The test case for European law was Jeff Dudgeon v the United Kingdom in 1981, when the activist brought a case against the British government for the fact that criminalisation was still in force in Northern Ireland. "In a way that was the revolution," says Cooper. "Human rights now protected the lesbian and gay identity. But the Brits didn't over-defend Dudgeon." If you are looking for excessive defence, that happened in the Repulic of Ireland in the late-80s. "They threw everything at this case, to say: you are not going to change our law, human rights law cannot change Ireland's Christian-based law. The Strasbourg court said: 'Actually, we can.'" After one more case, in Cyprus, this became a settled matter for the Council of Europe. Then, following a case brought by Nicholas Toonan in Australia in 1991, the same decision was reached by the UN. "By the mid-90s, it had been settled: international human rights law doesn't protect lesbian and gay rights; it protects identity. And as a consequence of protecting identity it protects you as a gay man or a lesbian woman from having your identity criminalised. That's how it works," Cooper explains.
So all the trust has to do now is change the world, through test case litigation. It does so by finding an individual who is mounting a challenge against, say, the government of Belize, and then, to put it a layman's way, piling in. "I email our legal panel, asking: anyone have any experience of litigating in Belize? Someone comes back and says yeah, we'll represent you in this legal challenge. They bring in as their counsel Lord Goldsmith, and the former attorney general of Belize, Godfrey Smith. We turn up as the international community, with a legitimate interest in the outcome of this case, but we do change the nature of the struggle because we have approached it on the basis that it's a major legal challenge. That is our intention." They're not going to know what's hit them, I observe. "You almost feel sorry for the judge!" Cooper replies, delighted.
Naturally, an appeal will be mounted, whoever loses, and the case will then go to a higher court. "What that means is that when we turn up in the difficult places of Africa and Asia, it's watertight. You can imagine them saying: 'Well, that's South Africa, that's the US supreme court' and trying to distinguish them. But it would be very difficult to distinguish two privy council decisions, one from the South Pacific, one from the Caribbean. If you are that independent judge in Kenya, faced with those authorities, how do you say: 'We're going to retain criminalisation'? You can't."
Price is quite cautious about the work he's taken on: he thinks the process will be slow, and its impact subtle. "If we can just begin to level the playing field a bit so that the other side is put, that will be progress. Because, at the moment, those who want to preach hate have pretty well got a free run."
Cooper, also measured but with the fire of optimism in his eyes, thinks they could have all the decisions they need in five years. "We will have to pay for cases in jurisdictions; I don't see why local lawyers should do it pro bono. We will fundraise, and there is something rather charming that you can say to somebody: 'If you give us £50,000, I can more or less guarantee that you will have decriminalised homosexuality in Tonga.' And actually, you know, that's great."
x xx ."
