News

UK World First - Equality in the UK

Britain has become the first nation on Earth to give GLBT people total equality under the law with the enacting of that country’s Equality Act, which amongst other things, bans all discrimination against non-heterosexuals in the provision of goods and services.

The legislation, passed earlier this month, bans discrimination on the grounds of “religion or belief or sexual orientation” in the provision of “goods, facilities and services, the management of premises, education and the exercise of public functions” and establishes a “Commission for Equality and Human Rights” to replace previous commissions covering issues of race, disability and equal opportunity.

It also bans discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment whether transition to a new gender is underway or fully completed.

It will also be illegal to ban heterosexuals from entry to gay businesses and establishments such as gay bars.

The Act comes after nearly a decade of reforms by the Blair Labour Government, beginning with the end of the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the British armed forces in 1999, the equalising of age of consent laws at 16 in 2001, the legalisation of gay and lesbian adoption in 2002, the repeal of the controversial Section 28 law that banned discussion of gay issues in schools in 2003 and the introduction of civil partnerships for same sex couples in 2005.

Civil partnerships gave British GLBT people equality to marriage in relationship matters in all but name, and such partnerships are being blessed as marriages by gay friendly denominations and are already referred to as “marriages” colloquially in the British press.

The gay provisions in the Equality Act were vigorously opposed by the Catholic Church, conservative Protestants and British Muslims, with the Catholic Church threatening to shut down its entire adoption system if they were to be forced to treat gay and lesbian couples like any other applicants.

Faith based agencies will be given till then end of 2008 to either comply with the new regulations or carry out this threat.

The Act was voted into law by 310 to 100 with 29 members of the British Conservative Party voting in favour of the legislation including party leader David Cameron, though a block of his MP’s tried unsuccessfully to delay the legislation further and one of it’s Lords tried to have it quashed altogether.

British GLBT rights groups will now concentrate on pushing for the inevitable change in terminology from “civil partnerships” to “marriage”, and in strengthening anti-hate speech legislation, as well as working to assist groups in other countries to achieve the same equality, with Stonewall co-founder and actor Michael Cashman telling the BBC, “Just because we have achieved equality doesn’t mean we pack up and go home.”

The introduction of the Equality Act will also solidify outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair’s legacy as the greatest political champion of GLBT rights in British history, despite his term in office being otherwise marred by the Iraq War and a recent Labour Party fundraising corruption scandal.

Federal Labor - Registration Yes, Respect No

 

The national conference of the Australian Labor Party has approved a motion declaring the party’s stance on same sex relationship recognition for the next federal election.

The Labor Party will offer gay and lesbian couples a nation wide registration system, similar to that introduced in Tasmania, but will not countenance marriage rights for same sex couples or civil unions.

However, a closer reading of the text reveals that the registration schemes would be carried out under state laws, meaning that they would have no direct impact on issues of federal inequality.

This means that all issues of federal discrimination would still need to be dealt with separately on a law by law basis, rather than the “one stroke of the pen” effect of a federally recognised marriage or civil unions scheme.

The Labor Party had already committed to removing discrimination under federal law short of marriage or civil unions, but this will still be an expensive and time consuming process, as over 60 separate pieces of legislation need to be changed, possibly taking years.

That too could be delayed as the Labor Party has indicated that it wants to carry out its own audit to identify all such pieces of legislation despite the Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Commission doing exactly that earlier this year.

The full text of the motion read-

“Labor will ensure that all couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life do not suffer discrimination because they are not married.”

“Labor will take action to ensure the development of nationally consistent, state-based relationship recognition legislation that will include the opportunity for couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life to have those relationships registered and certified.”

“This legislation will be based on the scheme that has existed in Tasmania since 2004 and that the Victorian Government has announced its intention to introduce [and will] not create schemes that mimic marriage or undermine existing laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman.”

The proposed registry would not expand any access to adoption rights and has no provision for ceremonies.

The motion was passed despite Joe De Bruyn from the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association speaking out against it, claiming even this gesture would undermine marriage.

The bill was seconded by Senator Joe Ludwig, an important figure in the Queensland Labor right faction, implying that the offer of state registries may be a tactic to console the left of the party in the lead up the federal election.

