina read from the document: 'migrants, refugees, ethnic, cultural and linguistic minorities'.
28 for. 8 abstentions. None against. Motion passed.
Proposal: Page 14, para 1, line 2: Insert 'asylum seekers, refugees and sex workers'. (proposed by Kemal Ordek (Pink Life, Turkey))
Motion passed by majority.
Proposal: Page 13, para 7, line 1. Insert 'and racism'.
Kemal Ordek (Pink Life, Turkey) asked if Islamophobia was included in the document.
ZS said that the intention was to take into account discrimination against all religions rather than mentioning Islamophobia seperately from the others, however if Kemal wished this to be pointed out separately a motion could be proposed.
Motion passed by majority.
Siobhan McGuire (USI LGBT, Ireland) suggested that having changed one paragraph to include 'lesbophobia and intersexphobia' that this be changed throughout the document.
RB said this was a continuity change and therefore did not need to be voted upon.
Nevin Oztop (KAOS GL, Turkey) asked if sexism is included in the document or if it was purely about intercultural and interreligious dialogue.
EP said that a specific amendment would need to be proposed if the members wished sexism to be included.
Proposal: Page 13, para 8: Insert new paragraph: 'Actively advocate for sexuality, non-formal and human rights education to be taken into consideration of intercultural and interreligious needs of young people. '
OR asked if it was the group’s intention for non-formal education to describe the type of education or if there was a grammatical issue.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) asked why it said specifically non-formal education – and suggested that it should be left up to the ministries to decide what kind of education.
Robert Furiel (Charlie, Czech Republic) suggested using the phrase SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) rather than sexuality.
ZS said that gender identity and well as sexual orientation were already included throughout the document.
Alan Bailey (NUS LGBT, UK) said that sexuality and gender identity should both be included.
ZS said that it had been included it throughout the document.
OR said non-formal education is proven to be the most forceful form of education in terms of human rights.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) offered to change the amendment to include non-formal before SOGI.
Zdravko Cimbalejavic (LGBT Forum Progres, Montenegro) suggested that both non-formal and formal education should be included.
Vytautas Valentinavicius (LGL, Lithuania) suggested that IGLYO should just advocate for education rather than a specific kind of education, which might exclude other kinds.
LM said that the wording was intended to actively advocate for non-formal education – this is what makes IGLYO unique.
Zdravko Cimbalejavic (LGBT Forum Progres, Montenegro) said that formal education is primary because that is what people have from childhood, and therefore both non-formal and formal education should be included.
RB suggested that the GA vote on the current motion.
20 for; 11 abstentions, 9 against. Motion approved.
Micah Grzywnowicz (ANSO, Sweden) pointed out that although the motion had been approved the original proposal had not been voted upon.
BREAK
RB opened the next session by apologising if there had been some confusion, and invited Despina to present the proposal again so the GA could vote upon it. After that Cosmin’s motion would be heard and voted upon, before moving on to the next amendments.
Proposal: Page 13, para 8: Insert new paragraph: 'actively advocate for sexuality, non-formal and human rights education to be taken into consideration for the intercultural, interreligious needs of young people.'
3 for, 3 abstentions, clear majority against. The motion fails.
Proposal: Page 13, para 8: Insert new paragraph: 'Actively promote non-formal, SOGI and human rights education to be taken into consideration of intercultural , interreligious needs of young people.'
In favour: 28. Abstaining: Against 1. The motion passes.
Proposal: Page 13, para 8: Insert new paragraph: 'Develop documentation about LGBTQI people in accordance to intercultural, interreligious needs of young people.'
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) asked what kind of documentation was intended to be collected.
Despina said these would be educational materials etc.
RB reminded the GA of the need to move forward quickly as many amendments had been proposed to the document.
Micah Gryzywnowicz (ANSO, Sweden) suggested that the discussion was needed, otherwise it was simply voting for voting's sake.
EP reminded the GA that although it would be nice to hear diverse opinions the time for debate was the workshop.
For: 21. Abstaining: 17. Against: 8. Motion passes.
Proposal: Page 14: Insert new paragraph: 'Culture: Values and behaviour systems which allow groups of people to make sense of the world.'
JL (who had written the definition) said that this was according to Council of Europe definition.
LM asked if the terminology should be arranged alphabetically.
RB said that this could be done later as it was a technical point.
Overwhelming majority voted in favour. Motion passes.
RB nominated JL to work on definitions of 'religion' and 'mainstream(ing)'.
ZS invited Ashild Marie Vige (Skeiv Ungdom, Norway) to present on Interreligious Dialogue.
Proposal: Page 3, para 4, line 4: Remove 2nd 'interfaith' (this was a typo).
Motion passes by majority.
Proposal: Page 11, para 1, line 4: Replace 'Homosexuals' with 'Heterosexuals' (typo).
Motion passed by majority.
Ashild invited Gyorgy Meszaros (Szimpozion Association) to explain his amendments.
Proposal: Page 7, para 3, line 1: Insert: 'While a few religious communities accept LGBTQ people and support them most...'
Motion passed by majority.
Proposal: Page 9: Delete paragraph 1 and insert: 'The protestant church with its community based institution is originated within each country, thus its attitude towards LGBTQ issues varies also depending on the cultural background. Some communities demand their members to change their sexual orientation, other ones allow homosexuals as members but expect them to live in celibacy, do not bless unions or ordain. However there are increasing congregations and churches which totally accept LGBTQ people, have LGBTQ ministers and bless unions. For example the Swedish and Norwegian Lutheran churches.'
Gisela Janis (SFQ, Sweden) said that it would be better to remove the sentence since it refers only to homosexuals and not rest of the LGBTQ community, and asked if the wording was intended to replace the following paragraph or not.
Gyorgy Meszaros (Szimpozion Association) said the intention was to elaborate on the wording in the original text.
Karoline Borner (Lambda Berlin-Brandenberg) said that the paragraph should not replace the paragraph afterwards because Baptist, Adventist, Evangelical and Presbyterian churches do not fall under Protestant.
For: 21. Abstentions: 18. Against: 4. Motion passes.
RB then invited the GA to vote on keeping the paragraph below.
In favour of KEEPING: 14. Abstentions: 20. Against: 8. Motion fails.
Proposal: Page 7, para 2, line 4: Delete repeated sentence.
Motion passed by majority.
RB said that thereafter she would only take one question per proposal because of time constraints.
Proposal: Page 14, para 5: Insert new paragraph: 'Work to fight religious phobia within the LGBTQ community and promote respect for these groups.'
27 for. Abstentions 9. Against 6. Motion passes.
Proposal: Page 14, para 5: Insert new paragraph: 'Facilitate dialogue with religious youth leaders.'
Despina Michaelidou (ACCEPT LGBT, Cyprus) pointed out that this was included already.
An amendment was suggested to combine the 2 paragraphs: 'facilitate dialogue within different religious and LGBTQ religious youth groups to include religious diversity'. The workshop did not agree with combining the phrases as they describe different targets.
For: 12 for, 17 abstentions and 11 against. Motion fails.
Proposal: Page 14, para 5: Insert new paragraph: 'Facilitate capacity building on intercultural communication for the IGLYO member organisations.'
Despina Michaelidou (ACCEPT LGBT, Cyprus) pointed out that this was included already.
The motion folds.
Proposal: Page 14, para 7: Insert new paragraph: 'Mainstreaming – the practice of defining and implementing policies that are inclusive of all minority or vulnerable populations.'
Approved by majority.
Proposal: Page 14, para 7: Insert new paragraph: 'Religion – a system of belief, often involving faith and worship, that contributes to definition of ethics and morality.'
