Tag Archives: gay

No 5 Homosexuality Still Criminal in 77 Countries

Posted on by

The past four posts have looked at one issue (marriage equality, both domestically and around the world) and gay rights in two specific countries, Russia and India.

The subject matter of each of these four posts has received significant media coverage – for some pretty obvious reasons. Same-sex couples seeking the right to marry provide both a ‘human interest’ story, and usually some compelling images to accompany it. Putin’s crackdown on LGBTI Russians has inevitably received widespread attention, particularly in the lead-up to the Winter Olympics. And it is pretty hard to ignore the re-criminalisation of homosexuality in a country with more than 1.2 billion people.

But, comparatively, it has been much easier for the media to ignore the ongoing criminalisation of homosexuality in 77 countries across the world (including India after the recent Supreme Court decision, but excluding Russia where, despite the anti-propaganda law homosexuality itself remains legal).

To put that figure into perspective, that is five times the number of countries that have full marriage equality (or more than four times the number of countries including those where some parts have adopted marriage equality, like the United States). So, while some parts of Europe and North and South America (together with South Africa and New Zealand), push forwards towards full equality, more than a third of countries around the world still treat homosexuality as a criminal offence.

This includes 38 countries in Africa, while 41 countries come from the Commonwealth (which is pretty extraordinary when you consider there are only 53 member states in total).

Tragically, the are five countries – Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen – where homosexuality attracts the death penalty, while capital punishment also applies in parts of Nigeria and Somalia.

Which is a scandalous state of affairs, and something that the media – including but not limited to the LGBTI media – should report, and reflect, more on.

There have been some encouraging recent signs – in terms of coverage, if not subject matter. Over the past week, moves to increase criminal penalties in Uganda and Nigeria have attracted attention globally. The murder of Eric Ohena Lembembe in Cameroon mid-year was also covered, as have, periodically, anti-gay developments in Zimbabwe, Iran and elsewhere.

What has also been encouraging during 2013 has been the debate, within the Australian LGBTI community, about the need for advocacy for global LGBTI rights. Sparked in part by the situation in Russia, there has finally been a discussion about the relative priority we give something like marriage equality, compared to decriminalisation around the globe.

After all, while we are fighting for the right to walk down the aisle, our LGBTI comrades elsewhere are fighting simply for the right to exist. I’m not suggesting that we have those priorities right – in fact far from it. But I get the feeling that we are closer to achieving a better balance at the end of 2013 than at the beginning.

Some of the organisations that have helped to promote the global push for decriminalisation include the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA: http://ilga.org), AllOut (https://www.allout.org), the Kaleidoscope Trust (http://kaleidoscopetrust.com), and of course Amnesty International (a link to the NSW LGBTQI Network here: http://www.amnesty.org.au/nsw/group/12065/). I would encourage you to support any or all of them.

One final point I would like to make is that there are things that the Australian Government can and should be doing with respect to this issue, not just raising it (diplomatically, in all senses of the word) through international forums and bilaterally, but also by providing aid to global campaigns for sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status equality.

One special burden which falls upon Australia is its own responsibility for the criminal laws which still exist in our former ‘colony’, Papua New Guinea, which were in place before Independence in September 1975. Because of that fact, it is imperative that the Australian Government – and the Australian LGBTI population generally – helps to encourage moves in our closest neighbour to decriminalise homosexuality. Hopefully that day, not just in PNG but right across the South Pacific, is not too far away.

No 6 India’s Supreme Court Re-criminalises Homosexuality

Posted on by

One of the more disappointing developments of the year was also one of the last in terms of LGBTI rights. On 11 December, India’s Supreme Court effectively re-criminalised homosexuality in the world’s second most-populous nation.

They did so by overturning the Delhi High Court’s July 2 2009 decision in Naz Foundation v Govt of NCT of Delhi, which had found that section 377 of India’s penal code was unconstitutional in so far as it applied to sex, including gay sex, between consenting adults.

While the Supreme Court did find that section 377 was discriminatory and that gay sex between consenting adults should not be criminal, it nonetheless decided that the matter is one for Parliament to resolve, rather than the Courts, and consequently ‘revived’ the application of section 377 to homosexuality.

For its part, the Indian Government has expressed its disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision. Sonia Gandhi, president of the ruling Congress Party, described section 377 as “an archaic, unjust law”, while Finance Minister P Chidambaram is reported as saying that the ruling had taken India “back to 1860” (the year the law was first introduced).

In the past 24 hours, the Indian Government has filed a petition in the Supreme Court asking it to review its decision to reinstate section 377, on the basis that it “violate[s] the principle of equality.”

The Law Minister, Kapil Sibal, has tweeted that “[t]he government has filed the review petition on Section 377 in the Supreme Court today. Let’s hope the right to personal choices is preserved”.

What they haven’t done is commit to introducing legislation to overturn section 377 themselves, instead preferring to hand it back to the judicial branch of government to resolve. Which means that, for however long the petition takes to resolve, consensual sex between same-sex attracted adults will remain a crime in India (after the all-too-brief 4 and a half year era of decriminalisation).

The decision not to legislate at this stage is obviously a tactical one. A national election is due before 31 May 2014, and with the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) adopting a more hard-line conservative position in response to the decision, there is the potential for them to use the issue as a pre-election wedge.

However, if the BJP and its Coalition parties do form government next year then, as well as making it unlikely that legislation to decriminalise homosexuality will be passed by parliament, it will also throw the status of the current Government’s petition to the Supreme Court (assuming it hasn’t been heard) into doubt.

In short, the situation is a bit of a mess.

But, before we judge too harshly the efforts to date of India’s Parliament on this issue, including those of the Congress Party-led Government, it is important to remember where the original blame for section 377 lies.

After all, we are expecting the current Indian political (and judicial) system to clean up the mess left by the British imperial Government of the 19th century. Just like other European ‘colonial’ powers, the British left a legacy of legal – and cultural – homophobia in its wake.

In fact, the British were especially talented at spreading homophobia around the world. More than half of all countries where homosexuality is illegal in 2013 are current members of the Commonwealth of Nations (more on that topic in the next post).

Indeed, the actions of the British Empire during the 19th and 20th centuries place a special burden on the United Kingdom (as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand) to do whatever they can to assist fellow Commonwealth countries along the path towards decriminalisation.

Nevertheless, despite the original blame for section 377 lying elsewhere, the people with the power to finally abolish it are in India – either on the judicial, or parliamentary, benches. Here’s hoping they find the courage to do so shortly, and allow millions of LGBTI people to return to living their lives free from the threat of prosecution, or police intimidation.

No 7 Russia’s Anti-Gay Crackdown

Posted on by

What is happening in Russia is horrible. The introduction of Putin’s laws, making so-called ‘gay propaganda’ illegal, is obviously a significant blow to both the country’s LGBTI population and to any concept of Russian democracy.

It is made worse because the laws are not some idle threat – they are being actively enforced against brave protesters who have the temerity to stand up and say that “To be gay and to love gays is normal. To beat gays and kill gays is criminal” as Dmitry Isakov did (just this week Dmitry was fined 4000 roubles for doing so, the third Russian to be prosecuted under the laws after Nikolai Alexeyev and Yaroslav Yevtushenko).

But, if it were ‘just’ these laws (and yes, I know that it is almost impossible to use the word ‘just’ in this context), then what is going on in Russia would probably not stand out in a world where homosexuality remains criminal in 77 countries (and where, despite these laws, Russia still does not technically criminalise homosexuality).

