: Ignored Demands and Homophobic Violence

The purpose of this text is to frame the discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community within the

current context of the country. We will address two major aspects: the deep-rooted discrimination

in our society and the unanswered social demands of the LGBTQ+ community, which will be

discussed first. Additionally, we will examine the consequences of discrimination within this

context, particularly at the hands of the police.

Structural Discrimination and LGBTQ+ Rights

The situation our country has been experiencing since October of this year is not the result of an

isolated incident or the actions of a specific institution. Instead, it can be characterized as

"structural discrimination," which encompasses access to healthcare, education, pensions, and

limited opportunities for employment. This primarily affects individuals from lower socioeconomic

backgrounds, and the impact is compounded for those who not only face the disadvantages of

belonging to these strata but also endure discrimination due to their membership in other

marginalized groups. Discrimination rarely occurs in isolation; multiple forms of discrimination

often intersect. We are referring to individuals who belong not only to the lower-income social

strata but also face additional discrimination based on their gender, indigenous heritage,

LGBTQ+ identity, or older age. The list continues, encompassing what could be termed

"intersectional groups." These groups are disadvantaged in contrast to the privileges enjoyed by

a minority political and economic elite that controls the country's economic sectors and public

policies. The LGBTQ+ community suffers from these disadvantages, experiencing not only

injustices due to lack of recognition but also the related consequences in wealth distribution. This

aligns with Nancy Fraser's argument on recognition and redistribution. The author suggests that

social demands can be divided into two types, generating two opposing sides: one advocating for

equality through new redistribution processes and another fighting for identity recognition as a

path to social equality. These paradigms differ in four aspects: their understanding of justice, the

proposed solutions to combat injustice, their conceptions of the communities affected by

injustice, and their views on group differences. While redistribution seeks to eliminate group

differences to achieve equality, recognition aims to acknowledge those differences that have
been unjustly misunderstood or frame differences within a hierarchy that allows for recognition.

However, Fraser argues that neither redistribution nor recognition alone are sufficient to

overcome inequality and injustice today. There are groups that experience a bidimensionality

between both paradigms, suffering from both unfair distribution and erroneous recognition. This

is the case for members of the LGBTQ+ community. Numerous cases of labor tutelage actions

filed by homosexual and transgender individuals can serve as evidence. These individuals face

harassment or are restricted from accessing employment opportunities, always in a subordinate

position where they are discriminated against by those in higher hierarchical positions in the

workplace. In these cases, members of the LGBTQ+ community are deprived of their

constitutional right to work, as stated in Article 19, No. 16 of the constitution, and their rights to

honor and psychological integrity are openly violated. The principle of non-discrimination in the

workplace, as outlined in Article 2 of the Labor Code, is also violated since it prohibits any form of

discrimination not based on personal suitability or ability of the worker.

We will now focus on the demands of the LGBTQ+ community, who have been discriminated

against not only in the usual sense of the term, involving discriminatory acts, but also by the

state's failure to address their historical demands. The state fails to fulfill its duty to combat

discrimination if it does not ensure guarantees to prevent it and promote inclusion and the

effective exercise of their rights. While one could argue that the state has not taken positive

discriminatory actions, it is still responsible for avoiding the promotion of discrimination. As long

as discrimination persists, the principle of non-discrimination remains ineffective, and therefore,

the state fails to fulfill its duty.

The current situation has brought to light

Police repression and violence against the LGBTQ+ community are alarming issues that need to

be addressed. The recent events in our country have brought to light the demands and struggles

faced by this community, as well as the disproportionate use of force by the police.

The violence experienced by members of the LGBTQ+ community highlights the urgent need for

protection and support. The repression they face goes beyond physical harm and often begins

with language. Language has the power to shape reality, create conflicts, and promote hatred

towards marginalized groups. Hate speech plays a significant role in perpetuating discrimination

and prejudice.
The debate surrounding freedom of expression and hate speech revolves around balancing

individual rights with the values of equality, respect, and recognition. While some argue for an

unrestricted approach to freedom of expression, viewing it as a fundamental right, others

emphasize the importance of considering other rights and values. The impact of hate speech on

the dignity and participation of affected individuals cannot be ignored.

Regulating hate speech is a contentious issue, and different countries have varying approaches.

Some argue that allowing all opinions, including hate speech, in the "marketplace of ideas" is

essential for robust public debate. They believe in countering hate speech through dialogue and

education rather than censorship. However, others contend that restrictions on hate speech are

justified to safeguard social inclusion and protect the dignity of marginalized groups.

It is crucial to recognize that freedom of expression is not an absolute right and must be weighed

against other equally important guarantees. Privileging a public debate where expressions of

hatred drown out other voices does not contribute to a healthy and inclusive society. While

restrictions on freedom of expression between private individuals are generally limited, there is a

justification for state intervention when there is a clear power asymmetry that impairs the

autonomy and dignity of individuals.

International human rights standards also support the notion that freedom of expression has

limitations. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights acknowledges that freedom

of expression may be restricted to protect the rights and reputation of others, as well as national

security, public order, and public health or morals. Therefore, it would be legitimate and expected

for hate speech against the LGBTQ+ community to be evaluated in light of these fundamental

rights.

The impact of homophobia and discrimination goes far beyond hateful speech. It leads to the

marginalization, denigration, and normalization of hostility towards LGBTQ+ individuals. This, in

turn, contributes to the issue of police repression, where members of the community are

subjected to violence and abuse.

The excessive use of force by the police against the LGBTQ+ community demonstrates a lack of

protection for their rights. Incidents of labor-related lawsuits filed by homosexual and transgender

individuals highlight the discrimination they face in the workplace. These cases involve

harassment, restrictions in job opportunities, and discriminatory treatment by superiors. Such

integrity. The principle of non-discrimination in the workplace, as outlined in the labor code, is

openly disregarded.

It is evident that the demands of the LGBTQ+ community have long been ignored by the state.

The state's failure to combat discrimination and ensure inclusive guarantees for the effective

exercise of their rights raises concerns. While the state may argue that it has not taken positive

discriminatory actions, it still falls short in preventing discrimination and fails to fulfill its duty in

combating it.

The current situation, characterized by social unrest, has brought these demands to the forefront.

The use of excessive force by the police and military, particularly against women and LGBTQ+

individuals, raises questions about the protection of their rights and the effectiveness of their

demands thus far.

In conclusion, there is an urgent need to address the discrimination and violence faced by the

LGBTQ+ community. Structural discrimination, as well as the failure of the state to respond

adequately to their demands, exacerbates the issue. Hate speech perpetuates prejudice and

hostility,