JL said he had adapted this from Article 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Irakli Vacharadze (DRCAA, Georgia) suggested removing the 2nd half of sentence. This was removed.
Nevin Oztop (KAOS GL, Turkey) asked whether the GA were being asked what they thought religion was.
RB said that the GA were being asked to vote on whether they felt this definition is appropriate for the position paper.
Approved by majority.
Proposal: Page 14, para 7: Insert new paragraph: 'Intersectionality – the understanding that inequalities and oppression are cross-cutting across different identity categories and that social identities have multiple dimensions; for instance, sexual orientation and gender identity are constituted differently in relation to a number of other social subjectivities, such as age, ethnicity, region or country of origin.'
Approved by majority.
Proposal: Page 13, para 8, line 2: Insert: ‘with an intersectional perspective'.
Approved by majority.
RB moved to vote on the entire document.
Position paper document approved by majority.
International development paper – Oisin O'Reilley (OR) presenting
OR thanked Kaos GL and Pink Life for presenting and AC for bringing a historical perspective. He invited Roh Petas (SETA, Finland) to present a summary of the discussion in workshop.
The discussion covered several topics that were discussed 2 years ago, but it was felt necessary to discuss them again. Historically, IGLYO has worked mostly from a European context but we are international in the sense that we involve many countries (even if IGLYO was a global organisation we would not need every country).
The region in which IGLYO is active is not entirely clear at this time ( for example, the proposed GA in Tel Aviv). The need to emphasise Council of Europe countries is mostly a funding consideration since it would not be fair to admit members who cannot afford to attend meetings etc. This was the reason for Friends of IGLYO/ members definition, a policy which is blocking non-CoE organisations from becoming members.
The board's mandate on globalisation has been limited so far but the GA can change the mandate. IGLYO events can have 10% of delegates from outside CoE. IGLYO can also provide expertise if invited by regional networks in other parts of the world. Since IGLYO works from a European context our methods may not be appropriate for other parts of the world.
Roh noted that not all opinions presented here were shared by Skeiv Ungdom and there was a difference of opinion within the group.
OR reminded the GA that this debate has been going on since the mid 80s, although the format has changed with every incarnation of the organisation. He said that the Board are not opposed to globalisation – the question is one of strategy. Structural, cultural, ethical, practical, financial and political considerations – these are challenges that need to be overcome. The proposal is that the membership strategy for the next 1 year should not be changed. The 2nd proposal is that a 12 month plan about how IGLYO might work in different regions. A pilot project proposed (through application process) with 1 member organisation and 2 non-member organisations to explore how support can be provided. The benefit of this approach would be avoiding an imperialist stance by consulting and engaging in dialogue with non members. OR quoted Kemal Ordek's suggestion of a co-decision mechanism since non-member orgs should have a say on what structural changes will be made to IGLYO.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) asked Oisin to clarify that IGLYO will not definitely expand membership after 12 months, the proposal is to review membership. OR said this was correct. Cosmin asked for more information about the pilot project.
OR said that proposal involved non-formal training opportunities and capacity building with non-member orgs.
Kemal Ordek (Pink Life, Turkey) said that all people should have participated in all workshops, and expressed concern that other participants had not read the text. Kemal asked what kind of benefits do you think the pilot project will have in terms of globalising the organisation.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) said that as well as supporting organisations it was also about us building capacity within IGLYO for us to learn and understand the cultural context of non-European organisations.
Kemal Ordek (Pink Life, Turkey) asked if there was difference between calling an organisation European or International.
OR said that IGLYO would need to diversify funding and find a legal mechanism to work globally.
RB said that the time for debate had elapsed and there was a need to vote. RB reminded the GA that as a policy document this will give the Board to mandate to work on this project.
Robert Furiel (Charlie, Czech Republic) asked if the 3 options presented were mutually exclusive.
AC explained that they were 3 projects, not 3 options, therefore the Board would have a mandate to work on all three.
Gisela Janis (SFQ, Sweden) said that since the document was a policy the Board would not be obliged to work on these projects.
RB said that if the GA did not pass the document, the Board would have no specific mandate to work on these issues.
Kemal Ordek (Pink Life, Turkey) pointed out that these are really important documents for this organisation and they should not have been given so little time. Kemal was concerned that many people have not read these documents.
RB said that it was delegate's own responsibility to read the documents.
Nevin Oztop (KAOS GL, Turkey) said that KAOS had submitted a motion to globalise membership.
RB responded that if this paper was passed then the motion would fall because the assembly has already voted to keep membership the same for 12 months. If not then the motion will be considered as part of the statutory amendments.
Nevin Oztop (KAOS GL, Turkey) pointed out that present membership policy does not reflect their country or region and KAOS was considering its membership.
For: 26. Abstentions: 16. Against: 5. Motion Passes.
Kemal Ordek (Pink Life, Turkey) suggested IGLYO should call itself 'European' not 'International'.
Statutory and Internal Motions
RB requested a show of voting cards to ensure that two of members were present in order for the statutes to be amended. 47 members were present, therefore quorum is set at 31 votes.
LE explained that the proposal was to remove inconsistencies in the statues to reflect only the current membership policy (there are references to the previous membership policy).
RB asked members approved voting on the changes as a bundle. The members approved this.
For: 42. Motion passes.
LE explained the proposal to change from 5-7 Board members to 6-8 Board members.
Robert Furiel (Charlie, Czech Republic) asked how this amendment would change the financial situation for IGLYO.
LM said that IGLYO can afford to increase the board by one person thanks to the Progress funding.
Vote: For: 42. Motion passes.
Alexandra Santos (Rede Ex Aeqo, Portugal) asked what would happen if the Board are split on a decision since there are an even number of Board members now.
LM explained that there are later motions relating to this, but this has never happened up to this time.
Proposal: Increase the number of members that may be co-opted. LM said that this would make sense since the GA had already approved increasing the maximum number of Board members.
In favour: 38. Motion passes.
Proposal: Clarification of length of mandate. LM explained that the amendment was proposed to make it clear that the mandate finishes at the end of the year, not from this GA onwards.
Karoline Borner (Lambda Berlin-Brandenburg, Germany) pointed out that the sentence says that the new board members elected at this event will end their mandate in December 2011.
LM responded that the previous sentence says that the board mandate is 2 years, which means the new mandate finishes at the end of December 2013.
In favour: 43. The motion passes.
Proposal: To make it possible for members to be nominated for the Board at the GA itself. LM explained that this year the Board had to extend the call deadline 2 times, and if the motion passes then we can be more flexible by taking nominations at the GA itself.
Nir Zernyak (Israeli Gay Youth, Israel) reminded that GA that all candidates should have approval of their member organisation, and asked how this would be possible at the GA itself.
LM said it would still be the case, but member organisations would be able to send a form electronically giving their permission.
For: 37. Abstentions: 3. Against: 2. Motion passes.
Motions: the motion falls because the previous document was approved.
Proposal:
LM explained that currently the board runs two years, which means at the start of the mandate people are running IGLYO without much knowledge of the organisation. The advisory body was created to pass on knowledge but is not sufficient for efficient transmission of knowledge, therefore the Board are proposing up to four members are elected every year.
Roh Petas (SETA, Finland) asked whether the Board elected in 2011 would be elected for three years.
LM said that everyone who is elected in 2011 will have a two year mandate, then in the 2012 GA there will be four posts which run for one year and four posts that run for two years.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) asked why the new rule should start at next year's GA, rather than being effective immediately.