However, the sad reality is that the laws criminalising gay propaganda seem to be just the start. They have been accompanied by a wave of homophobia affecting many aspects of Russian society.

Legally, a threat hangs over rainbow families that their children will be taken away from them (as an Australian, the idea of children being stolen because of their parents’ social group is especially poignant).

There have also been widespread acts of physical violence and intimidation against LGBTI Russians, including numerous hate crimes and, tragically, murders. Gay clubs have been attacked, with bullets and with fire.

And the cultural debate has degenerated to the point that a Russian actor, Ivan Okhlobystin, can say that “I would have them [gays] all stuffed alive inside an oven. This is Sodom and Gomorrah, as a believer, I can not remain indifferent to this, it is a living danger to my children!” – and be applauded.

It is not just that last comment which has made many people think back 80 years to political developments to the West of Russia, in Italy and, especially, Germany. While I do not throw the word fascist around lightly (and we are, thankfully, still some distance away from the worst of Hitler’s regime), the scapegoating of a minority group in the way Russia is doing now certainly brings fascism to mind.

Part of what makes this a difficult subject to write about is that, as an Australian LGBTI activist, it is hard to work out what the best response is. So hard, in fact, that it is almost tempting to forgive the initial ‘kneejerk’ reaction of some people who indicated their disgust at the actions of Putin & co by boycotting Russian vodka (‘vodka revolution’ anyone?).

Others have concentrated their advocacy around the upcoming Winter Olympics, to be held in Sochi from February 7 to 23. While most calls to boycott seem to have died down (it was always going to be an unlikely outcome, especially in the apparent absence of a united position from Russian LGBTI groups calling on us to do so), there will be other ways to draw attention to the state-sponsored homophobia of Putin’s Russia during that fortnight.

In particular, the campaign by @allout and Athlete Ally, focusing on Principle 6 of the Olympic Charter (which states that any form of discrimination is incompatible with the Olympics), seems like a sensible way to go about it (especially because it allows athletes to take a political stand without falling foul of the Olympics rules against ‘politicising’ sports).

But the problem, with this and other campaigns, will come in the days and weeks after the closing ceremony, when the spotlight of the world’s media turns elsewhere. Because it will be very easy for the Russian Government to ensure that nothing negative happens for a couple of weeks, especially to the athletes, tourists and reporters converging on Sochi.

It is far more important to focus on what is happening to Russia’s LGBTI population now, in the days leading up Sochi, what happens elsewhere in Russia during the Games, and what will happen in the months and years that follow.

We must make sure that we don’t avert our gaze just because the global media caravan moves on. We must continue to pressure our own Governments to take action on this issue, raising it with their Russian counterparts. And, above all, we must continue to communicate with Russian LGBTI groups to learn from them what we can do to help them in their fight.

No 10 The Federal Election on September 7

Posted on by

This would possibly have been higher on the list, were it not for the fact the outcome was pretty much inevitable, long before polling day (and certainly by the time I finished working at Parliament House in mid-2012).

But the September 7 election was still a significant moment, because it drew the final curtain on the Rudd & Gillard (& Rudd again) Labor Government that, in less than 6 years, achieved more for LGBTI rights than any other federal Government in history.

Perhaps we, as a community, took some of those achievements for granted. Perhaps, because many of those reforms were so long overdue (case in point: de facto relationship recognition) that they didn’t feel like achievements at all, instead they were simply the actions of a Parliament finally catching up to where the population already was.

More likely, for many of the LGBTI people of Australia, the achievements of the Labor Government were overshadowed by one major law reform which they didn’t implement. As someone who is engaged to be married myself, I understand that frustration (and I would add another couple of major policy failures as well – but more on them later in this countdown).

Nevertheless, the fact that the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government did not introduce marriage equality should not mean that we completely disregard their achievements in other areas. After all, they accomplished infinitely more in a little over 5 and a half years than the Howard Government did in twice that time (to be honest, the only positive Howard Government LGBTI achievement I can think of was allowing same-sex couples access to their partner’s superannuation, but even that wasn’t mandated, didn’t cover Commonwealth public sector employees, and was only passed as a trade-off when they introduced the marriage ban in 2004).

The positive list of Labor achievements between 2007 and 2013 includes:

  • De facto relationship recognition (and access to the Family Court on relationship breakdown)
  • The inclusion of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status in federal anti-discrimination legislation for the first time (again, more on that later in the countdown)
  • Another first, this time the first National LGBTI Ageing and Aged Care Strategy
  • Providing funding for the National LGBTI Health Alliance for mental health projects
  • Providing funding for QLife, the national network of LGBTI telephone counselling services, to allow a 1800 number to be operational across the country 7 nights a week (the importance of which really shouldn’t be underestimated)
  • Introducing trans* and intersex passport reform, with M, F and X categories (where X includes indeterminate/unspecified/intersex)
  • Permitting LGBTI inclusive couples to access Certificates of No Impediment, to at least allow them to be married overseas, if not at home
  • Providing Gardasil vaccinations to teenage boys, so that future generations of gay and bisexual men are protected from anal, penile and throat cancer
  • Introducing Australian Government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender, and
  • Removing some gender requirements for PBS medicines, meaning easier access to some treatments for trans* and intersex people.

The above list (which I am sure is not exhaustive) is, all things considered, a pretty impressive one.

It is a shame that, through their own actions (or, more specifically, inaction), the Rudd and Gillard Government will, for many, be remembered more because of the failure to recognise the fundamental equality of love, than any of the things I have noted above. Because, in reality, they left the state of LGBTI affairs in Australia a far better place on 7 September 2013, than what they inherited on 24 November 2007.

Still, there is one way in which the outgoing Labor Government could be remembered more fondly over time – and that is if the actions of the newly-elected Abbott-led Liberal and National Government make them seem better in hindsight.

Already, that looks like a distinct possibility. The first LGBTI-related action of the Abbott Government was taking the ACT and their same-sex marriage laws to the High Court (thus seeing them overturned). And there are plenty of other tests to come over the next 12-24 months, including deciding whether to continue funding for some of the above-named initiatives. Not to mention the potential threat to anti-discrimination reforms, and in particular the possibility of Brandis & co reintroducing an exemption for religious aged care service providers.

So, while we (quite rightly) criticise the Rudd & Gillard Labor Government for what it didn’t do, perhaps every once in a while we should also reflect on the good things that it did accomplish.

No 12 The End (Almost) of the Homosexual Advance Defence in NSW

Posted on by

One of the more pleasing aspects of law reform in NSW over the past 12 months has been signs of progress – at last – on the subject of the homosexual advance (or “gay panic”) defence.

The Legislative Council Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation, chaired by Mr Fred Nile, handed down its long-awaited report on 23 April. (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/61173c421853420aca257b5500838b2e/$FILE/Partial%20defence%20of%20provocation_Final%20report.pdf)

The Committee explicitly and unanimously recommended that the homosexual advance defence should be repealed. Recommendation 6 of their Report reads: “[t]hat the NSW Government introduce an amendment to section 23 of the Crimes Act 1900 to ensure that the partial defence [of provocation] is not available to defendants who… respond to a non-violent sexual advance by the victim.”

