The speaker of the Georgian parliament has signed into a law a bill that severely curtails LGBTQ+ rights in the country and mirrors legislation adopted in neighboring Russia.

The speaker of the Georgian parliament signed into a law Thursday a bill that severely curtails LGBTQ+ rights in the country and mirrors legislation adopted in neighboring Russia.

Shalva Papuashvili, the parliament speaker, said on social media that the legislation does “not reflect current, temporary, changing ideas and ideologies, but is based on common sense, historical experience and centuries-old Christian, Georgian and European values.”

Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili had refused to sign the bill and returned it to parliament on Wednesday. It was introduced by the governing Georgian Dream party and approved by lawmakers last month.

The bill includes bans on same-sex marriages, adoptions by same-sex couples and public endorsement and depictions of LGBTQ+ relations and people in the media. It also bans gender-affirming care and changing gender designations in official documents.

  • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    4·
    2 months ago

    The article doesn’t go into this but I am dying to know: why does the speaker of their legislative branch have the power to sign the bill into law?

    There’s no mention of overriding veto.

    Anyone familiar enough with the internal politics of Georgia?

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      You’re probably thinking of this like the US, which has a presidential system, where the president has a veto and Congress can override.

      Georgia has a parliamentary system, and typically there – don’t know about Georgia in particular – the president, if one exists, has a more symbolic role. Like, maybe he’s supposed to formally authorize legislation, but doesn’t really have a veto.

      EDIT: In the UK, the monarch – the head of state in the UK, like the president in a parliamentary system – sometimes has to do something, but on the “advice” of the elected government, which in practice means that in 2024, they don’t really have the option to not do it.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/how-queens-consent-raises-questions-over-uk-democracy

      Buckingham Palace insists that the monarch’s role is “purely formal”. Declassified files show that from time to time the palace has complained that the Queen has not been given enough time to respond, or that the government has treated the procedure too casually.

      If consent is withheld, parliament is in effect blocked from completing its scrutiny of the law. “If Queen’s or prince’s consent is not signified (in a case where it is required), the question on third reading of the bill … cannot be put,” parliamentary guidance states.

      Robert Blackburn, a professor of constitutional law at King’s College London, warned of “an inherent danger that a misguided future monarch or prince of Wales, holding strong moral views on the subject matter of a bill covered by the royal consent procedure, might believe he or she is entitled to impose his opinion on the matter”.