LM explained that this was not specified in the call this year, and therefore the next two years will be a transition period. If members are co-opted within the next year their mandate will end December 2012.
Karoline Borner (Lambda Berlin-Brandenburg, Germany) asked what would happen if no Board member resigns in 2012.
LM explained that if nobody resigns, then the mandate for all Board members elected at the 2011 GA will end in 2013, therefore half of the 2013 Board will serve a one year mandate and half will serve a 2 year mandate.
Laurynas Pliuskys (LGBT Youth Scotland, UK) reminded the GA that in the statutes it says that the GA is able to select whether they nominate 6 or 8 Board members, and asked how this would work under the new system.
LM said that the GA must select the number of Board members, and that this will be the case unless new Boards change the statutes.
For: 36. Motion Passes.
Emergency Motions
Manuel Escalona Lugo (FELGTB, Spain) introduced the motion, explaining that if the proposed law passes it will be the first one in Europe specifically banning same sex marriage. It will undo existing marriages. FELGTB and Sin Verguenza are asking for a public condemnation.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) asked whether the proposal was a mandate to the board to issue a declaration.
LM said that it was not a clear mandate to the board, but a political statement from the General Assembly of IGLYO.
In favour: 47. Motion passes.
LM explained how the Board elections would work.
• Firstly, the GA must decide how many Board members will be elected. • Candidates will have 3 minutes to present themselves. • The votes will be counted and then made public tomorrow.
LM said that if a member of the GA would like to stand for the Board they will need to provide an electronic copy of the form by the dinner break. This does not have to be signed but it must be confirmed.
SM said that those running for Board will be giving presentations in the morning session.
LM said that members of the financial control committee would also be needed.
FK explained that the FCC looks through the receipts at one point during the Board's mandate, then comments on the accuracy of the financial report at the GA. It’s really important because it makes sure that the membership of IGLYO has a role in the financial management of the organisation.
RB informed that GA that after the break there would be a discussion of the issues surrounding the proposed GA in Tel Aviv. Attendance of this session is optional but RB strongly encouraged member organisations to participate.
At this point the delegate from SFQ approached the minute taker and gave them the following statement:
Statement from SFQ concerning the minutes:
I would like to send a statement to the new Board regarding making all the policy papers consistent when it comes to language, definitions and abbreviations such as LGBTQ(I) which now appears once in the document (I). Also regarding the churches definitions where one definition now tells about LGBTQ and the others mainly about homosexuality. I would like to point out in particular the policy document is very normative when it comes to gender identities, for example – definition of lesbian – who is a woman? Best regards, Gisela Janis, SFQ
Discussion Session 1: Issues surrounding proposed work in Israel
Panel:
Ramzy Kumsieh (Palestian Queers for BDS)
Nir Zernyak (Israeli Gay Youth)
Michel (European Network Against Racism)
Michel: Thank you to IGLYO for having organised this session. I do not know some of you. Please say your name and country.
I feel it is important to consider worse case scenario. We need to set up a few ground rules for the discussion we are going to have.
Ground rules.
• Respect • No fighting • Put up your hand • Let people finish what they have to say (within time constraints) • Make constructive dialogue • Let others speak • Respect the moderator • Do not speak unless identified the moderator to speak • Respect other people’s opinions even if you do not share them • Use the hand sign if you want to agree to something
One of the delegates requested a break be scheduled during the session.
EP said that a recess would be called if we cannot have a productive dialogue.
JL: there is a limit to 3 minutes per person speaking. Signs will be used.
Michel: If you feel your point has already been made please try not to restate it.
EP: Originally IGLYO provided a call for GA, and IGY replied and were successful. There was a discussion between members and external people about the appropriateness of holding the GA in IGLYO.
Michel: Try to be as unemotional as possible and state the facts as they seem to you. If we can agree on what happened in one hour it would be good to move on to how we can avoid this again.
Ramzy: Thanks to IGLYO for iniviting us. I am representing Palestinian Queers for BDS. I would also like to tell you about Pink Watching Israel. I would like to explain our campaign. I would also like to tell you as a non-member org we do not want to participate in an internal discussion but we would like to tell you our position. PQDS is an organisation of queers to promote and stand for the Palestinian civil society call for BDS. We struggle for LGBT activity to be integrated with the Palestinian struggle for freedom. We ask Israel to not to discriminate against its own citizens and others, and to respect human rights and UN resolutions, specifically the rights of refugees. Our struggle is not only against social injustice, but against three tiered oppression: suppression of basic rights and civil liberty and discrimination. Pink Aatching Israel has been watching Israeli efforts to transform the image of Israel to one that is gay-friendly. They are portraying Arab societies as backwards in contrast with Israel. Pinkwashing is not about gay rights, it is the appropriation of queer voices in order to shift focus from human rights and international law violations to an image of Israel being progressive, friendly and gay tolerant. It suggests that if we have gay rights we do not have to respect other human rights. Stopping pinkwashing prevents the use of the gay rights movement to oppress other people. Thanks to the support of many member organisations, IGLYO and IGY announced that they would not have the GA. However, IGY is still having their youth summit in Tel Aviv. This is a compromise to the anger of PQBDS, but none of the Palestinian organisatoins have been invited (not that they would go). We are launching a new platform website where activists and groups around the globe can download our anti- pinkwashing toolkit, read articles and commentary, look at our timeline, and you can become a pinkwatcher yourself. The revolutions sweeping the world this year have changed a lot – the walls of fear have been broken. We would ask you to put pressure on IGY to stop taking money from the Israeli state to serve their agenda.
Michel: What I am hearing from Ramzy is that the fight for LGBTQ equality in Palestine is intrinsically linked to the fight for freedom. You are trying to denounce the pinkwashing of Israel. PQBDS consider the first victory of their movement to be the fact that the GA was not held in Israel. You said that IGY promised to open dialogue with Palestinian orgs for the summit. You said that IGLYO should put pressure on IGY to stop receiving funding from the Israeli government, as it is making them complicit with the Israeli crimes against Palestine.
Ramzy: It is not about the money but what they are doing with the money (i.e. promoting the policies of the state and promoting pinkwashing).
Nir: I have been involved with IGLYO for 3 years and was on a prep team for the legislation conference in Spain. I do not feel that the occupation is the right thing and that is what IGY believes. I want to explain why we chose to host the GA in Israel. I believe we need to justify how to present these things in future.
In August 2009 there was a man who walked into a gay youth goup in Tel Aviv and shot people and injured 12 more. This was a big trauma for the LGBT community in Israel and we wanted to hold an event for the youth community. It is the right thing to show the solidarity for the youth in Israel.
I realised that holding a GA outside of Europe we would need other funds. We believe that changing can only occur by working with the government (e.g. the Ministry of Education). The government did not tell us what to do and what not to do during the conference. We would have ensured that delegates can see the occupied territories during our summit, otherwise this would completely be pinkwashing. The decision to hold the GA just before Human Rights Day was because we wanted to march with the human rights organisations. Once the campaign began we had our first vote about GA in Israel. We knew there was a second round going on as the government are talking about limiting freedom of speech when it comes to boycott Israel. At this stage had a third vote and decided to withdraw because it was too complicated and we wished to make it easier for all sides.
We did decide to hold an event in Israel funded not only by the Israeli government, but by other funds and we would like to use this money to share our resources with activists in other parts of the world.
Ramzy is saying that none of the Palestinian organisations were invited – we did not invite them because we knew they would not come. We do have Palestinians within IGY.
We are still having a tour in East Jerusalem because otherwise this would be pinkwashing. People need to see the reality for people living in Israel and Palestine. We are glad we have many international partners who are willing to come to our event.
