Other concerns include that convictions under the commonly used loitering provisions cannot be expunged. Also, applicants have to prove their actions would not be criminal today, for example for reasons of consent. This seems a presumption of guilt unless innocence can be shown, even though it was the state that brought the charge.

The 1986 reform decriminalised consensual anal intercourse – subject, naturally, to the age of consent being respected and with protection for those without capacity to consent. Other forms of male homosexual activity could now occur without the risk of arrest. Female homosexual activity wasn’t mentioned because it had never been criminal.

It broadly legalised consensual sexual practices between men, as well as consensual anal sex regardless of the partners’ gender. It essentially removed the criminal law from a private space where people expressed their sexuality and love.

Most people will likely celebrate the decision by legislators to remove the criminal law from a private matter. But it is worth reflecting on how the reform was both late and partial.

But it would take decades for the government to recognise that the previous law required an apology to those convicted, and even today issues remain.

History of homosexual law reform

Criminalisation went back to the start of governance of New Zealand by the Crown. At first, English law came across, and then New Zealand began to pass its own statutes.

The Offences Against the Person Act 1867 set life imprisonment for “the unnatural offence”, which covered any form of anal intercourse and also bestiality. Similar offences were re-enacted in the Criminal Code Act 1893 and the Crimes Act 1908.

This reveals another limitation. Given the importance of ancestors in New Zealand society, why not go back before 1908? The UK legislation covers convictions going back to a statute in 1553.

So yes, let’s celebrate the 40th anniversary of the homosexual law reform, but let’s also acknowledge there are still issues to address.

Homosexual law reform is an example of the latter. Forty years ago, on July 9 1986, the House of Representatives passed – narrowly – the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986.

Celebration and reflection

Often, however, New Zealand was not first but a slow follower.

Some argued an old conviction under an abandoned law still involved breaking the law at the time. But this is not good enough in relation to a law that was not only anachronistic but wrong. Eventually, a law was passed in 2018 to expunge convictions for historical homosexual offences – the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Act 2018.

The expungement is only for the purposes of New Zealand law. Technically, it does not cover things like visa applications abroad. It also expressly prohibits anyone from seeking compensation, despite the apology in 2017 that the state should never have acted as it did.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was prohibited some years later in the Human Rights Act 1993. Civil unions were permitted in 2005 and, eventually, an amendment to the legal definition of marriage allowed same-sex marriage. The latter was supported by some on the conservative side of politics.

Offences in other statutes included loitering in a public place in a way that suggested the person was about to commit an imprisonable offence. Ironically, before the homosexual law reform, police officers would themselves loiter in places where homosexual men might meet and arrest them.

Again, New Zealand was a follower rather than a leader. The UK and most Australian states had already passed similar legislation.

Those convicted between 1908 and 1986 can apply to have their convictions expunged. An application can be made on behalf of a dead person, but not one convicted under legislation prior to 1908.

But what of those who were convicted under the old law? The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 required old convictions to be revealed in some circumstances.

Equivalent reforms took place in the United Kingdom in 1967 as part of the social change of the 1960s. New Zealand was a generation behind. Also, the original bill introduced into parliament in 1985 proposed to make it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. This did not pass.

As a result, the criminal law was removed from male homosexuality, but discrimination based on sexual orientation – affecting not just gay men – remained permissible. This was despite the fact that 1985 also marked the publication of a white paper that eventually led to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The 2018 act started its passage through parliament in 2017, introduced by National Minister of Justice Amy Adams and accompanied by an apology to those who had been convicted. It marked an official acceptance that the old law was improper by modern standards.

New Zealand’s main criminal statute now is the Crimes Act 1961. In its original text, what had become called sodomy remained criminal. The maximum sentence was 14 years if it involved a woman or someone under the age of consent. The maximum was seven years for consenting male adults; they could also face five years for other sexual activity.

Significant developments in social history sometimes happen through law reform. Arguably, New Zealand’s most significant example is that it was the first country to pass legislation to grant all women the right to vote, in 1893.

The post NZ legalised homosexuality 40 years ago – but even today, justice issues remain appeared first on MASSIVE News.

While Ronaldo’s treatment is not unique, what is lacking is a transparent process for the teams to challenge the ban, to preserve both the independence of referees and the integrity of the competition.

Sport has always been deeply political, but this normally occurs off the field of play. If true, reports Trump has used political power to change on-field decisions signal a dangerous precedent and the risk of changing the entire system from a fair game into an exercise of raw influence.

Thank you to FIFA for doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice!

According to multiple media reports – including in The New York Times, The Guardian and Associated Press – this decision came after US President Donald Trump personally called FIFA President Gianni Infantino to lobby for the reversal.

The context around Balogun even being eligible to play for the US – as a child of two Nigerian parents, raised in the United Kingdom – makes Trump’s reported intervention even more startling.