One month later, on May 22, Premier Barry O’Farrell confirmed that the NSW Government would indeed act to ensure that the partial defence of provocation, which if successful reduces a murder conviction to manslaughter, does not apply in circumstances where there is only a non-violent sexual advance. (http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/provocation-laws-to-be-changed-in-nsw/story-e6frfku9-1226648578317)

In October, the Government tabled its response to the Committee. It accepted the policy intention of the Committee’s Report, and included an Exposure Draft Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill 2013 for public consultation. (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/61173c421853420aca257b5500838b2e/$FILE/Partial%20defence%20of%20provocation%20-%20Govt%20response.pdf)

As part of that Exposure Draft Bill, which reframes the partial defence of provocation to a partial defence of extreme provocation, it is proposed that the new section 23 would include a clause providing that “[c]onduct of the deceased does not constitute extreme provocation if… the conduct was only a non-violent sexual advance to the accused.”

In short, if this Bill is introduced into and passed by the NSW Parliament then the stain of the homosexual advance (or ‘gay panic’) defence will finally be removed from the law books of NSW for good. And the signs continue to be encouraging – just this week, Premier O’Farrell told 2GB radio that it was the Government’s intention that the Bill will be “hopefully through the Parliament by the end of February” (audio starting at 6mins40seconds: http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/25171#.Uqf1xyct2RM).

Which would be not a moment too soon. Because this is not some historical artefact, gathering dust somewhere, sitting neglected on a shelf. The homosexual advance defence has been used, and used regularly, over the last 20 years. When successful, it dishonours the victim of a brutal killing, implying that he was at least partly at fault, all for simply making a non-violent pass at someone else.

It is somewhat ironic that one of the most eloquent rebuttals of the homosexual advance defence comes from the very same case in which the High Court of Australia upheld its validity. In Green v The Queen [1997] HCA 50, then Justice Michael Kirby dissented, writing:

“If every woman who was the subject of a “gentle”, “non-aggressive” although persistent sexual advance… could respond with brutal violence rising to an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the male importuning her, and then claim provocation after a homicide, the law of provocation would be sorely tested and undesirably extended… Any unwanted sexual advance, heterosexual or homosexual, can be offensive. It may intrude on sexual integrity in an objectionable way. But this Court should not send the message that, in Australia today, such conduct is objectively capable of being found by a jury to be sufficient to provoke the intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. Such a message unacceptably condones sexual violence by people who take the law into their own hands.”

At the core of this partial defence lies unbridled homophobia, an irrational fear, and stereotyping, of gay men as “predators”, lurking and waiting for any opportunity to pounce on any unsuspecting “normal” heterosexual men. And it tells these “normal” men that they are entitled to use lethal force to repel any type of unwanted, non-violent sexual advance, that it is, at least in part, justified to somehow help defend their “honour”.

It is a law that has always been unjust. It seems that Members of the NSW Parliament have at last recognised that fact. To that I say, better late than never. But never forget the victims whose murderers have escaped the full convictions, and punishments, that they deserved, solely because the victim made a non-violent sexual advance to them.

Assuming that the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill is passed early next year, I am sure that the actual repeal of the homosexual advance defence would feature highly on any list of the highs and lows of 2014. Til then, it is up to us to make one final push to ensure this abhorrent piece of law is finally abolished, once and for all.

Related posts:

My 2012 submission to the Select Committee Inquiry: https://alastairlawrie.net/2012/08/10/submission-on-homosexual-advance-defence/

My 2013 Submission on the Exposure Draft Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill 2013: https://alastairlawrie.net/2013/11/14/submission-on-crimes-amendment-provocation-bill-2013-re-homosexual-advance-or-gay-panic-defence/

13 Highs & Lows of 2013: No 13 (Alleged) Police Brutality at Sydney Mardi Gras

Posted on by

As I did last year, I am going to end the year by writing about the highlights – and lowlights – of the last 12 months. As always, choosing the best and worst of the year is a subjective process, and reflects my own experiences as a cis-gender gay man, who engages in LGBTI advocacy, in Sydney. But I hope that the list I have selected is reflective of some of the major issues of 2013, at least in Australia anyway. If not, please feel free to tell me why I’m wrong in the comments section below.

No 13. (Alleged) Police Brutality at Sydney Mardi Gras

Let’s begin by remembering one of the true low-points of this year – the (alleged) actions of NSW Police officers which marred Australia’s, and one of the world’s, premier LGBTI events, the Sydney Mardi Gras, in February and March.

As we approach the end of the year, almost 2 million people, from right around the world, have watched the Youtube clip of the way Police officers treated Jamie Jackson on Oxford St on the night of the Mardi Gras Parade. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxtFtVfAeeE)

Jamie Jackson Mardi Gras

Others have read about the way long-term LGBTI activist Bryn Hutchinson was (allegedly) treated by NSW Police officers, also on Oxford St after the parade had finished. Now that all charges against Mr Hutchinson, and his sister Kate, have been dismissed by the courts, he has written about his experiences in the Star Observer. (http://www.starobserver.com.au/opinion/soapbox-opinion/my-terror-of-crossing-oxford-street-at-mardi-gras/113785)

But it is important to remember that it was not just these two isolated incidents that left a sour taste in the mouths of many after what is supposed to be a celebration of pride and diversity. Nor were instances of alleged Police brutality confined to the night of the Parade and Party, but instead occurred throughout the Mardi Gras Festival.

In fact, Sydney Mardi Gras and ACON received at least 58 complaints about the way people had been treated by NSW Police over the entire Mardi Gras season. These complaints included allegations of intimidation and aggression by Police on Oxford St after the Parade had finished, reports of homophobic language and behaviour at the main Party, of intimidation, violence, excessive physical force and coercion during drug operations at both the Harbour Party and main Party, and other aggressive and intimidating behaviour in LGBTI venues along Oxford St during the Festival.

Since March, Sydney Mardi Gras, ACON, the Inner City Legal Centre (ICLC) and the NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby (GLRL) have been attempting to work through these issues in consultation with the LGBTI community. They recently released an advocacy document outlining 12 recommendations to the NSW government, although, with just 2 months left til the 2014 season gets underway, it is currently unclear how many will be accepted by Premier Barry O’Farrell, Police Minister Michael Gallacher and others. (http://glrl.org.au/images/stories/Publications/20131115_policing_at_lgbti_events_and_venues.pdf)

What is likely is that NSW Police will be much better behaved – at least for the 2014 Mardi Gras Festival, Parade and Party. They will be told by their superiors that to repeat what happened this year would reflect badly on the Government (in the media), as well as potentially jeopardising the money that is brought into the NSW economy by Mardi Gras and associated events. They will also be keenly aware that all eyes will be on them come February and March 2014, to see if their poor behaviour is repeated (on camera).

Nevertheless, the real test will come in 2015, 2016 and beyond, when the immediate controversy has died down, media interest has waned, and the temptation will emerge for some elements of the Police (because it should always be remembered that not all Police act poorly) to slip back into the (alleged) intimidation and outright aggression of 2013.

If the majority of the Mardi Gras, ACON, ICLC and GLRL recommendations are adopted (especially recommendations 1-3), then we may see some positive long-term cultural changes within NSW Police, meaning that future Mardi Gras patrons may not suffer in the same way that Jamie, Bryn and others did this year.

But, in my opinion, the two best recommendations for helping to ensure that NSW Police are ‘well-behaved’ at future Mardi Gras events are perhaps the two that are least likely to be adopted by the NSW Government.