Michel: To rephrase... you said it was important that IGY does not support occupation. Due to the killing of young people in Israel IGY wished to host an international event to show commitment and support. If this was to happen the occupation would have been part of the programme. They could not be sure they could host the meeting due to the pressures. They found it too risky in terms of political uncertainties and decided to suspend the GA. Maybe they did not invite the Palestinian organisations because they knew they would not attend and there are Palestinian queers active in their organisation.
OR: IGLYO’s events historically have always been run on the basic of open calls to the member organisations. This is an opportunity for member organisations to build their own capacity and networks. The Board met in January to review applications. IGY were the only member organisation who expressed and interest. The Board were cognisant of wider human rights issues present in Israel and Palestine and we did not take the decision lightly. We took advice from other people outside organisation as well as our advisers. Our decision to allow IGY to host general assembly was based on the fact that we are here as a network to act in the members wishes, and we would not wish to send a political message without a clear message coming from our members. We had been in correspondence with the organisations behind Get IGLYO Out Of Israel for 6 weeks prior to the campaign. The board realised that we would not reach consensus and decided to allow members to respond directly to the issue. After dialogue with members, those members voted to allow us to continue with the GA in Israel. The anti-boycott law raised some very serious concerns for the Board and also there was renewed campaigning and complaints from member organisations. The Board were not in a position where freedom of speech would be guaranteed at the GA. We decided to have a second round of voting at which point IGY withdrew. The Board felt significantly unsupported by the statutes to provide guidance. The Board have been criticized but we stand by the approach that we took. It has been a difficult but positive experience as an organisation, stimulating a lot of dialogue about differences of opinion and differences of approach. I’d like to thank the panel members for attending.
Michel: In summary... the usual process was followed and IGY took up the call in accordance with the rules, understanding the ramifications. The grounding was that it was a duty of IGLYO to support members, regardless of their approach to activism. The pressure intensified from a number of members and they decided to have a vote in June which was in favour. The major concern was around boycotting Israel and freedom of speech. IGY withdrew their concern at this time. You recognise that IGLYO has tried to find the best way for the organisation. Also that it has been a positive experience
I would like to ask the delegates, what extra information can you bring? What have the consequences been for you in your own organisation and at a national level.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania): I think it was sensible for IGLYO to push for organising the GA in Israel given that it was the only organisation that offered. I understand that the Palestinian queer organisations' fight and their position and I support what they stand for. However, I think that all of us must see that IGLYO was in the position where it had to support one of their member organisations in Israel in their fight for LGBT youth. It was less a political decision and more an activist decision. I think that Palestinian organisations would have had an opportunity to participate in GA. I congratulate the board’s tact and diplomacy. I ask IGY when you say that you do not support occupation what are you doing about this?
Nir: We made a declaration. We are an organisation to support LGBTQ causes so when it comes to other human rights issues we make a declaration. We signed the statement to the government against the boycott law, and we also march at human rights demonstrations.
Miroslawa Makuchowska (KPH, Poland): The board in my organisation discussed this vividly and could not come to a conclusion. I do not believe Human Rights can be taken separately, and we cannot fight for LGBT rights but ignore the bigger picture. I would like to ask IGY whether there is a statement anywhere that they have made on occupation. In response to the question about activist decisions versus political decisions that everything is political and has political consequences. I would also like to say that it is important to consider what the implications would have been if IGLYO had organised the GA in Russia.
Irakli Vacharadze (DRCAA, Georgia): I come for a country that is also occupied and there is even less dialogue about this. However, my organisation said yes to holding the GA in Israel, as we do not believe that it is fruitful to obstruct an organisation's readiness to host a GA. If Russia were to offer to host one year I would of course object, but I am asking people to consider the precedent that would be set by declining to host the event in Israel.
LM: In my organisation we discussed that we were not dealing with a country, we were dealing with IGY. Is supporting the army to become an LGBTQ inclusive organisation the same thing as saying you support the army? If taking an governments money makes you complicit in their actions then many of our organisations are complicit since no country fully respects Human Rights.
Ramzy: Yes, IGY has tight relationship with the Israeli defence army. This army specifically is engaged in the illegal occupation of another territory. By being part of it you are complicit with what they are doing. The Israeli army is militarized.
The IGLYO board were not actually listening to the core of our argument. Regarding BDS – the people who are being oppressed are asking the international community to help us with this resistance tool. The difference is that these oppressed people chose to come to you to tell you 'this is how we would like you to support us'. It was not a call from other oppressed people e.g. Georgia. In South Africa this was the tool that the South African Black people chose. I am asking you to listen to our core argument. This is the way of struggling chosen by the Palestinian people.
Gyorgy Meszaros (Szimpozion Association, Hungary): We have a difference of limits here - IGY’s limit was with the boycott law. It is difficult to decide if a decision not to collaborate is the best decision. Is it ethical or strategic?
Kemal Ordek (Pink Life, Turkey): I want to make a point that the IGLYO board was not successful in managing the process. I know that there was too much pressure on the Board in dealing with the issue, but leadership means to give good decisions, and moral decisions, and just decisions in terms of situations that are really hard for people. I don’t believe that neutrality means taking no position on degrading and inhumane conditions around the world. I would like to see the clear connection of IGY with the Israeli government because its not enough to say morally that we need money. I will never cooperate with the Turkish government because they denied the massacre of Armenians and Kurdish people. I think we need to be clear that IGLYO is complicit in these massacres.
EP: I respect what you’re saying and I’m saddened that a member organisation feels that we haven’t shown sufficient leadership across our mandate. It was a difficult decision to take initially. My leadership as chair was always to support our organisations as a collective or as individuals and that is why we support the work of IGY as an organisation.
Ashild Marie Vige (Skeiv Ungdom, Norway): I want to comment on the process and the voting. We had a problem in our organisation to gather people as it was a big discussion and it was problematic when we had a 3-day warning. It was so short we only just managed to be able to vote. Most of the member organisations of IGLYO did not vote and I suspect that was because of the very short time limit. So next time it would be good to have longer to debate at home before we do the vote. Perhaps also to contact the organisations directly in the event of such a big vote. It is very hard for organisations like Helem to attend meetings in Israel. It is in practice difficult for organisations to participate in the debate.
LM: It was one week not 3 days. We did want to mix the information period and the voting period. We had a large response considering our usual response to calls for member involvement.
ZS: 58 organisations responded.
LM: Helem was not invited to the GA in Israel. Friends of IGLYO are not invited to the GA because they are about voting. All member organisations would have been able to enter the country.
Alan Bailey (NUS LGBT, UK): It was a shame that Helem left IGLYO. I think there needs to be an understanding about political debate and accountability, for example the email that was inadvertently sent. Affiliates hold IGLYO to account not the other way round. Israel is outside the CoE which strikes a discord with the conversation about membership earlier. It seems that all governments have Human Rights abuses but what is the bottom line?
Robert Furiel (Charlie, Czech Republic): I have heard stuff about IGY and the government so I would like to respond to ask PQBDS about their funding.
Nevin Oztop (KAOS GL, Turkey): To say the least it was embarrassing to see the internal emails and I think we need to hear about that. Also to compare the Palestinian torture with any other issue would be normalising it.
Miroslawa Makuchowska (KPH, Poland): Intersectionality is a new definition for me. There is no gay emancipation for Palestine when their basic human rights are being violated. Does debate about procedures, regulations and statutes have to be followed by debate on values? I think strong debate is needed about values.