In principle, the registry scheme would not prevent the ACT from attempting to pass its more wide ranging Civil Unions Bill if Labor are elected to government at the next federal election.

In response to the motion, Tanya Plibersek, Labor Member for Sydney said, “This is a great step in the right direction. I believe we need to give formal recognition to all loving and committed relationships. While it is not marriage, such a scheme will ensure that same sex couples will be able to easily prove the existence of a relationship to state and commonwealth government agencies.”

The ALP’s decision leaves the Greens and Australian Democrats as the only major parties taking civil unions and same sex marriage as policies to the next federal election.

Victoria Next for Registration Team

 

Victorian Premier Steve Bracks has announced that his state will be the first on the mainland to offer formal recognition to same sex couples since the Federal Government vetoed the ACT’s second attempt at introducing civil unions there.

The State Government has indicated it will move to introduce a registration scheme similar to that which has been operating in Tasmania, and that it should be introduced before the end of the year.

The move may be an attempt to placate gay and lesbian voters since the rise of the Victorian Greens at the state election, and to head off any attempt by that party to use its share of the balance of power to force the government into passing more controversial civil unions legislation at a later stage.

The bill has received tentative support from the Victorian Opposition, and even from the Australian Christian Lobby, on the condition that no adoption rights are granted and that the proposal does not “mimic” marriage.

It is believed that the enacting legislation would have no provision for ceremonies, and that a simple certificate would be issued on proof of a committed relationship.

The move by the Victorian government follows hot on the heals of a similar scheme enacted by Melbourne City Council, with the first couple to be recognised, Melbourne men David Elliott and Ka Chun Tse receiving their certificate only last week.

The move has prompted Independent MP and Lord Mayor of Sydney Clover Moore to call on the NSW Government to follow suit with similar reforms in NSW.

City of Sydney has been operating its own relationship register or Relationships Declaration Program for three years following on from a program introduced by the now defunct South Sydney Council.

Neither the Sydney or Melbourne registries carried any legal weight in themselves.

The proposed Victorian state based registry would not grant any additional rights to couples but could potentially simplify many procedures under state law by providing a single piece of evidence proving the existence of a committed relationship.

Western Australian lobby group Gay & Lesbian Equality has also called on the Labor government there to implement similar changes.

HREOC Fails Gays on Blood Donation Ban

Tasmanian activist Rodney Croome has accused the Australian Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission of failing the principles it was set up to uphold after it refused to investigate a complaint over the Red Cross’ blood donation policy that bars gay men as donors no matter how responsibly they act.

The policy does not bar heterosexuals who have unsafe sex with non-committed partners, but all gay and bisexual men are banned from donating even if they act responsibly by always engaging in safe sex.

The complaint against the Australian Red Cross was brought by blood donation campaigner Michael Cain but was dismissed despite Tasmania’s state Anti-Discrimination Commission finding the complaint had merit and launching their own inquiry.

In making his complaint Cain cited evidence from medical authorities in Spain and Italy that showed that accidental HIV infection caused by contaminated blood from transfusions had dropped substantially since both those countries switched their guidelines to focus on sexual behaviour rather than sexual orientation when screening out risky donors.

Instead, Croome writes, HREOC “[fell] back on the Red Cross’ outdated and irrelevant rationale that higher than average rates of HVI amongst men who have sex with other men means all such men should be barred from blood donation”, before going on to point out that, “A higher proportion of Aboriginal people have blood borne diseases too, but HREOC wouldn't dare endorse the view that all Aborigines should be banned from blood donation.”

Croome says the HREOC’s thinking on this matter reminds him of the Tasmanian Government’s arguments in resisting international pressure to decriminalise gay sex, writing “when the Tasmanian Government defended itself before the UN Human Rights Committee in the early 1990s its case was almost exactly the same as those who defend the gay blood donor today- it said that gay sex should be criminalised because it puts people at higher risk of HIV infection.”

“It said that its laws were "about acts, not people", so human rights guarantees didn’t apply [and] these are exactly the arguments HREOC uses to dismiss Michael Cain’s complaint.”

The Tasmanian Commission was due to confirm dates for a formal hearing into gay blood donation earlier this month.