The first, recommendation 7, calls for an end to drug detection dog operations. The evidence against the use of sniffer dogs has piled up since legislation was first passed authorising their use, without warrants, in NSW public places in 2001. The 2006 Ombudsman’s Report was damning in terms of their lack of effectiveness, as well as the risks, including health risks, of their ongoing use. In 2011, just 20% of drug dog indications resulted in Police actually finding drugs on the person searched.

The 2013 Mardi Gras experience, especially for attendees of the Harbour Party, simply confirmed the vagueness of what constitutes ‘reasonable grounds’, as well as the gross invasion of civil liberties and indeed bodily integrity involved in a subsequent drug search.

The use of drug detection dogs should end, end of story. And yet, with both the current Coalition, and previous Labor, Governments seemingly addicted to ‘law & order’, that outcome seems incredibly unlikely.

Something which is slightly more feasible is the subject of the other key recommendation (11), which calls for the establishment of a “transparent, representative civilian-led police complaints and investigatory body with the appropriate resources, capabilities and knowledge” to oversee NSW Police. Obviously, such a body would help remedy issues experienced, not just by the LGBTI community, but also by other vulnerable groups across NSW, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, young people and people from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) backgrounds.

It should be acknowledged that the NSW Government has taken a small step down this path, by appointing the former Commonwealth Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, to review the investigation and oversight of police critical incidents (those where police actions have resulted in the death or serious injury of a member of the community). But this represents just a small sub-set of police actions which should be subject to independent review, and it is undeniably a long, and hard, road from this narrow review to the introduction of a broad-based, independent complaints body. We’ll see what happens on this in coming months (and, I suspect, years).

There is one final comment which I feel compelled to make. In the aftermath of the incidents during this year’s Mardi Gras, some members of Sydney’s LGBTI community focused on the possible involvement of Police officers from outside the Surry Hills Local Area Command. Specifically, they argued that if we could somehow return to a (simpler) time when Surry Hills Police were sufficient to patrol the Mardi Gras, supplemented by others from around Sydney who volunteered to be on duty, then the problems of 2013 would somehow disappear.

To me, that ignores a much deeper problem. If a Police officer is going to behave in an allegedly homophobic and aggressive way on the busiest gay night of the year, on Oxford St, in front of thousands of people, then how are they going to treat an individual LGBTI person, when nobody is looking, in other parts of Sydney, or indeed elsewhere in the state?

I am not interested in just having an LGBTI-friendly Police force serving the inner-city enclaves of Surry Hills and Newtown, while simultaneously ignoring the potential for homophobia outside those supposedly safe borders. Any officer, from any part of the State, should be able to be called up for duty around Mardi Gras and behave in a responsible and respectful manner.

Above all, every single officer, in every single station across NSW, must be able to deal with, and respond appropriately to, the concerns of LGBTI people. If they can’t, they should have their badges taken off them, because they’re not fit to be a Police officer.

Denying Marriage Equality is Theft

Posted on by

Next week, the High Court will hear the Commonwealth’s application for the ACT’s same-sex marriage laws to be overturned. Arguments will focus primarily on whether the 2004 amendments to the Commonwealth Marriage Act ‘cover the field’ in terms of legislating under sub-section51(xxi) of the Constitution, or whether the amendments have instead left the door open for State and Territory Governments to establish a new category of marriage, namely same-sex marriage.

But perhaps the Court should also consider sub-section 51(xxxi), which gives the Commonwealth Parliament power for “the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has the power to make laws.” Maybe our High Court Justices should ask whether laws which take away the right of LGBTI couples to get married are tantamount to theft.

Allow me to explain. The most direct way in which the marriage equality ban takes money from LGBTI couples is that, currently, it forces couples overseas in order for their marriage to have any legal standing at the time of the ceremony. The couple obviously incurs significantly higher costs than for a domestic wedding. Even if the ACT laws are allowed to stand, for Australian couples who wish to have a ceremony with legal standing, however briefly, the vast majority will need to hold their wedding a long distance from home.

With recent estimates of the average cost of weddings being in the vicinity of $35,000, or even $54,000, it is grossly unjust to force some couples to pay even more, merely because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

Compounding this, a system which forces LGBTI couples to travel, either interstate or overseas, to get married reinforces a financial threshold on which couples can tie the knot, with only the well-off able to do so. Someone’s class should never determine whether they can access a legal institution like marriage.

The next theft comes when the couple returns home – at customs, they are summarily, and completely without justification, stripped of their state of being married. Something which means so much to the couple – enough for them to travel to undertake it – is confiscated, without any compensation. Surely an argument could be mounted that this amounts to “the acquisition of property on [un]just terms”?

Something else which is stolen from LGBTI couples is the ability to celebrate their wedding with their desired guests. This happens in two ways. For those who choose to travel to get married, many of their family and friends will be unable to attend the ceremony due to cost, or the need to take extended time off work. For other couples, like my fiancé Steve and myself, who instead choose to wait until they can legally wed in Australia, the passage of time will have the same effect.

In our case, we both have elderly grandmothers who we love dearly and who we would love to have at our nuptials. That would have been possible when we first got engaged, at the start of 2010, although, sadly, my grandmother is probably now too frail to travel to our wedding, even in Australia. By the time marriage equality is eventually passed, I fear the same will be the case for Steve’s grandmother – and he will be devastated by that.

The ability to celebrate our wedding with the people who matter most to us has been ripped from our grasp by the Commonwealth Parliament. We, and other couples like us, feel it acutely. As an aside, perhaps so-called ‘family values’ campaigners should consider how they would react to government intervention on their wedding guest list – because that is what has been imposed on us.

The theft which is a consequence of the ban on marriage equality will not even stop whenever a Bill is finally passed – it will keep on stealing from us into the future. Explaining this ‘future theft’ is what eventually helped my rural, LNP-voting conservative parents understand why I feel so passionately about this issue.

Earlier this year, they had their 40th wedding anniversary. Which is something worthy of celebration – and so they did. Because these things, anniversaries, matter. One day, Steve and I hope to do likewise. Except that, the longer the ban on our marriage lasts, the less likely we will both be alive in order to celebrate a 50th, or even 40th, wedding anniversary. Even after the ban is eventually lifted, it will still be lifting precious things from our pockets.

Of course, what is being stolen from us is likely too intangible to be considered by the High Court under sub-section51(xxxi). But this theft is exactly what should be reflected upon by any Parliamentarian who is considering voting against the right of LGBTI couples to get married.

What makes the current ban ever harder to stomach is that, everyone, from Tony Abbott down, knows that marriage equality is inevitable. Which makes the ongoing refusal of our MPs to pass it seem extremely petty. Especially when what they are stealing from us, both now and in the future, is something grand.

The ABCs of Health & Physical Education Must Include LGBTI

Posted on by

Next week, a decision will be made that will have a profound and long-lasting influence on the health and wellbeing of an entire generation of young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians. And it has nothing (or at most, very little) to do with marriage equality.

On Friday, 29 November, the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, which includes Commonwealth, state and territory Education Ministers, will decide whether to approve the national Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum. The HPE curriculum, developed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), has largely been ignored, struggling to compete for attention against photogenic images of same-sex couples in wedding attire, and empowered adults advocating for the right to marry the person they love.