Nir: I will try to stress 2 points. IGY and government: if going into a public school because the Education Minister allowed you to do so is supporting the occupation then we have a problem. With the army, our mission is to make sure that the places where LGBT youth people are found are safe for them. All Jewish young people must join the army so we are on a mission to make it a less homophobic environment. In Israel there are about 20 people who commit suicides related to sexual orientation issues and that is enough reason for me.
Ramzy: PQBDS does not take funding from Palestinian administration and is a civil society organisation. You can refuse to join the army in Israel, although there are consequences, you do have the choice. IGY promotes queers in Israel to join the army - IGY is complicit with the occupation. It does not have clear standing. An organisation who wanted to go to schools to talk with young people about their choice to join the army were refused to do so. The government - by having you promote gay rights - are using you: they take your image and claim they are exceptional, and take attention away from other abuses. In order to receive funding they have to sign a contract where they say they will serve the state. By going there IGLYO would be complicit with the occupation.
You are saying that you were concerned about freedom of speech but the freedom of movement and the freedom of the person does not concern you? What will happen at the leadership summit – you can go to the Pink watching website and find out what their whole agenda is. We do not wish to make comments on internal issues, but you cannot take an apolitical decision in relation to Israel. Human rights issues are very important – this is the language that is being depoliticized on the summit website – ‘hot topics and tensions’. We are connected with each other. I am happy that you have invited us to attend and are having an internal debate. I hope next time that you will listen more to the calls that come form organisations like PQBDS.
Michel: I will draw together what I will take away. We should start with the issue of perception – I think we have been exposed from Nir and Ramzy to different approaches to strategies. I think both approaches are valid. There is a question about values that need to be reflected on. We are having problems in ENAR which we did not forsee and are trying to invent solutions on the spot – this is part of the life cycle of the organisation. We need a wider understanding of what is happening and I would encourage you to clarify your values. I do not want to neutralise what is happening in Israel but you need to think about what would happy if a Russian organisation came forward to host the GA. All money is dirty that we are going to receive, so where can we draw the line together? You may find a valid solution today but in two or three years this may be different. There is a clear need to support the Palestinian people, just as there is a clear need to support Israeli young people who are LGBTQ identified. All of these are legitimate claims that need to be taken on board. You need to invest time in this one, it is really important. Thanks for taking part in the debate.
Elections
RB opened the session and explained the programme. She informed the delegates that the nominees for the Baord would be making their presentations to the GA in the morning session. Twelve nominations had been received. One nomination came after 9pm, and would not normally be accepted, however an exception was made taking into consideration the lack of diversity in the other nominations. This is reflected in the statutes which state that the Board may extend deadlines to ensure gender balance within the Board. Because there are 12 the presentation time was reduced: each person had 2 minutes.
Nominations Speeches for Election to the Board
Agata Chaber (CPH, Poland)
AC: I am involved in the Transphobia Foundation, Campaign against Homophobia and ANSO. Within IGLYO I am coordinator of the health working group and Treasurer of IGLYO. I am interested in bringing trans and intersex issues more into our work as this is my area of expertise.
Questions
Roh Petas (SETA, Finland): What do you feel is the best thing you contributed to the Board up to now?
AC: I have been working on the study session on Gender equality which takes place next April. I also edited 'IGLYO On... Access' that the health working group has produced, that is found in your welcome packs.
Zara Shushanyan (WFCE, Armenia)
ZS: I have been coordinating the IC/IRD working group for 2 years. The reason I am reapplying for the board is that I am hoping to do some important work with this group. I am proud of the position paper and we are planning to have another conference on these issues. We have good plans for the upcoming 2 years and I hope to continue to do good work with the help of the group and you as member organisations.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania): Do you have a particular project or task you would like to accomplish in your next term?
ZS: There are four main activities: the conference on ICIRD; 'IGLYO on… ICIRD; an exhibition intercultural dialogue in the eyes of LGBT youth, and; continued promotion of needs assessment of under-represented LGBTQ groups via surveys and other means.
Andrii Zarystkyi (Nikolaev Association for Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals “Liga”, Ukraine)
Andrii: Our organisation was one of the first LGBT organisations registered officially in Ukraine. I work as a translator and advocacy and lobby coordinator. I worked since 2007 within human rights work in Ukraine. I have applied in order to be closer to members organisations in IGLYO. I would like to know the situation of European countries more closely.
No questions.
Artiom Zavadovschi (GenderDoc-M, Moldova)
As Artiom was not present at the GA his presentation was given by Anastasia Danilova, from the same organisation.
Anastasia: Artiom is a part of our organisation and I would like to say a couple of words about him: he is brave, young and active. He is a feminist and a true human rights defender by nature. He is a Board member of the National Youth Council in Moldova. He is a member of Amnesty International Moldova. He would like to be an active part of IGLYO. He is a member of ICIRD working group. He is very active and will contribute a lot.
Questions
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania): Why is he not here?
Anastascia: He is in Geneva and was not able to manage with his travel issues.
Ashild Marie Vige (Skeiv Ungdom, Norway): How old is he?
Anastascia: He is 24.
Dean Sharpe (Open Minds 18-25 LGBT Group, UK)
Dean: I am Dean and I represent Open Minds in UK. I have been active for 4 and a half years now in LGBT activism. This involves lobbying ministers, MPs, and local organisations. I have also been part of the Stonewall Youth volunteering programme, for example I worked with a university to get them to have LGBT resources in library. I have been a trustee for a youth work charity and have applied for funding to the government.
No questions.
Sadja Jordan (LesBiSchwule Hochschulgruppe Gottingen)
Sadja: Being an LGBTQ activist is an essential part of my life. I am a co-founder of my organisation and have dealt with the challenges of group dynamics and fundraising. I am a non-formal, gender-sensitive trainer. I was a prep team member last year in Strasbourg. I am interested in a wide range of topics concernng LGBT work. I am interested in queer feminism. I have an overview of the structures of IGLYO and would like to learn new skills. I offer my devotion to the promotion of LGBTQI issues and would like to ensure that your voices will be heard.
No questions.
Laurynas Pliuskys (LGBT Youth Scotland, UK)
Laurynas: Hi I am Laurynas from the UK and Lithuania. I am one of the co- founders of Tolerant Youth Association. I have also been involved in ANSO which is an international LGBTQ organisation. I am applying because I want to maintain the professionalism of IGLYO and bring it to the next level of lobbying. I believe they can achieve much more on a European scale.
Questions
EP: Do you have any facilitation skills?
Laurynas: I have 'training for trainers' experience from the CoE and also experience facilitating with ANSO.
Nir Zernyak (Israeli Gay Youth, Israel)
Nir: I am 28 years old I was born and raised in Israel. I have lived in Chicago, Norway and the Baltics, so I have international experience. I have been volunteering and working for LGBTQ organisations. I was involved in the Spain prep team and the proposed GA in Israel. I was involved in an education project in schools. I have a lot of experience in non-formal education including Israeli Scouts. I gained a lot of knowledge in the field of law and I might be able to use this for us. I also bring a experience in fundraising and would bring a different perspective rather than just European.
No questions.
Vladimir Veljkovic (SPY, Serbia)
Vladimir: I am from Safe Pulse of Youth, Serbia. We work in the field of Human Rights and health. I have a simple message. I was involved in IGLYO activities since 2005 and this experience culminated with being in the prep team in Amsterdam last week. I think that this experience and working with other members of IGLYO helped me to make the decision to continue working closely with all of you. I worked with my organisation since 2002 and was mostly a project coordinator. My work has included: cooperation with other organisations; documentation of Human Rights violations in Serbia, and; organisation of Pride marches in Serbia. Besides my wish to continue my work with all of you, I would also like to return my learning but also improve the conditions for LGBTQ Youth.