But in a statement, the Royal Belgian Football Association said it was “astonished” by FIFA’s decision. It argued the decision ran counter to the rules of the tournament, where a red card automatically results in a player being suspended for a team’s next match.

Ronaldo received a red card in a World Cup qualifier match in 2025, resulting in a three-match ban. However, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee allowed him to sit out the first of his three match bans last year, and suspended the other two under a one-year probation period.

A controversial red card

The US team, perhaps unsurprisingly, welcomed the ruling, which could significantly improve their chances against Belgium. As did Trump himself, who posted on Truth Social:

In 2001, airline employees prevented Balogun’s mother, seven-months pregnant with him at the time, from flying home to London from New York, where she had been visiting.

The on-field referee, Raphael Claus from Brazil, initially let the play continue unpenalised. However, an experienced video assistant referee (VAR), Juan Ernesto Soto Arévalo from Venezuela, recommended an on-field review for “serious foul play” based on the still images of the ankle bend.

A red card triggers an automatic suspension from the next game, and there is no right to appeal unless there are exceptional circumstances (such as the referee issuing the card to the wrong player).

Balogun was given a red card, despite many critics claiming it was both a VAR overreach, and too harsh a penalty for the tackle.

What’s Article 27?

While FIFA is technically acting within its own rules to change the referee’s decision, political interference destroys the integrity of sport. How can we expect that integrity issues – from fraud, to racism, to match manipulation or sexual assault – will be addressed, to support those with the least power?

In the 64th minute, Balogun stepped on the ankle of Bosnia and Herzegovina defender Tarik Muharemović during what has been described as a normal, 50–50 challenge.

Shortly afterward, Balogun was born in New York – and automatically granted US citizenship under the constitutionally protected “birthright” provisions.

Regardless of whether the referee’s call was “right” in Balogun’s case, political interference in on-field decisions should be robustly resisted to protect the integrity of sport.

Brazil’s prime minister sent an official telegram directly to the FIFA President, arguing Garrincha shouldn’t be penalised. The Chilean president co-signed a petition pleading with FIFA to let Garrincha play. Garrincha’s ban for the final was lifted, and he played a pivotal role in their victory.

Bending the rules

Article 27 has been used before. But importantly, this was done outside of the tournament, to allow one of the most famous names in football to play in the 2026 World Cup: Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo.

Sport is fundamentally about the rules of the game. The “spirit of sport” demands these rules are fairly and impartially applied.

In a stroke of irony, President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship was struck down by the US Supreme Court only days before Balogun’s goal helped the US defeat Bosnia and Herzegovina.

An American by ‘accident’

United States star striker Folarin Balogun will join the US men’s national team on Monday night (Tuesday morning AEST) as they face Belgium in the FIFA World Cup Round of 16.

There is even precedent in football, before red cards led to an automatic one-game ban. In 1962, Brazilian star Garrincha was given a red card in the men’s World Cup semi-final against Chile.

International sport is not immune from changing its own rules – even mid-tournament – to create a “fair” outcome (that is, to benefit the star athlete who can draw fans). Think of the “wild cards” in tennis and athletics that override selection requirements.

The association said it was investigating “all potential options”, which presumably includes legal action.

The spirit of the game

Before he was sent off with a red card, Balogun had scored the US team’s first goal of the match, ultimately helping them secure a 2–0 victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Round of 32.

In its decision to allow Balogun to play against Belgium, FIFA has invoked Article 27 of its Disciplinary Code. This allows FIFA to fully or partially suspend a disciplinary measure.

The post Why reports Trump pressed FIFA to overturn a decision are so alarming appeared first on MASSIVE News.

International human rights Lawyer Dan Kovalik joins the show to discuss how he, as an American citizen, was detained in the United Kingdom, and had his devices stolen. Dan is a Lawyer representing Colombian President Gustavo Petro, the Author of several books, and a geopolitical commentator. Follow Dan here: https://x.com/danielmkovalik

Follow the show for more content on your favorite platforms!
LIVE Monday-Friday at 2PM PST / 5PM EST: www.kimiversenshow.com

X: https://x.com/KimIversenShow
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kimiversen
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kimiversenshow
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KimIversenOfficial
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/kimiversen

For advertising inquiries please email sponsorships@rumble.com

**About the show
The Kim Iversen Show is a fully independent program produced for your entertainment and information. The one hour show airs live M-F at 5pm PT / 8pm ET at www.TheKimIversenShow.com. Clips from the program are published to YouTube daily.

**Medical Disclaimer:
The CDC states that masks are effective and patients should not try medications or protocols that are not approved for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. Hundreds of millions of people have received a COVID-19 vaccine, and serious adverse reactions are uncommon. This program is not a replacement for medical advice and may explore counter opinions. Always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.

The post American Activist DETAINED by UK Terror Police appeared first on MASSIVE News.