While I obviously support that campaign (indeed, I am engaged to be married myself), the national HPE curriculum will arguably have a far greater impact on young LGBTI people, right across the country, than any other possible reform.

We already know that young LGBTI people experience significantly higher rates of mental health issues, and, tragically, suicidality, than other groups. Figures from the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell report reveal that young same-sex attracted people are roughly six times more likely to attempt suicide (20-42% compared to 7-13% of heterosexual young people). While there is less research, similar, if anything even worse, statistics affect young transgender people.

And we already know what causes poorer mental health outcomes for younger LGBTI people – the homophobia, bi-phobia, trans-phobia and anti-intersex discrimination that still occurs all too frequently. The 2010 Writing Themselves In 3 report found that 61% of same-sex attracted and gender questioning young people had experienced verbal abuse because of homophobia, 18% had suffered physical abuse, and 26% reported other forms of homophobia.

Disturbingly, “the most common place of abuse remained school with 80% of those who were abused naming school” (WTI3 pIX). Our young LGBTI people are being abused in one of the places that they should feel safest. And the trend is worsening, with that figure markedly up since 2004 (when 74% reported homophobic abuse at school) and 1998 (69%).

Just as worryingly, young LGBTI are not receiving an inclusive education in terms of content either. While just over a third of young people reported receiving useful information about homophobia and discrimination from school (WTI3, p80), less than one fifth were able to access information about gay or lesbian relationships (p81).

Our schools are also comprehensively failing to provide adequate, and appropriate, sexual health education to young LGBTI people. Writing Themselves In 3 found that less than one in five students were taught relevant information about gay or lesbian safe sex (by comparison, approximately 70% reported receiving information about heterosexual safe sex: p82). Young people themselves are aware of this gross inadequacy – 84% of LGBTI respondents found their Sexuality Education to be either not useful at all (44%) or at best only partly useful (40%) (p84).

I have painted this confronting picture because the development of a national Health and Physical Education curriculum was an ideal chance to rectify some of these deficiencies. An inclusive HPE curriculum, which specifically included LGBTI students and content relevant to their needs, could have gone some way to reducing the disparities in health outcomes experienced by young LGBTI people. But it seems likely the document that will be agreed at the end of next week will fall spectacularly short of this goal.

Two drafts of the HPE curriculum have been released for publication consultation: the first, an 82-page draft in December 2012, the second, a pared-down 50 page revised draft in July 2013. In neither draft are the terms lesbian, gay, homosexual or bisexual even used, let alone defined. The words transgender and intersex do make a solitary appearance in the revised draft: in the glossary, erroneously included together under the heading gender-diverse.

Not only is the national HPE curriculum not going to overcome the silence about LGBTI students and content which exists in many schools across Australia – it is more likely to perpetuate and further entrench it.

To be fair, the curriculum does include a single aspirational – some might say, less kindly, token – paragraph on the subject of ‘same sex attracted and gender diverse students’ (SSAGD) on page 18 of the July 2013 revised draft. But even this includes vague, and seemingly unenforceable, commitments.

It says the curriculum “is designed to allow schools flexibility to meet the needs of these [SSAGD] students, particularly in the health context of relationships and sexuality” (emphasis added). This leaves open the possibility that some schools, including but not limited to religious schools, will exercise that same flexibility to exclude LGBTI content.

The next sentence reads “[a]ll school communities have a responsibility when implementing the HPE curriculum to ensure teaching is inclusive and relevant to the lived experience of all students” (emphasis added). That could be interpreted, optimistically, to mean all schools must include SSAGD content – or it could be interpreted, by less progressive school bodies (or indeed state and territory governments), to mean HPE education must be inclusive only where they are aware of the presence of LGBTI students.

That might seem, on the face of it, to be an overly-negative reading – except that a statement that “students facing these issues [SSAGD] exist in all schools”, which appeared in the first draft of the curriculum, was axed from the revised draft. It is hard to ignore the possibility that religious and independent schools have ensured the removal of such a clause, thereby allowing them to continue to ignore LGBTI students and content unless those students identify themselves.

These schools know that many young people will not disclose their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status at school (often in – quite legitimate – fear of punishment from that same school), meaning that heterosexual and cisgender-only health education can continue on much as before. Even where LGBTI students do ‘come out’, the onus should never be put on them to do so in order to receive an inclusive education: all students have the fundamental right to be taught LGBTI relevant content, whether they have disclosed their status or not.

That right exists no matter which state or territory they live in, and irrespective of whether they attend a public, religious or other private school. The right to be taught LGBTI-inclusive content also supersedes whatever views the school, or its employees, may hold, based on religion or otherwise. To me, that is the definition of putting children first, something which conservatives and family values campaigners consistently tell us to do.

Any optimistic view of the curriculum, based on the ‘aspirational paragraph’ referred to earlier, is further undermined by the lack of specific content in the individual year band descriptions, which is the practical guide to what students are expected to learn (on pages 25-42). There are no sections that guarantee detailed LGBTI-relevant content will be taught. In fact, a single reference to ‘homophobia’, which was included in the original December 2012 draft, was excised from the revised draft released in July 2013.

Even worse, there does not appear to be any section which mandates that students be taught comprehensive sexual health information (and that absence even includes heterosexual sexual health). There are no references to safe(r) sex education, to condoms, or to sexually transmissible infections (STIs). Above all, there is not a single reference in the entire draft HPE curriculum to HIV.

Imagine that for a second. More than 30 years into the HIV epidemic in Australia, and in the same year that the Annual Surveillance Reports showed a 10% increase in HIV notifications (24% in NSW), our national Health and Physical Education curriculum does not even mention HIV (nor does it include other Blood Borne Viruses (BBVs) like hepatitis B or C, which themselves each affect 1% of the entire Australian population).

The idea that, just two days before World AIDS Day, Commonwealth, state and territory Education Ministers could sit around a table and agree to an HPE curriculum that excludes HIV and other BBVs is simply astounding (and a lot of other words which I am too polite to write here).

Taken together, these omissions – LGBTI students and content, comprehensive sexual health education, and HIV and other BBVs – from the national Health and Physical Education curriculum, mean that the document that has been drafted (or the public versions of it at least) is an abject failure.

And it is a collective failure, too. The original December 2012 draft, and the July 2013 revised draft, were both released under the previous federal Labor Government. Of the state and territory Education Ministers present next Friday, five will be from the Coalition, two from Labor and even one from the Greens, and they will each bear some of the responsibility.

But above all, this is a test for the new Commonwealth Education Minister, the Hon Christopher Pyne MP. He has come to Government expressing concerns about the ACARA process for developing the national curriculum, and the outcomes it has produced. Here is his opportunity to show that he is genuine, and to help ensure that the national Health and Physical Education Curriculum is genuinely-inclusive.

If he does not, if the document that is approved on 29 November excludes LGBTI students and content, comprehensive sexual health education, and HIV and other BBVs, then Minister Pyne will earn a large red “F” on his first term report card. He can – and must – do better.

Update (3 December): The Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood met last Friday, but did NOT endorse the national Health & Physical Education curriculum. Instead, they have noted its development, while also noting that the Commonwealth is reviewing ACARA and the curriculum development process more broadly. Basically, the curriculum is on hold until that review is finished, meaning it could be adopted at some point in 2014, amended and then adopted in 2014, or could be sent back for complete redraft, either by ACARA or someone else. I will obviously post further updates as I become aware of important developments.