Cosmin: Encouraging since the beginning. Since 2005. Completely different atmosphere from all the other networks. This makes me wish to continue working with IGLYO.
Roh Petas (SETA, Finland)
Roh: I have been an LGBTQI activist since 2005 when I became an educator for SETA in Finland. I have been to hundreds of schools to discuss LGBTQI issues. I provide tools to schools to make their schools safer for LGBTQI young people. I am the only employee in my organisation, so my work involves: keeping track of budgets; arranging events; media work, and; schools work. I was on board of the same organisation for 2 years - 1 year as vice president. I was also Board member of ANSO. I would like to be connected to the IGLYO board. I feel I have a lot to contribute to activism at an international level. I am an educator first and foremost. If elected I would like to contribute a clear feminist and norm-critical perspective and make IGLYO a safe space for activists from all over.
Questions
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania): What’s your experience with IGLYO?
Roh: I attended the 25th anniversary conference. I was on the prep team for the Strasbourg conference, and participated in the Bucharest conference and would like to get involved more every time.
Zdravko Cimbaljevic (LGBT Forum Progres, Montenegro): What do you think of the membership of IGLYO?
Roh: I have met a lot of member organisations and I feel sorry I haven’t had a chance to meet all of you, but I think there are a lot of valuable experiences and practices. I would like to share this experience.
Fernando Tadeu Dallago de Souza (Arcopoli, Spain)
Fernando: I’m Fernando from Arcopoli. I think that the most important thing for the activist life is motivation. Now I have more motivation. These first few days with the capacity building conference, I learned of a lot of important things. We need persistence and constancy in this work. I will contribute with my enthusiasm and my time. I will share my knowledge and my experience. I have a commitment to all people that have a trust in me.
No questions.
Despina Michaelidou (Cyprus, ACCEPT LGBT)
Despina: I from the first recognised LGBT organisation for Cyprus, of which I am a co-founding member. I am a member of a steering committee in the position of advocacy and lobbying. I also do media work and lobbying for civil partnership. In 2010 I went to United States for the project to do equality work with the organisation Soulforce, engaging around gender and sexuality in relation to faith. I am part of the European youth network on sexual and reproductive rights. I have experience in strategic planning, capacity building, financial management, training, gender, sexuality and human rights. All of these experiences I believe I can communicate and bring to the role.
Questions
Have you been involved in IGLYO and work internationally?
Despina: It was my first experience in IGLYO since we became member 2011. I was a member of steering committee of EYR. I worked in the US for 2 months for an equal rights organisation, as only international person.
RB thanked the delegates for their presentations.
RB explained that there had not been enough nominations for the FCC and asked the GA whether anyone else would like to come forward for the role. Daniel Winstanley (LGBT Youth Scotland, UK) put himself forward.
Financial Control Committee Presentations
Luisa Tolu (We Are University Group, Malta)
Luisa: I have a background in commerce and can bring that to the role.
Daniel Winstanley (LGBT Youth Scotland, UK)
Daniel: I am familiar with the work of IGLYO and international funding streams (from working on the global 2009 event) and I would like to contribute to the sustainability of the work.
Louisa and Daniel were approved for FCC.
Nominations as Advisors to the Board
RB explained that advisors are former IGLYO board members who provide advice to the Board. Luis and Esther were nominated.
Vytautas Valentinavicius (Lithuanian Gay League, Lithuania) said he would like to suggest Augustas Cicelis.
AC did not wish to take on this role.
Luis and Esther were approved as advisors to the Board.
Elections for the Board
RB informed the GA that the elections for the Board would now proceed.
Micah Gryzwnowicz (ANSO, Sweden) asked whether first the GA needed to decide how many Board members there would be.
LM explained that voters should make 6, 7 or 8 crosses on their ballot paper.
Simon Maljevac asked what percent of the vote candidates need to get elected.
LM said that all board members require 50%+1 of the vote.
Vytautas Valentinavicius (Lithuanian Gay League, Lithuania) asked how it would be decided how many Board members there would be.
Gisela Janis (SFQ, Sweden) requested a short discussion before the decision of the number of Board members was made.
RB said that there were a few minutes to ask questions.
Vytautas Valentinavicius (Lithuanian Gay League, Lithuania) suggested the GA consider the cost of Board members in terms of travel to Board meetings etc., and that considering the budget IGLYO did not need more than 7 Board members.
EP explained that the budget and workplan (which would hopefully be approved later) had been created with 8 Board members in mind.
OR reminded the delegates that it was their role to decide what the appropriate level of Board membership would be.
Vytautas Valentinavicius (Lithuanian Gay League, Lithuania) suggested that 9 Board members be chosen.
RB reminded the delgated that in the statutory changes they had already voted to have a maximum of 8 Board members. The justification of that proposal was on the basis the Progress application that was approved and the increasing work of IGLYO. RB said that increasing the number of the board exponentially over time might be dangerous in terms of financial burden and group dynamics.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) asked for a history of the number of Board members.
RB said that from her experience the number of Board members was 5 in 2003. After 3 months there were 3. A further three were co-opted and after 6 months there were only 3 again, which was very difficult. RB pointed out that there is a history in IGLYO of people dropping out for personal reasons.
EP said that there are only 3 board members remaining who were elected at the last GA.
Karoline Borner (Lambda, Germany) said that it wasn't clear why the GA had to decide on how many Board members to vote for.
EP explained that it is written in the statutes that a decision must be made about how many places are being voted on.
Zdravko Cimbaljevic (LGBT Forum Progres, Montenegro) asked what would happen if 8 Board members were voted for, but then people dropped out, reducing the number to 5 or 6, since obligations and workload have increased.
Gisela Janis (SFQ, Sweden) suggested 7 Board members, as from personal experience the more people on a Board, the harder it gets to get a group dynamic - this will be harder work and so people will more easily drop out.
EP said that there are 6 members now even though there are 7 places. The current Board reached their limit for co-option, therefore could not co-opt to the final place.
AC explained that Boards cannot co-opt more than 3 board members, and pointed out that it is different in international orgs than national ones because of working mainly via emails – but that the current workload would require 8 members.
Irakli Vacharadze (DRCAA, Georgia) asked the Chair to explain in human terms how many members are being elected, and how many of the existing Board will remain.
EP explained that the GA are voting for 6, 7 or 8 members, and no Board members would keep their place automatically.
Zdravko Cimbaljevic (LGBT Forum Progres, Montenegro) said that people who applied for Board membership should be taking it seriously and should not be dropping out.
RB said that people who run for the Board come with the best intentions and it is not possible to predict how people's commitments may change - people often leave for personal reasons.
Sonja Thomaier (LesBiSchwule Hochschulgruppe, Germany) said that everyone has to make a living, and if they who have been doing the work say they need more members why not trust them?
Siobhan McGuire (USI LGBT, Ireland) pointed out that this was discussed yesterday and that in she came from a national organisations with a board of 13 – therefore 8 wasn't too many for an international organisation.
RB asked for ballot papers to be raised so that quorum could be established.
46 members were present, meaning simple majority would be 24.
Vote to approve having 8 Board members. 38 for, motion adopted.
SM stressed that all Board members must have 50% plus one votes, therefore eventually there may be less than 8 board members.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) asked if the ballot paper would be invalid if there were more than 8 crosses.
AC said that yes this would invalidate the ballot paper.
David Debono (MGRM, Malta) asked if delegates could vote for less than 6 members.
RB clarified that delegates could vote for between 1 and 8 candidates.
The room was closed while ballot papers were collected and counted by the two tellers.
BREAK
RB announced that 46 eligible votes had been counted, and 6 candidates had received 50% plus one vote and were therefore elected.
• Sadja Jordan (LesBiSchwule Hochschulgruppe Gottingen, Germany): 39 votes • Despina Michaelidou (Accept LGBT, Cyprus): 38 votes • Roh Petas (SETA, Finland): 35 votes • Vladimir Veljkovic (SPY, Serbia): 33 votes • Agata Chaber (KPH, Poland): 33 votes • Zara Shushanyan (WFCE, Armenia): 26 votes
RB explained that although 6 candidates had been elected by overall majority, the GA had voted to have 8 Board members. Therefore voting would proceed to pick two further members from the remaining candidates. New voting cards were distributed upon which the delegates could write their chosen candidates.
David Debono (MGRM, Malta) asked whether delegates could abstain from voting.
RB said that delegates could abstain but were encouraged to vote.
Laurynas Pliuskys (LGBT Youth Scotland, Lithuania) asked if candidates might be assigned a number, so delegates did not have to write the full name on the ballot paper.
RB said this would not work as it made it more difficult to count votes.
Completed ballot papers were collected and the tellers left to count the votes while the activity report was presented.
Activity Report
EP presented the activity report in the form of a short quiz with explanations. Highlights of the Board's activity since the last GA included:
• HIV positive poster campaign • A conference on legislation in Toledo • Enlightenment 2 conference in Romania • Attending 8 Prides across Europe and Israel • A debate hosted at Europride in Rome • Active membership of European Youth Forum – 3 meetings attended • IGLYO delivered trans conference but also Sadja Jordan attended a roundtable with the Fundamental Rights Agency. • Intersex Forum conference also attended. • IGLYO On…. Pride, Access, Trans, Progress and Legislation. • Working groups on ICIRD, Health, and Human Rights • The organisation now has two staff members – Virga (Office Manager) and Jordan (Programmes and Policy Officer).
RB thanked the current Board for their hard work.
There were no questions from the GA about the report.
Strategic Report
A new strategic report was written at end of 2010 to change the Mission and Vision and bring them in line with new funding streams.
Strategic focus areas included:
EDUCATION • Promoting good practice conference, Edinburgh • Inclusive Education Seminar, Brussels • Enlightenment II conference, Romania
HEALTH • IGLYO on… Access • 'On the Doorstep of Health', Strasbourg • A lot of change in Board but Agata developed the health work a lot since taking it over
HUMAN RIGHTS • Legislating LGBTQ, a conference on anti-discrimination law, Spain • Euro and Batlic Pride, stalls workshops and debates • IGLYo on legistlation • IGLYO on trans • It’s t-time: building capacity for trans work in LGBTQ organisations, Ukraine
ICIRD • Video Project • Application to EYF for 2012 conference • Position paper • Working group meeting, Brussels
Some Strategic Objectives have changed. See strategic report for progress against the previous strategic objectives.
There were no questions about the Strategic Report.
Vote to adopt the Activity Report. Adopted by majority.
Vote to adopt the Strategic Report. Adopted by majority.
Finance report
AC presented on the Financial Report: this comprises an overview of IGLYO’s finances with explanatory notes.
Financial Committee's Report
FK presented on behalf on FCC. A new person from Lambda Warsaw was nominated when Bart did not respond to communications.
FCC represents the eyes of the members on the financial work of the Board.
The FCC's conclusion was that the work of Board and secretariat with regard to IGLYO’s finances has been carried out in a transparent and orderly manner. (Positive).
FK also presented some recommendations for future FCC members: • to assist the board and secretariat when relevant, such as in reviewing internal regulations or discussing fundraising strategies. • To work in relation to member organisations to ensure that their concerns are raised with the board and handled well.
Financial report adopted by majority.
RB presented the results from the vote on 2nd round of voting: 44 valid ballot papers had been received, but none of the candidates had got 50% plus one, therefore, after consulting the statutes, RB referred to the simple majority rule.
RB explained that Nir Zernyak and Laurynas Pliuskys had received most votes. However, during the break (prior to results being announced) Laurynas had announced that he was withdrawing his candidature. The next person to receive the most votes was Artiom Zavadovschi. Therefore Nir and Artiom were announced as Board members.
Gisela Janis (SFQ, Sweden) asked whether the plenary of the GA could go against the statutes.
LE explained that it was not the statutes that determined this, but rather the working methods, and this was how the elections had proceeded historically.
Gyorgy Meszaros (Szimpozion Association, Hungary) asked whether there was anything in the statutes about how to deal with such situations.
Siobhan McGuire (USI LGBT, Ireland) asked whether the candidate was considered elected when the votes were counted or when the results were announced, because if the former was the case then Laurynas had technically been elected and then resigned.
RB said that technically Laurynas was not announced as an elected member.
Sonja Thomaier (LesBiSchwule Hochschulgruppe, Germany) asked how many votes had been received by each candidate.
RB said that 44 valid ballots had been received. • Nir Zernyak (IGY, Israel): 20 votes • Laurynas Pliuskys (LGBT Youth Scotland, UK): 17 votes • Artiom Zavadovschi (GenderDoc-M, Moldova): 15 votes
Robert Furiel (Charlie, Czech Republic) said that the downside of following the rules precisely is that people get bored, but the positive side is that everyone knows why something is happening. Robert suggested that future Boards reconsider these procedures and make sure rules are in place.
EP agreed that the statutes are not very specific in this situation and the mandate of the next board should include issuing amendments.
Robert Furiel (Charlie, Czech Republic) offered to help with these amendments.
Siobhan McGuire (USI LGBT, Ireland) asked whether the GA could vote on this decision.
RB said that it was the plenary of the GA's responsibility as the highest body of the organisation to approve this, and asked for a vote of approval for the proposed Board grouping.
Vote to approve the Board: 32 in favour; 9 abstentions 3 against. Motion passed.
Location of the next General Assembly
LM introduced the discussion, explaining that there was an open call for member organisations to host GA, and the Board had decided it would be best for the members to decide which application to approve. One member organisation's application could not be opened because the application they have submitted in PDF could not be opened, and the organisation did not respond to communications. LM invited the representative from Nikolaev Association for Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals “Liga” to speak for 5-7 minutes about their proposal.
Andrii Zaryskyi (Liga, Ukraine): Liga met together and decided to respond to the call to host the GA. Liga has existed since 1996. The most important areas of our work are LGBT Human Rights and HIV prevention. We wanted to hold the GA in Ukraine because we would like LGBTQ community in Ukraine to broaden their minds and meet new people. We would like staff, volunteers and representatives to become more skilled and get involved in intercultural dialogue. The problem that we are afraid of which means we do not have the skills in finding the funding for huge activities. This is a big concern. I think that we will be capable to hold the GA. We think Yalta would be the best location to host it, as hotels are less expensive. It is warmer here than in other regions in Ukraine.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vjianu (Accept, Romania) asked whether Liga had any experience of working with local government.
Andrii respond that they do not respond to calls or else react negatively towards LGBT people, and the Ukrainian government does not express any opinions on LGBT issues.
ZS said that Liga is also a member of the national ethical committee and she felt they were doing great lobbying work. She asked how the ethical committee might be involved in the GA and how can IGLYO contribute to Liga's activity.
Adrii responded that the ethical committee might write an official letter about the importance of holding the GA in Ukraine (and other organisations might be able to do the same).
Nir Zernyak (IGY, Israel) asked whether there would be any safety issues for participants in Ukraine.
Andrii responded that if participants do not express themselves openly e.g. kissing in public places, etc., it will not be a problem, and reminded delegates that in the current GA welcome pack violations were also mentioned.
Sonja Thomaier (LesBiSchwule Hochschulgruppe, Germany) asked how Liga were thinking of dealing with the financial aspect.
LM said that the GA is a statutory meeting in Europe, therefore 40-60% of funding may be able to come from IGLYO, and IGLYO can also have a pre-GA conference funded through EYF, or look at other options.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) referred back to the discussion on the political situation in Israel and Palestine yesterday, and reminded delegates that going into country is also a political statement. He said that in Ukraine the international community is responding to the arrest and imprisonment of former the prime minister as she is a political adversary of the current political power in Kiev. Cosmin expressed a personal opinion that there are problems with the rule of law in the Ukraine, and asked whether this would affect the GA.
Andrii said that the Ukrainian government does want to enter the EU, but it is possible that the political situation may impact negatively on the GA.
Zdravko Cimbaljevic (LGBT Forum Progres, Montenegro) asked whether IGLYO's presence might affect how the authorities think about LGBT rights and whether IGLYO might make a joint statement to those institutions. Zdravko said that every country has problems with the rule of law especially those who are not EU members – while there is a risk in having the GA in such countries, that is where IGLYO should go in order to show solidarity.
Andrii said that the statement might help, and that when Liga held a festival in 2010, inviting COC, ILGA, and Dutch politicians, the Ukrainian government did not ban this festival.
Kemal Ordek (Pink Life, Turkey) asked whether the Ukrainian government is against LGBT rights, and if so stated that the IGLYO should support Liga by holding the GA in Ukraine next year.
Andrii said that there isnt official opinion and no specific legislation on LGBT issues.
Vote to hold the GA in Ukraine next year. 39 in favour; none against; none abstaining. The motion passes.
BREAK
RB explained that during the plenary the GA would approve the 2012 Workplan and hear presentations from the working groups. The official Dutch GA would then commence, followed by any other business matters.
Workplan 2012
Irakli Vacharadze (DRCAA, Georgia) asked how and by whom conference themes were decided.
EP explained the the workplan was developed by the current Board in discussion with advisors and individual member organisations, and that the workplan was linked to the Strategic Plan for the coming years.
Esther Paterson proceeded to present the 2012 Workplan.
STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS
The new Board should continue strategic partnerships (ESU, OBESSU, ILGA- Europe, ILGA World, YFJ) and build new ones with other organisations such as TGEU, UNITED, ENAR, and the European Disability Forum.
EVENTS
• Gender equality through youth leadership • Training course: capacity building pilot • ICIRD and LGBTQ youth (application submitted but no results yet) • EU Policy: implementing, monitoring and reporting
EXTERNAL REPRESENTATION
• EU Fundamental Rights Agency • LGBT Intergroup: EU Parliament
POLICY AND ADVOCACY
• Research on homophobia and homophobic bullying in schools • Pride Parades • Horizontal anti-discrimination directive • Committee of Ministers Recommendations (CoE)
Working group presentations
Communications Working Group: Presented by Luis Eme (IGLYO Board)
LM said that 2012 would involve a change to Communications working group, as the closed and static communications group did not work. The communications team will evolve form a working group to an open pool of experts. The IGLYO Board would like to invite all of its members to complete a form to show what they would like to do so the Head of Communications can approach them at the appropriate time.
Health Working Group: Presented by Sonja Thomaier (LesBiSchwule Hochschulgruppe, Germany)
Sonja explained that the Health working group undertakes: collective advocacy for LGBTQI young people in the health care system; non-formal education among member orgs; encouraging a dialogue with health care professionals, and; gathering and presenting information.
Work so far includes:
• IGLYO On... Access • Forum on Intersex organising • TGEU trans capacity building seminar • MSM blood donorship map • ‘How do you teach, what do we learn?’ study – what is being taught to medical students. These guidelines have been produced already, and policy paper will then be produced.
ICIRD Working group: Presented by Zara Shushanyan (IGLYO Board)
Zara explained that the ICIRD working group is composed of board member and 3 individuals from member organisations. The aims of working group include making alliances with networks and highlighting best practice. The objective of the group is to provide an understanding of ICIRD.
Activities so far include:
• ICIRD research part for IGLYO stakeholder survey • First physical meeting of the Working Group • Final draft of ICIRD position paper • Work plan for 2012
Planned work includes:
• Conference on ICIRD • IGLYO On.. Intercultural Dialogue • Artistic expression of ICIRD and LGBTQ Youth • Partnerships with UNITED, UNESCO, ENAR, and Cultural Action in Europe
Zara introduced the short film ‘Half Rainbow’ (produced and directed by Salome Sagaradze, Georgia) which members are free to use and disseminate.
Human Rights Working Group: Presented by Alexandra Santos
Work so far includes:
• LGBT Human Rights Watch created (keeping IGLYO informed about LGBTQ Human Rights around the world). • 'IGLYO On... Progress'
The group wishes to create an archive as a snapshot of human rights in the last year. Members organisations were asked to propose ideas for the Working Group to develop.
EP congratulated the group for its hard work this year and explained that the reason there is not much specificity in the Workplan is that the Board wished to take direction from the stakeholder survey.
Gyorgy Meszaros (Szimpozion Association, Hungary) asked if it was the responsibility of the new Board to form new working groups.
EP responded that there were no internal regulations about how the Board should take the work forward, but the current Board would propose that the working groups continue as they are, with the same membership. The current Board also propose that a working group on Education should be established if this is deemed appropriate.
ZS explained that there is a vacancy on the ICIRD Working Group since someone was elected a board member so members may approach her if interested.
Capacity Building Tool: Presented by Jordan Long (Programmes and Policy Officer, IGLYO)
JL explained that in 2012 a programme will be launched for 4 smaller organisations to work together with IGLYO to build capacity across borders, coordinated by IGLYO. IGLYO will develop online tools and create space to exchange practices. This is likely to turn into a tool that will be available to the whole membership, and will incorporate all of the tools that the conference developed.
Adoption of work plans. Adopted by majority.
Stakeholder Survey
JL explained that the stakeholder survey is a tool to evaluate IGLYO’s work with its member organisations. It will be as concise as possible and will include content from all work areas. It will explore what members think IGLYO does and what members want IGLYO to do. The initial survey will be larger but a shorter version will be used every year to ensure that IGLYO is on track with the Strategic Plan. Members’ responses are important.
Any Other Business
Siobhan McGuire (USI LGBT, Ireland) asked if there was a 'Welcome to IGLYO Guide' for new member organisations, as this would be a good idea.
RB announced that new Board members should remain in the building at the end of the GA as the outgoing Board and new Board need to have their first short meeting.
Dutch Organisation Duties
RB explained that this part of the agenda would duplicate everything the GA had done so these motions were also passed for the Dutch association.
Motions were read out for approval by members. All motions were approved.
EP relieved RB and DW from their roles and the GA showed their appreciation.
EP also thanked Geert-Jan (COC Nederland), and the tellers Augustas and Felix. Special thanks were given to Simon Maljevac for giving a lot of support to the Board with their first GA. VP and JL were also thanked.
Cosmin Cristian Bebu-Vijianu (Accept, Romania) extended huge thanks to the outgoing board and said that every interaction had been amazing and professional.
EP announced that the IGLYO (AISBL Belgium) and IGLYO (Netherlands) General Assembly was officially closed.
Esther Paterson Chair of the IGLYO Board