Submission on Alex Greenwich’s Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013

Posted on by

The following is my submission, lodged today, in response to a discussion paper and Bill released by the Member for Sydney, Mr Alex Greenwich. The Paper and Bill seek to remove exceptions which allow private educational authorities, including religious schools, the right to discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students. Unfortunately, I think that to achieve that goal, more amendments to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 may need to be made. In any event, I believe that there are a range of other amendments which should also be made at the same time, including the removal of section 56 generally. Anyway, here it is:

Mr Alex Greenwich

Member for Sydney

Sydney@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Monday 30 September 2013

Dear Mr Greenwich

Submission on Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in response to your discussion paper on anti-discrimination law reform, released in August 2013, and in particular in relation to your Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013 (the Bill), which you introduced into NSW Parliament on 19 September 2013.

First of all, let me say that I welcome your strong commitment to removing the discrimination that can be experienced by lesbian, gay and transgender students in private educational institutions, including private schools. As has been demonstrated by the Writing Themselves In reports, and countless other research projects over the years, schools can be one of the major sources of homophobia and trans-phobia in the lives of young people.

It is vital that any ‘exceptions’ in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 which may authorise schools to discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students are removed, and this must apply to all types of private schools, including religious schools. From what I have read, both in the Discussion Paper and associated media, as well as in your Second Reading Speech, I believe this is what your Bill is attempting to achieve.

However, I do have some concerns about the Anti-Discrimination (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013, in particular:

  • It is unclear whether the Bill, as drafted, will accomplish this aim
  • There are a range of other amendments which also need to be made to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1997 and
  • If the Bill is aimed at removing the right to discriminate from religious schools, thereby provoking an expected negative response from religious organisations, then I believe that the right of religious organisations to discriminate more broadly under s56 should be removed at the same time.

Turning first to the question of whether the Bill, if passed, would actually achieve the aim of removing the right to discriminate from all schools, including religious schools, I note that the Bill simply removes those provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1997 which provide a specific right to discriminate (namely, sections 31A(3)(a), 38K(3), 46A(3), 49L(3)(a), 49ZO(3) and 49ZYL(3)(b)).

However, the Bill does not amend or seek to repeal the catch-all section which provides exceptions to religious organisations to discriminate – and that is found in section 56(d) which states: “Nothing in this Act affects: (d) any other act or practice of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.”

I am concerned that, by leaving this section unamended, the effect of your Bill would be to remove the right to discriminate from private educational authorities that are not religious, but that religious schools would retain the right to discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students on the basis of their ‘religious principles or beliefs’. The practical effect of the Bill would therefore have a positive outcome for a much, much smaller cohort of students than what is intended.

This reading of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, and in particular s56(d), appears to be supported by the main case in this area in recent years: OW & OV v Members of the Board of the Wesley Mission Council [2010] NSWADT 293. This case involved a service operated by the Wesley Mission, which sought to utilise the ‘protections’ offered in s56(d) to discriminate against gay male foster carers. The Wesley Mission was ultimately successful in its appeal.

While foster care is obviously not exactly the same as providing education in religious schools, I believe that it is potentially analogous in terms of indicating how broad the religious exceptions under s56(d) are in practice, and in particular in suggesting that they would operate to shield religious schools that discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students from the scope of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

This also appears to be the opinion of the current Attorney-General of NSW, the Hon Greg Smith SC MP. In a speech titled Religious Vilification, Anti-Discrimination Law and Religious Freedom, which he gave on 24 August 2011, the Attorney-General discussed the operation of s56:

“116. Section 56 creates a general exemption from the ADA for religious bodies. Religious bodies are not required to comply with the ADA in relation to:

  1. The training, education, ordination or appointment of religious leaders [s56(a)&(b)];
  2. The appointment of any other person [s56(c)];
  3. Any other act or practice that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of thast religion [s56(d)].

117. Section 56 was included in the ADA when first enacted. While other jurisdictions have adopted a general exception from their anti-discrimination statutes for religious bodies, the exceptions are narrower than that under the ADA in the following ways:

a. While section 56(c) of the ADA exempts the appointment of persons ‘in any capacity’ by a religious body, other jurisdictions exempt only appointment of persons to perform functions related to religious practices;

b. Some other jurisdictions have provisions equivalent to s56(d) of the ADA, but others are narrower. Those that are narrower limit the exemption to acts done as part of a religious practice [NT], or don’t extend the exemption to discrimination in work or education [Qld], or limit the grounds of discrimination that are exempt.” [emphasis added]

The implication from this speech, and in particular from para 117(b) above, is that the Attorney-General believes that the protections offered by s56(d) would be available to a school or educational facility run by a religious organisation. This also appears to be the interpretation of s 56(d) by other organisations and advocacy groups which work in this area, including the Inner-City Legal Centre and Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

If that is the case – that either your Bill does not operate to limit the right of religious schools to discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students, or that there may be some ongoing uncertainty in this area – then might I suggest you seek additional legal advice on the scope of s56(d), and whether further amendments to your Bill might be necessary to guarantee the rights of lesbian, gay and transgender students in religious schools not to be discriminated against. Obviously, if the Bill is to be debated and ultimately voted upon in late 2013 or early 2014, it would be useful to have clarity about the exact protections to be offered by the Bill beforehand.

Moving on to my second concern about the Bill, which applies irrespective of whether students at religious schools are covered or not, specifically that there are a range of other serious problems with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, and it is my belief that these issues should be considered at the same time by the Parliament.

For example, as well as protecting lesbian, gay and transgender students, anti-discrimination protections should also be offered to teachers and other employees at the same schools, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In fact, I believe that religious exceptions should be limited to only cover the appointment of ministers of religion, and the conduct of religious ceremonies. In short, religious organisations should no longer be sanctioned by the State to discriminate in employment and service delivery in places like hospitals or social services – and a reform to the existing law is a perfect opportunity to make such changes.

There are also a range of problems with the current scope of, and definitions included in, the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, including the fact that it protects homosexuals (in s49ZF) rather than people with different sexual orientations (with the effect that, while lesbians and gay men are covered, bisexuals are not).

The NSW Act also includes what I understand to be an out-dated definition of transgender (in s38A), rather than the preferred definition of gender identity as passed in the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013. Indeed, the NSW Act does not even cover intersex status at all, unlike its Commonwealth counterpart. I hope that you, and other MPs involved in this area of public policy, are consulting with groups representing the transgender and intersex communities about whether, and how, to deal with these issues.

There are also other problems with the current Act, including what I find to be an objectionable difference in financial penalties for individual offenders found guilty of vilification; the maximum financial penalty for racial or HIV/AIDS vilification (set at 50 Penalty Units) is five times higher than that for homosexual or transgender vilification (set at 10 Penalty Units). There can be no justification for this discrepancy, which effectively creates a hierarchy of offensiveness, with some types of vilification considered more serious than others.

The above problems with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 are simply those which I have identified from my own reading and research. I am sure that there are other issues which also need to be addressed. This to me suggests that there is sufficient impetus for a more comprehensive re-write of the Act. While the subject of protecting lesbian, gay and transgender students is an incredibly important one, I believe that the range of problems identified above should all be dealt with at the same time.

Which brings me to my third concern with the draft Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013, and that is a concern around tactics or strategy.

By attempting to limit the right of religious organisations to discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students in their schools, you are taking on something which many churches take to be an inalienable ‘right’ – the ability to indoctrinate young people with their religious teachings against homosexuality or transgender identity.

As a result, I would expect a significant backlash from those same religious organisations against your Bill. The size or scale of that backlash might only be slightly less than that which could be expected from an attempt to narrow the broader exceptions contained in section 56 (by limiting its coverage to the appointment of ministers and conduct of religious ceremonies).

In that case, it is my personal view that, as well as removing the specific provisions concerning private educational authorities (as featured in your Bill), any attempt to reform the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 should also contain provisions which significantly reduce the scope of s56. If people such as yourself are going to take on the right of religious organisations to discriminate, then why not do so more comprehensively, rather than in what could be described a piecemeal (or at the very least, narrowly-targeted) fashion?

Which is not to say that moves to protect lesbian, gay and transgender students from discrimination are not welcome – they obviously are. And I also wish to restate my support for the overall intention of the Bill; protecting young people who are lesbian, gay and transgender from homophobia and trans-phobia is an incredibly important objective.

However, any attempt to do so must ensure that the Bill captures all private schools, including religious schools. And, even if that drafting issue is resolved, it remains my personal view that reform to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 should go much further, and address broader issues including but not limited to restricting the scope of section 56.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

Submission on Redrafted National Health & Physical Education Curriculum

Posted on by

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) released a slightly redrafted version of the national Health & Physical Education curriculum for limited public consultation over the past 2 weeks. While there were some modest improvements from the original draft released in December 2012, there are still significant problems with what is proposed, especially as it fails to ensure that content is relevant for LGBTI students, and that every classroom is genuinely LGBTI inclusive.

This afternoon I provided my personal submission to the process, which included attachments covering my previous petition to the Commonwealth Education Minister, the Hon Peter Garrett MP, and the comments which people made on that (although not reproduced here because both are too large). Anyway, here is my submission (I understand that a range of groups, including the NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby and others, will be making submissions too, so hopefully there is more change before the final document is released later this year):

Submission on Redrafted National Health & Physical Education Curriculum

I am writing to provide a personal submission in response to the redrafted national Health & Physical Education (HPE) curriculum, as published on the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) website in July 2013.

I also provided a submission in April 2013 in response to the original draft HPE curriculum as released by ACARA in December 2012. Please find a copy of that submission at Attachment A. In it, I outlined a range of substantive concerns with the draft curriculum, and in particular in relation to how it related to (or, more accurately, ignored) the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students.

These concerns included that:

  • The draft curriculum did not explicitly include LGBTI students by name, nor did it ensure that every classroom in every school included content that was relevant to LGBTI student needs
  • The draft curriculum also concentrated on ‘reproductive health’ meaning that it effectively excluded the sexual health needs of LGBTI students and
  • The draft curriculum did not even include the term HIV, let alone ensure that groups at higher risk of contracting HIV (including gay and bisexual men) receive appropriate education to help prevent new transmissions.

Following the lodgement of my submission, I also initiated a national petition to the Commonwealth Education Minister at the time, the Hon Peter Garrett MP, and his state and territory counterparts. I have since sent this petition to the new Commonwealth Education Minister, the Hon Bill Shorten MP, and the NSW Education Minister, the Hon Adrian Piccoli MP.

This petition, which called for the three issues listed above to be remedied as a matter of urgency, received an incredible level of community support, garnering more than 6,000 signatures in less than four weeks.

However, just as important as the number of signatures, the comments which people provided demonstrate the breadth and depth of community concern about the failure of the original HPE curriculum to address the issues of LGBTI inclusion, sexual health education and HIV.

These comments show that this is an issue which matters not just to LGBTI people themselves, but also to their family members and friends, as well as a broad cross-section of the community who understand that everyone has a right to inclusive, appropriate health education, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. I would strongly encourage you to read these comments, as many of them are far more articulate and passionate about why LGBTI students must be included than I could ever hope to be.

Having examined the redrafted HPE curriculum released on the ACARA website earlier this month, I would like to acknowledge that there have been some improvements made from the December 2012 version, including an attempt to include reproductive health and sexual health, rather than just reproductive health.

However, it is also disappointing to note that many of the significant problems which existed in the original draft have not been resolved.  I will use the remainder of this submission to identify those areas which still require amendment in order to meet the needs of LGBTI students, including specific recommendations to make these much needed improvements.

Recommendation 1:  The national HPE curriculum must directly and explicitly include lesbian, gay and bisexual students, and content which is relevant to their needs

As with the original draft submission, I believe that it is irresponsible for a national HPE curriculum not to even include the words lesbian, gay or bisexual. These are the most common forms of sexual orientation for people who are not heterosexual. To deliberately exclude these terms from the curriculum contributes to the marginalisation of students who may grow up to identify with any one of these terms.

By excluding these terms/sexual orientations, I believe that the curriculum would inevitably lead to some schools ignoring the health needs of these students, and ultimately contribute to higher level of mental health issues across the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities, including higher rates of depression and youth suicide.

I must also highlight that including the term same-sex attracted (in the ‘aspirational’ paragraph on page 18 – more on that at recommendation 3, below – and in the Glossary) is insufficient in and of itself to ensure that lesbian, gay and bisexual students are included in both classrooms and content. While I acknowledge that it is an inclusive term, I do not understand how referring to the term ‘same-sex attracted’ twice (and only once in the body of the document, and even then not in the content description for any year), without providing more information, will help ensure that all students learn what being lesbian, gay and bisexual mean, in the same way that they would learn what being heterosexual means.

In fact, I find it impossible to see how excluding the words lesbian, gay and bisexual does anything other than ensure that students who happen to be lesbian, gay or bisexual are denied their right to an equal and fair health education, irrespective of which school they might attend.

Recommendation 2: The national HPE curriculum must directly and explicitly include transgender and intersex students, and content which is relevant to their needs, whilst noting that gender identity and intersex status are different things meaning that education about these issues must make this distinction

I acknowledge that the terms transgender and intersex are at least included in the redrafted national HPE curriculum. However, they are only included in the glossary on page 45, and unfortunately the curriculum incorrectly includes both as part of the definition of gender-diverse. Transgender may fall within this term, but intersex is a distinct characteristic as a biological sex status.

I am not an expert in this field, and expect that submissions from the National LGBTI Health Alliance as well as Organisation Intersex International (OII) Australia will provide recommendations to improve the curriculum in terms of transgender and intersex inclusion. I would encourage you to give full consideration to their suggestions in these areas.

Recommendation 3: The statement about LGBTI inclusion must explicitly refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students, and ensure that all schools are inclusive of these students, irrespective of whether students have publicly identified their orientation, identity or status

I note that the ‘aspirational’ statement of inclusion on page 18 of the redrafted curriculum has been amended from the original December 2012 draft. In particular, I am concerned by the decision to omit the statement that ‘same sex attracted and gender diverse’ students exist in all schools. It is unclear why this statement of fact has been removed, given we know that people who are LGBTI have come from all school communities across the country.

This omission also presents some complications when read together with remainder of the paragraph as redrafted, which talks about “becoming increasingly visible”, “designed to allow flexibility” and “have a responsibility… to ensure teaching is inclusive and relevant to the lived experiences or all students”. One reading of this paragraph is that schools now only have a responsibility to be inclusive where they are aware that students are LGBT or I (ie where schools are aware of the lived experience of their students).

If this is the case, it is not acceptable. All students have a right to be included, and to have their health and physical education needs met, and most importantly should not have the onus placed on themselves to disclose their orientation, identity or status in order to receive this education (especially when such disclosure can risk discrimination from other students, teachers and sometimes from the school itself).

I strongly recommend that this paragraph be amended so that it:

  • Explicitly names LGBTI students (for example, same-sex attracted students, including lesbian, gay and bisexual students, and transgender and intersex students) and
  • States that all school communities must provide content and classrooms which are inclusive of LGBTI students, irrespective of whether they disclose their orientation, identity or status.

Recommendation 4: The statement about LGBTI inclusion must be supported by explicit references to LGBTI content in the year descriptions

While an ‘aspirational’ statement on page 18 is welcome, in order to be most effective it should be backed up by explicit references to issues of concern to LGBTI students at relevant points throughout the curriculum.

For example, the terms transgender and intersex should be introduced and explained from Foundation/Years 1-2, given these identities and statuses can be present from early childhood and/or birth.

Ideally, the orientations lesbian, gay and bisexual should be introduced and explained in Years 3-4, so that students who experience same-sex attraction in puberty (which can commence for some in these years) are aware that these attractions are normal. At the latest, all students should be aware of the concepts of heterosexuality, as well as homosexuality and bisexuality, by the end of Year 6.

This would then leave room from comprehensive and inclusive sexual health education (and not just reproductive health) in Years 5-6 (more on this at recommendation 5, below), or Years 7-8 at the absolute latest.

I note with particular concern the sub-strand Being healthy, safe and active, on page 27 of the redrafted curriculum, which includes the following points under Years 7-8:

  • Examining the impact of physical changes on gender, cultural and sexual identities and
  • Exploring sexual identities and investigating how changing feelings and attractions are part of getting older.

This is both far too old (covering students who are turning 13 and 14 across most states, beyond the age which many people have first realised that they are same-sex attracted, including myself) and far too vague, to be genuinely inclusive of LGBTI students and their needs.

LGBTI issues should also be explicitly mentioned in the outline of the Relationships and sexuality learning area on page 9 of the document, which is reproduced in the Glossary on pages 47 and 48. For example, the dot point “changing identities and the factors that influence them” could be redrafted to include “developing sexual orientations, include heterosexual, lesbian, gay and bisexual, and the factors that influence them” while transgender and intersex should be included in in this Area of learning in Foundation to Year 2 (as indicated above).

Recommendation 5: The term sexual health should be preferred to reproductive health throughout

I welcome the amendment from the original draft of the HPE curriculum, with the addition of sexual health to the redrafted curriculum. However, I am confused by the inclusion of both reproductive health and sexual health, and the definitions of both which are provided in the Glossary on pages 48 and 49 respectively.

In particular, the definition of reproductive health seems to try to ‘cover the field’ for the physical aspects of sexual health, even though for many people their sexual anatomy/systems are not primarily related to ‘reproduction’. This is especially apparent when considering the definition of sexual health, which uses the shorter World Health Organisation definition of sexual health, but not the 2006 longer and more inclusive definition which begins:  “…a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity” [emphasis added].

This longer definition makes it clear that sexual health includes the physical health aspects of sex education. As a result, I believe that the much more inclusive term sexual health should be used throughout the document, and if explicit references to reproduction are considered necessary, then the term should be ‘sexual health, including reproductive health’. This would help to ensure that the needs of all students are considered and not just those of heterosexual students.

Recommendation 6: The topic of sexual health should include more detailed information on safer sex, including condom usage, and Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)

While it is welcome that sexual health has been added as a term to the redrafted HPE curriculum, it is unclear where it is intended that detailed sexual health education, including STI information and prevention, is included in the content for specific years.

As indicated above, I believe that comprehensive sexual health education should be included in Years 5-6 (and by 7-8 at the absolutely latest). In order to meet the needs of all students, whether LGBTI or otherwise, it must include specific references to safer sex, and condom usage, as well as ensuring that students learn about STIs and how they can best be prevented (and where relevant treated). I cannot locate this information in the redrafted document.

I believe it would be irresponsible for a HPE curriculum not to ensure that students learn this information prior to the age at which they become sexually active.

Recommendation 7: The national HPE must include Blood Borne Viruses, and in particular HIV

Building on the inclusion of sexual health, and comprehensive sexual health education, including STIs (recommendations 5 and 6 respectively), I believe that it is vital for the national HPE curriculum to explicitly refer to Blood Borne Viruses, including HIV.

As a gay man who has just turned 35, I find it almost incomprehensible that HIV, including information about how it can be prevented, has been omitted from the HPE curriculum, both in the original draft and in the redraft. While HIV is no longer a ‘death sentence’, diagnoses with HIV is still a serious thing, and we should be maintaining our efforts to minimise new transmissions. This is particularly important for younger gay and bisexual men, with male same-sex intercourse remaining the primary means of HIV transmission within Australia.

The importance of this message is reinforced by recent figures which show that the number of HIV notifications in NSW rose by 24% in 2012, including 19% among men who have sex with men. The HIV epidemic is not over, and it is essential that a national Health & Physical Education curriculum provides relevant information for young people to help them avoid future HIV transmissions.

Recommendation 8: The national HPE curriculum should ensure that all students learn about homophobia, bi-phobia, trans-phobia and anti-intersex prejudice, and the damage caused by each

One of the pleasing aspects of the original HPE curriculum, released in December 2012, was that it explicitly named ‘homophobia’ as something that students should be taught about (and implicit in this, was the assumption that students would learn the damage caused by discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation). In my original submission, I argued that this should be amended to include bi-phobia, trans-phobia and anti-intersex prejudice as well, as these encompass similarly destructive beliefs and behaviours.

Unfortunately, it appears that the reference to homophobia has now been deleted, and replaced by a much more generic statement on page 34: “examining values and beliefs about cultural and social issues, such as gender, race, sexuality and disability” and “researching how stereotypes and prejudice are challenged in local, national and global contexts.”

To me, these statements do not ensure that students learn that homophobia, bi-phobia, trans-phobia and anti-intersex prejudice are entirely negative phenomena, which can cause immense hurt amongst members of these groups (indeed, the first statement makes no value judgment at all about different ‘values and beliefs’ in relation to sexuality, and leaves it open to some schools teaching that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status is acceptable behaviour).

I would strongly urge you to reconsider the drafting of these dot points, and to include homophobia, bi-phobia, trans-phobia and anti-intersex prejudice as subjects about which students should learn, including being taught about the damage caused by these types of discrimination.

Conclusion

Thank you for reading my detailed submission, and attachments. I acknowledge that much of what I have written is strongly worded, but it is only done so out of genuine concern that, if the redrafted national HPE curriculum was implemented without further amendment, it would fail to meet the needs of our LGBTI students, and fail to provide them with the sexual health and HIV prevention education that they have a right to.

Research has shown that younger LGBTI people are amongst the most disadvantaged students across the country, with high rates of bullying and harassment, and consequently of mental health issues including depression and youth suicide.

I believe that the development of a national Health & Physical Education curriculum is an ideal opportunity to remedy some of the active discrimination which exists against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students, through the introduction of LGBTI-inclusive content, and hopefully leading to LGBTI students being genuinely included in classrooms across the country. I hope that the final version of the HPE curriculum will implement as many of the above recommendations as possible, to help make this a reality.

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie