Tag Archives: homophobia

To Plebiscite or not to Plebiscite?

Posted on by

To plebiscite or not to plebiscite? That is the question confronting us right now.

 

Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberal-National Government won re-election on Saturday July 2, albeit by the narrowest of margins in the House of Representatives. According to their election policy, they will introduce legislation in the second half of 2016 to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality, either in November this year or (more likely in my opinion) in March 2017.

 

Nevertheless, the picture in the Senate remains less clear, where, with counting continuing, there is a possibility the ALP, Greens and Nick Xenophon Team will collectively hold 38 Senators. All three parties formally support marriage equality and, based on those numbers, would be in a position to block the legislation required to hold the plebiscite.

 

The question is whether we – the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) community – want them to block the plebiscite or not.

 

For regular readers of this blog, that question might seem somewhat unexpected. Since it was first announced by then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott in August 2015, I have consistently, and often vociferously, opposed the plebiscite on marriage equality, including by:

 

 

As someone who has been engaged for more than six years, but who doesn’t want Steve and my right to marry to come at the expense of potential harm to young and vulnerable LGBTIQ people, my personal view would be that we should continue to oppose the plebiscite.

 

But this issue, whether to block the plebiscite or not, is much bigger than any one individual, or couple – it will affect nearly all members of the LGBTIQ community in some way.

 

From older couples for whom time may be running out, to younger people who have grown sick and tired of waiting for our politicians to catch up to public opinion, there may be valid arguments to ‘accept’ the plebiscite – if that is indeed the only option now on the table.

 

On the other hand, many rainbow families legitimately fear the damage that the anticipated homophobic and transphobic campaign by opponents of marriage equality may cause to them and their families. Meanwhile, other members of the LGBTIQ community for whom marriage equality is not a high priority may experience the harms of a plebiscite without enjoying any of the benefits.

 

For all of these reasons and more, I have decided to conduct a survey of the LGBTIQ community’s opinions about the plebiscite, and what we, as a community, should do next. It will be open from today (Sunday 17 July) for two weeks, closing on Sunday 31 July, and I would really appreciate it if you could take five minutes of your time to express your view:

 

This survey is now closed. 

 

As you will see in the survey, as well as asking for some optional demographic information (which will help to identify whether there are different opinions within the community on the basis of whether people are LGBTI and/or Q, their relationship status, age and whether or not they have children), the primary question (indeed the only mandatory question) asks participants to choose between the following three options:

 

  1. To block the plebiscite, if possible

 

The ‘if possible’ is added here because the Senate numbers might change in late counting, meaning the plebiscite may proceed regardless of the community’s views. However, assuming Labor, the Greens and Xenophon together reach 38 seats, this option would involve asking these parties to demonstrate their stated support for marriage equality by blocking the plebiscite and instead continuing to push for a parliamentary vote as quickly as possible.

 

The obvious benefit of this option is it would avoid holding a public vote costing at least $160 million, and almost inevitably preceded by a bitter and nasty campaign against LGBTIQ Australians by the Australian Christian Lobby, Australian Marriage Forum, Marriage Alliance and others.

 

Nevertheless, there is also a real chance that, once the plebiscite is blocked, Turnbull and his Coalition colleagues refuse to hold any parliamentary vote, meaning the equal recognition of our relationships is delayed until at least 2019 (or beyond). Blocking the plebiscite would also be open to mischaracterisation by our opponents (who could claim we are ‘afraid of democracy’ rather than being genuinely concerned about their hate-mongering).

 

  1. To accept the plebiscite, and fight to win

 

This option doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing that a plebiscite on this issue is desirable. Nevertheless, it would involve pragmatically acknowledging that, following the re-election of the Liberal-National Government, a plebiscite might be the best chance of achieving marriage equality during this term of Parliament.

 

As discussed earlier, there are risks in this approach. I’m not sure anybody believes Malcolm Turnbull’s naïve statements that the plebiscite debate will be ‘respectful’. As a result, it is highly likely young and vulnerable LGBTIQ people will experience real harm. And, even if we ‘win’ the plebiscite, there is still no guarantee Coalition MPs will actually pass marriage equality (or do so promptly, noting it took seven years for the national anthem plebiscite to be implemented).

 

But, we also need to consider the fact that there are many couples for whom waiting until 2019 (or beyond) is simply not feasible – a plebiscite might be their only option to legally wed in their own country before one or both passes away. It is, undeniably, a ‘big call’ to block what could be the only way that people who grew up in a different time, and a much less accepting country, might finally be allowed to marry.

 

  1. To wait to see the details of the plebiscite

 

Despite being announced as Liberal-National Party policy more than 11 months ago – and forming part of Turnbull’s re-election platform – there is still a lack of clarity around several key aspects of the proposed marriage equality plebiscite.

 

151222 Turnbull

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has promised to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality, but – even after July 2 – still can’t tell us key details.

 

For example, it is uncertain what the exact question will be, and it may be more, or less, acceptable depending on the language used (such as whether it refers to same-sex marriage, or marriage between any two adults, or whether it even includes a reference to ‘traditional marriage’?).

 

The recent election campaign also revealed that there remains internal Coalition disagreement on the measure of ‘success’ – whether a simple majority will be sufficient, or whether it will also be required to be passed by a majority of voters in a majority of electorates (which will obviously be more difficult to achieve).

 

Finally, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Attorney-General Senator George Brandis have both so far refused to answer questions about the breadth of religious exceptions that may be included in any subsequent Bill to amend the Marriage Act – whether they will only apply to ministers of religion, whether they will also allow civil celebrants to discriminate against LGBTIQ couples, or whether they will attempt to include new ‘special rights’ to discriminate for wedding-related small businesses (eg florists, bakers and photographers etc).

 

For these reasons, some people might be willing to accept some plebiscites (asking a straightforward question, only requiring a simple majority, and not expanding religious exceptions) but not others, and these people may wish to see the details of any plebiscite before deciding whether it should be blocked or not.

 

**********

 

To choose your preferred option, out of the three presented above, please complete the survey here before Sunday 31 July:

 

This survey is now closed.

 

I will publish the results of the survey on Sunday 7 August (prior to the return of Commonwealth Parliament). They will inform the advocacy that I undertake on this issue from that point forward. If a clear majority of respondents favour blocking the plebiscite then I will continue to strongly campaign against it.

 

On the other hand, and despite any personal misgivings, if the majority of the LGBTIQ community believes this is something that, while not desirable, is ‘the pragmatic choice’, then I will turn my energies and efforts toward helping the ‘Yes’ case to succeed. [Of course, if the community is almost evenly divided on this question, then that decision becomes much more complicated].

 

Finally, I expect some opponents of marriage equality may query whether, by conducting my own survey of LGBTIQ community opinion about this topic, I am in effect endorsing the Turnbull Government’s proposal to hold its own national opinion poll. Pre-empting this criticism, I would note the following:

 

  • This survey will not cost more than $160 million to hold (or the equivalent of charging every Australian voter $10 to take part)

 

  • There is no easily-identifiable alternative to conducting this survey (unlike the plebiscite, which could be avoided by Parliament simply doing its job and voting on – and hopefully passing – legislation, potentially within a matter of weeks)

 

  • Conducting this survey will not lead to community division, and will not cause substantial harm to young and vulnerable LGBTIQ people, and

 

  • This survey poses a question of process – asking LGBTIQ people, who are the group with the most to win (marriage equality) and lose (through the expected homophobic and transphobic campaign by our opponents) from a plebiscite, for their preferred way to achieve equal relationship recognition. It is not asking all Australians – many of whom will not be significantly affected by marriage equality either way, and none of whom will experience any adverse impacts due to its passage – whether the relationships of LGBTIQ people are valid or otherwise.

 

This survey is now closed.

 

 

 

 

Why is Australia so far behind on marriage equality?

Posted on by

Tonight, exactly one year ago, the US Supreme Court handed down its historic decision in Obergefell v Hodges, making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. In doing so, they also reinforced the sinking feeling for many Australians, myself included, that we have fallen far behind our contemporaries around the world as we continue to refuse to treat the relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people equally under the law.

 

Of course, the United States was by no means the first place in the world to introduce marriage equality – that honour belongs to the Netherlands, which has had marriage equality since 1 April 2001, or more than 15 years ago. The list of countries that have joined their ranks in the time since grows longer by the year:

 

  • The Netherlands (2001)
  • Belgium (2003)
  • Spain (2005)
  • Canada (2005)
  • South Africa (2006)
  • Norway (2009)
  • Sweden (2009)
  • Portugal (2010)
  • Iceland (2010)
  • Argentina (2010)[i]
  • Denmark (2012)
  • Brazil (2013)
  • France (2013)
  • Uruguay (2013)
  • New Zealand (2013)
  • England & Wales (2014)
  • Scotland (2014)
  • Luxembourg (2015)
  • Ireland (2015)
  • United States (nationwide 2015)
  • Colombia (2016)
  • Finland (2017)
  • Taiwan (2017 – to take effect by 2019)
  • Germany (2017)
  • Malta (2017)

 

But, perhaps because of our community’s disproportionate focus on events in the United States, or simply because it was the straw that broke the camel’s back, the fact that, as of 12 months ago, LGBTI couples anywhere from Albany to Alabama and Alaska could get married, while we still could not, was the point at which many people felt we could no longer ignore the reality that, on marriage equality, Australia has officially become a backwater.

 

The question I am interested in asking is why? What are the factors that have caused Australia to fall so far behind its counterparts on this fundamental human rights issue? Why, when we compare ourselves to countries like the UK, US, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, is it just us and Northern Ireland left in discriminating against couples on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status?

 

There is a range of possible reasons that I will explore below, but first I want to highlight one factor that has not contributed to our lack of progress, and that’s public support. In short, the level of community support for marriage equality in Australia – which has consistently polled above 50% for the past seven or eight years, and is now frequently above 60% or even 70% – is not materially different to that recorded in countries that have already introduced this reform. Indeed, in several of the countries listed above, marriage equality has been implemented with much lower support from the public. So, if a lack of community support isn’t the problem, what is?

 

  1. The lack of a Bill of Rights

 

Perhaps the most obvious reason why Australia is behind the United States on marriage equality is that, while the US Bill of Rights allowed the Supreme Court in Obergefell to determine that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, Australia has no equivalent Bill of Rights (or even nation-wide Human Rights Act). Constitutional rights have also played key roles in the history of marriage equality in other countries, including Canada and South Africa.

 

In contrast, given the limited human rights protections contained in our own Constitution, when the High Court of Australia was asked to rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriages conducted in the ACT, all it could determine was whether marriage equality could be passed by Parliament at all, and if so at which level (only by Commonwealth Parliament as it turns out) rather than being able to find that the denial of the right to marry on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status was in itself ‘unconstitutional’.

 

  1. The power of the right wing of the Liberal-National Coalition

 

In the absence of a constitutional ‘circuit-breaker’, the onus has been on Commonwealth MPs and Senators to pass marriage equality. Unfortunately, of the 15 years since the Netherlands led the way, the Liberal and National Parties have formed Government for nine. This included the Howard Government that, in 2004, introduced legislation to amend the Marriage Act to ensure couples married overseas would not be treated equally under Australian law.

 

In the 12 years since then the Coalition’s stance against marriage equality has barely softened – with exactly zero Liberal or National Party MPs or Senators voting in favour of change when it was last voted on in September 2012 (and only one, Senator Sue Boyce, abstaining).

 

Even in the most recent term of Parliament, right-wing members of the Abbott and then Turnbull Governments succeeded first in blocking any substantive vote on marriage equality, and then in adopting a policy of holding an unnecessary, wasteful and divisive plebiscite before holding any such vote in the future.

 

The National Party – which can itself be considered one large bloc of the right wing of the Coalition – felt so strongly that Parliament should not vote on marriage equality without a plebiscite, it even included this condition in its agreement with Malcolm Turnbull after he deposed Tony Abbott as PM in September 2015.

 

The power of the right wing within the conservative side of politics, and their obsession with marriage equality (or at least, their consistent focus in denying it) appears to have been a much stronger force in Australia than in comparable countries, such as New Zealand and England & Wales, both of which passed marriage equality during Conservative Governments[ii].

 

  1. The power of the right wing of the Australian Labor Party

 

Unfortunately, it is not just on the conservative side of politics where people opposed to LGBTI equality have exercised disproportionate influence in Australia – the right wing of the ALP, and particularly the hard-line SDA (or ‘Shoppies’) led by religious fundamentalist Joe de Bruyn, have also played a key role in denying equality to LGBTI Australians.

 

This included helping to bind ALP parliamentarians to support Howard’s ban on marriage equality in 2004, but then opposing an attempt to impose a binding vote in favour of marriage equality at the ALP National Conference in December 2011. And, while a majority of ALP House of Reps MPs, and Senators, voted in favour of marriage equality in September 2012, it was still a much lower proportion that supported change than their comrades in both UK and New Zealand Labour.

 

In recent years the tide seems to have finally turned against the homophobes of the hard right of the Australian Labor Party, with the 2015 National Conference agreeing to support a binding vote from the 2019 federal election (albeit long after they should have), and their strengthening position in favour of marriage equality compelling the resignation of ‘Shoppie’ Senator Joe Bullock in March 2016. Nevertheless, the SDA’s influence in ensuring marriage equality was not passed before today should not be ignored.

 

  1. The lack of diversity among Australian parliamentarians

 

The fact that both the conservative and progressive sides of Australian politics have had higher levels of opposition to marriage equality than their equivalent parties elsewhere cannot be considered a mere coincidence. One of the reasons why I believe this is the case is the fact our Parliament is far less diverse than those in other countries.

 

The most obvious example, at least with respect to marriage equality, has been the dearth of ‘out’ LGBTI politicians in Commonwealth Parliament. While there has been a small number of LGBTI Senators over the past 10-15 years, the first out gay man to be elected to the House of Representatives, Trent Zimmerman, took his seat less than five months ago[iii].

 

This places Australian a loooooooong way behind places like Canada, the UK, New Zealand (which had the world’s first transgender MP, Georgina Beyer, last century) and even the United States. And, based on the principle that it is much harder to deny someone’s rights when they are ‘in the room’, our historical absence from the ‘House of Government’ has not only left us sitting outside looking in, it has left us behind too.

 

But it’s not just the lack of out LGBTI parliamentarians that has held us back – I believe the under-representation of female MPs and Senators has also played a part. While in the mid-to-late 1990s female representation in Commonwealth Parliament was among the highest in the world, Australia’s progress in this area has stalled over the past decade, with the proportion of women in the House of Representatives in particular stuck around 25%.

 

According to Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) data, Australia slipped from 20th in the world on female representation in 2001, to 48th in 2014, a downward trend that shows no signs of abating[iv]. As well as being a negative in and of itself, this lack of diversity undermines marriage equality, both because women have consistently shown higher levels of support for this reform than men and because a more gender-balanced, and therefore demographically representative, Parliament might be expected to be closer in opinion to the community’s existing strong support for marriage equality.

 

  1. The lack of diversity in Australia’s commercial media

 

Perhaps more controversially – especially to some commentators who believe that marriage equality is a trivial issue only placed on the public agenda by ‘leftists’ at the ABC – I believe the lack of diversity in our commercial media has also had a negative influence on marriage equality in this country.

 

I’m speaking in particular of newspapers, and especially those owned by Rupert Murdoch. As a former ‘political staffer’ I can attest that the main stories, and lead opinion pieces, in the day’s papers, including Australia’s only national broadsheet (The Australian), and the highest circulation papers in our three major cities (The Daily Telegraph in Sydney, The Herald Sun in Melbourne and The Courier Mail in Brisbane), are paid very close attention.

 

The fact all four newspapers have been opposed to marriage equality – almost universally at The Australian, and also by the main commentators at the tabloids (including Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman and Miranda Devine, and Des Houghton) – means the views our politicians are reading about this issue are largely out of touch with those of the voters they are there to represent. Even in 2016, with the newspaper industry in what appears to be a death spiral, these NewsCorp publications continue to exert disproportionate influence on our politicians.

 

In short, I suggest the lack of diversity in our commercial media has meant that MPs and Senators have been led to believe the issue of marriage equality, and LGBTI rights more broadly, is far more ‘controversial’ than it actually is.

 

  1. The existence of de facto relationship recognition

 

The only ‘positive’ reason on this list is the fact that, at least at state and territory level, Australia has long had de facto relationship recognition, including for same-sex couples. Under Commonwealth law, LGBTI de facto relationships were also finally recognised on the same basis as cisgender heterosexual relationships by the Rudd Labor Government’s Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Act 2008 and Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – Superannuation) Act 2008.

 

These long-overdue reforms, to at least 85 different pieces of Commonwealth legislation, mean that – outside of marriage – LGBTI couples now largely enjoy the same rights as other couples.

 

The reason why this has had an impact on marriage equality is that, unlike some countries (and especially parts of the United States), relationship recognition here is not an all-or-nothing affair – just because you aren’t married doesn’t automatically mean you are considered ‘single’ under Australian law (although, as some tragic recent case studies have shown, sometimes these de facto rights are not respected in practice[v]). If these de facto rights did not exist, it is likely there would be even greater urgency for marriage equality in Australia.

 

  1. The lack of leadership by Australia’s Prime Ministers

 

Irrespective of the above half-dozen factors, I genuinely believe that, if we had had Prime Ministers who were actual ‘leaders’ on this issue over the past dozen years, the outcome could have, would have, been very different. In reality, we have had five PMs who have each demonstrated serious flaws in their approach to marriage equality.

 

John Howard: Instead of having a constructive debate about marriage equality in 2004, Prime Minister Howard almost instinctively sought to use the issue as a pre-election wedge against the Mark Latham-led Opposition. The fact that the relationships of LGBTI Australians would be devalued and demeaned as a result seemed to matter naught to a man who just three years previously had based an entire campaign on attacking refugees.

 

Kevin Rudd: In hindsight, the first stint of Prime Minister Rudd (November 2007 to June 2010) can be seen as a major missed opportunity. Too risk averse, and notoriously focus-group obsessed, he failed to grasp the possibilities of taking leadership on this issue – and therefore didn’t pursue it at the 2009 ALP National Conference. If he had, Rudd could have seized control of the agenda, just as public support in Australia was rising, thereby adding to his ‘legacy’. While he did support marriage equality during his second stint as PM (June to August 2013) he was never going to win re-election or be in a position to pass it.

 

Julia Gillard: The Prime Ministership of Julia Gillard is still the most disappointing to me on this issue (although Malcolm Turnbull is rapidly catching up – see below). Supposedly left wing, and an avowed atheist, the expectation was that she was an ideal candidate to make progress on marriage equality.

 

Wrong. For whatever reason (and speculation has long centred on a possible deal with Joe de Bruyn and the SDA to oppose marriage equality as a condition of their support for her as PM), Ms Gillard did everything in her power to deny the right to marry to LGBTI Australians, including blocking the resolution for a binding vote at the December 2011 ALP National Conference, and voting against it herself in the House of Representatives in September 2012. Whatever her other merits, I will never forgive her for standing squarely in the way of ‘equal love’.

 

Tony Abbott: In some respects, there is less ‘disappointment’ in Prime Minister Abbott – because nobody ever expected anything different from him. A staunch Catholic, and someone who brought his religious fundamentalism to bear in political office, he was never going to be the Prime Minister to ‘lead’ on this issue. Although the fact one of his last acts as leader was to oversee the six-hour joint party room meeting that eventually settled on a plebiscite (primarily as a means to deny or at least delay marriage equality) means he nevertheless takes his place in the pantheon of Australian Prime Ministers who have ‘screwed over’ LGBTI Australia on this issue.

 

Malcolm Turnbull: Last, and in many ways, ‘least’, there’s the current Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, who claims to support marriage equality, he just doesn’t want to actually have to do anything about it. Within 24 hours of toppling Tony Abbott, he had signed a new Coalition Agreement with the National Party, caving in to them – seemingly without protest – and their demands to continue with the plebiscite on marriage equality. And he has soldiered on with this policy, right up to the July 2 election, and will presumably hold it in late 2016 or early 2017 should he win next Saturday.

 

An intelligent man, Turnbull does so knowing that it is entirely unnecessary, and, at $160 million, fundamentally wasteful. And he continues to advocate a plebiscite even though he understands the harms it will inevitably cause to young and vulnerable LGBTI people. Unlike others inside his party, I’m not going to accuse him of not caring about these adverse impacts – he just cares about them far less than his obvious desire to remain Prime Minister.

 

151222 Turnbull

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who probably cares about the harms a plebiscite will cause young & vulnerable LGBTI people – just less than his desire to remain PM.

 

These are seven reasons why I believe Australia is so far behind other countries on this issue. It is not an exhaustive list – no doubt others will suggest additional reasons (including possible shortcomings within the LGBTI movement itself, although from my perspective that is a topic for a different post, on a different day – and probably after the battle for marriage equality has finally been won).

 

One final point I would make, however, is that if the Liberal and National Parties are re-elected on July 2 then this list will automatically expand to eight. Because, if Turnbull is returned, and he does hold a plebiscite on marriage equality, then Australia will have found a unique way to ‘screw up’ on this subject.

 

Not one of the countries listed at the start of this post introduced marriage equality by way of a non-binding public vote. As far as I’m aware, only in Ireland has it been passed at national level via referendum – but it was actually needed there to change the Constitution.

 

Holding a plebiscite, which, as multiple reports over the past few days have confirmed won’t even be binding on Cabinet Ministers, let along the Bernardis and Christensens of the Coalition backbench, will involve yet more delay, and more disappointment for the LGBTI community.

 

So, if you’re reading this before July 2, then please think about this issue before you cast your vote, and put the Liberals and National last (or next to last, only ahead of extremists like Pauline Hanson and Fred Nile), so we can avoid an unnecessary, wasteful and divisive plebiscite. If we elect Bill Shorten’s Labor Party, we might even get to add Australia’s name to the above list between Colombia and Finland. Above all, we could end the wait of LGBTI couples in this country who have been denied equality for far too long.

 

Footnotes:

[i] Marriage equality has also been available in Mexico City from 2010, and is now legal in four additional states, with all being recognized nation-wide.

[ii] While only a minority of Conservative MPs in the UK, and National Party MPs in New Zealand voted in favour of marriage equality, in both places it was at least 40%, which is substantially higher than what would be expected even under a ‘free vote’ within the Coalition in Australia.

[iii] The lack of LGBTI representation in Australian Parliaments is an issue I have written about previously, see: LGBTI voices absent from the chamber

[iv] From Australian Parliament House Library “Representation of Women in Australian Parliaments 2014”.

[v] Including Tasmanian man Ben Jago who was allegedly mistreated by Tasmanian Police and the Tasmanian Coroner’s Office after the death of his de facto partner: Samesame, “I was treated like I meant nothing after my partner died”, 8 November 2015.

You’re wrong Malcolm Turnbull, homophobia is legally acceptable in Australia

Posted on by

It is now one week since the tragic events in Orlando, where 49 people were murdered in a gay nightclub, simply because they were lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (or were there as their family or friends).

 

I haven’t written specifically about those events for a few reasons. First, because I guess I’m still somewhat in shock about it and, like others, it will take some time to process the sheer scale of horrific, homophobic violence involved.

 

Second, because I haven’t wanted to talk about Orlando in the context of other public debates and risk them being unduly conflated (although, for the record, I do think it is a warning, albeit an extreme one, of the risks of a plebiscite generating hatred and vitriol towards Australia’s LGBTI community).

 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, I haven’t written anything because what has been written, and said, by others has been so eloquent, and so passionate, that I haven’t really felt the need to add anything. In fact, the outpouring of words and actions (including the vigils for Orlando held in many parts of the world, including here in Sydney) by LGBTI people and our allies over the past seven days has been a beautiful, and in many ways reassuring, thing to behold.

 

Countless others have already said the things that needed to be said, far better than I could ever say them:

 

Focusing on the names of the people killed, rather than that of the killer (such as CNN reporter Anderson Cooper’s touching report about the victims).

 

Challenging any erasure of the fact this was explicitly a homophobic and transphobic hate-crime, including:

 

Reminding us that this was an attack on a minority within a minority – Latinx members of the LGBT community.

 

Rejecting any moves to respond to homophobia with Islamophobia, as well as respecting and actively being inclusive of another minority within a minority – LGBTI Muslims.

 

Last, but certainly not least, seeing the individual act of homophobic and transphobic violence in the broader frame of homophobia and transphobia across the United States – and sadly, Australia – which is perhaps summed up best by this widely-shared social media image:

 

You werent the gunman

 

*********

 

In this context, as someone who primarily writes about LGBTI law and public policy, I didn’t have much further to offer – that is, until Australia’s right-wing media, and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, made it a policy, and political, issue.

 

During the week, The Australian newspaper decided to turn their focus on hate-speech by some Islamic preachers. Specifically, they campaigned for the visa of Farrokh Sekaleshfar to be revoked on the basis of a speech in 2013 where he supported the imposition of the death penalty for homosexuality in some circumstances:

 

“Death is the sentence. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence. We have to have that compassion for people. With homosexuals, it’s the same. Out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.” [Mr Sekaleshfar ultimately chose to leave the country before he was forced out].

 

They then swung their attention towards the guests hosted by Turnbull at an Iftar dinner in Sydney, including the President of the Australian National Imams Council, Mr Shady Alsuleiman, again bringing up comments from 2013 where he reportedly said the following:

 

“What’s the most common disease these days? HIV, AIDS, that’s so common and there’s no cure to it. And when did it exist? Just decades ago, and more diseases are coming… [It’s] homosexuality that’s spreading all these diseases.”

 

Leaving aside the clear anti-Muslim bias of this newspaper – given it champions the voices of Christian advocates who condemn homosexuality rather than attacking them (hypocrisy that is perfectly skewered by the First Dog on the Moon in this cartoon, and especially the line “Christian homophobes against Islamic homophobia”) – there is a legitimate question about where the limits of ‘acceptable’ speech should be drawn, irrespective of the religion of the person saying them (Muslim, Christian, other or none).

 

The fact Mr Alsuleiman was a ‘dinner guest’ of the Prime Minister means it is entirely justifiable that he was asked for his view on those comments, and this was Mr Turnbull’s response:

 

“Homophobia is to be condemned everywhere, number one. We are a broad, diverse country and we must respect the right of gay Australians, we respect the right of the LGBTI community and the right for them to lead their lives and gather in peace and harmony. The massacre in Orlando, that shocking assault on the people in the gay nightclub is a shocking reminder, frankly, of how much hate and intolerance there is in the world, and how important it is for us to stand up for mutual respect that I spoke about earlier. That is the very foundation of our society. So I condemn, I deplore homophobia wherever it is to be found. It is not acceptable from a legal point of view in Australia, as you know, and I just – I’m sure that – well I know that [Mr Alsuleiman] has been encouraged to reflect very deeply on his remarks which were of some years ago, and it’s up to him how he restates or reconsiders his position.”

 

There are, of course, some fine sentiments expressed here, as well as some less-than-stellar interventions (as a public scolding, being “encouraged to reflect deeply on his remarks” is akin to Paul Keating’s description of John Hewson: “it was like being flogged with warm lettuce”).

 

But the thing that has stuck with me and, to be completely honest, has thoroughly pissed me off, is that the Prime Minister is fundamentally wrong. Specifically, his comment that “I deplore homophobia wherever it is to be found. It is not acceptable from a legal point of view in Australia, as you know…” IS. SIMPLY. NOT. TRUE.

 

Sorry, Malcolm, but you are very, very wrong: homophobia is indeed acceptable under Australian law, and in some places it is actively encouraged.

 

Here, I want to discuss briefly two such examples (although I’m sure readers of this blog could come up with several others):

 

First, as I have written previously[i], while the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 prohibits vilification on the basis of race, there are currently no prohibitions against the vilification of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people under Commonwealth law. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

 

Which means that, while the Government could take action against Mr Sekaleshfar on the basis of his visa, they legally could not do anything against Mr Alsuleiman – because he would not have breached any Commonwealth laws.

 

Even at state and territory level, only four jurisdictions have legislated against LGBTI vilification (NSW, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT), and in many cases those laws are incomplete or out of date too (for example, only offering protection to some members of the LGBTI community and not others[ii]).

 

So, while Mr Turnbull might like to say that homophobia “is not acceptable from a legal point of view in Australia, as you know”, that’s definitely not true – especially under Commonwealth law. And, based on the past term of the Abbott-Turnbull Coalition Government, with its initial attempt to wind back racial vilification, it’s a situation doesn’t look like changing any time soon either.

 

Second, while the historic Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 introduced LGBTI anti-discrimination protections in Commonwealth law for the first time, it also contained provisions that, at the same time, severely curtailed those protections[iii].

 

For example, the general religious exceptions under section 37, and the specific exceptions provided to religious schools under section 38, mean there is no obligation on religious bodies to treat LGBT people fairly, or with even a minimum of respect. Indeed, religious schools are free to fire, and refuse to hire, LGBT teachers, as well as expel or refuse to enrol LGBT students.

 

The vast majority of state and territory anti-discrimination schemes[iv] include similar exceptions, with NSW’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 featuring the broadest (a school doesn’t even need to be religious, just ‘private’, in NSW to enjoy the privilege to discriminate against LGBT teachers and students).

 

All of which means that, were Mr Alsuleiman, or even Mr Sekaleshfar, to make similar comments, not on YouTube but instead in the classrooms or mosques (or churches) of a religious school, I cannot see the Commonwealth Government being able to do anything much about it under the law as it stands.

 

One aspect of this situation that sticks in the craw of many people is that all taxpayers, including LGBTI taxpayers, are effectively paying for this discrimination against LGBTI young people – because those same schools, which do not have to abide by the community standards against homophobia and transphobia that Mr Turnbull tried to articulate on Friday, still put their hands out for Commonwealth (and state and territory) funding.

 

But we should never forget that it is the LGBTI young people themselves, stuck in schools their parents have chosen, and potentially exposed to homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia from their principals and teachers, effectively condoned by governments of all levels, are the ones who ‘pay’ the highest price.

 

There are, of course, other aspects of Malcolm Turnbull’s comments that are offensive, not the least of which is the fact he chose to speak out against the homophobia of an Islamic preacher, because he invited him to dinner, but has so far steadfastly refused to condemn the homophobia from MPs and Senators who form part of his Government, even, for example, when they compare a program against the bullying of LGBTI young people to ‘sexual grooming’.

 

Here too though, rather than trying to explain this double-standard, I will quote another person who neatly summed up the glaring disparity via twitter:

 

Lane Sainty (@lanesainty 17 June 2016):

 

“I have So Many Complicated Thoughts about the two Islamic leaders criticised in the Australian press for their anti-gay comments.

 

I’ve seen people slamming comparisons Australian Christians – saying it’s not the same to oppose Safe Schools and to want gay people to die.

 

Given the suicide rates of trans kids, there’s actually an argument to be made there. But even if you accept the distinction, it’s still…

 

…not being an apologist for Muslim anti-LGBTI views to point out the hypocrisy of how we address queerphobia depending on religion.

 

Turnbull’s failure to condemn comments linking paedophilia and Safe Schools was deeply hurtful to LGBTI people. I cannot overstate this.

 

Yet look at his speed to denounce the sheik. Why condemn someone he shared a meal with, but not the anti-LGBTI folk on his own backbench?

 

Here’s the political message this sends: Islamic queerphobia = unacceptable, but Christian queerphobia = acceptable.

 

Actually, none of is acceptable. As long as you’re not actively calling for gays to die, you’re fine? No. That’s not how it works.

 

Anyway, many Muslims have written about combating homophobia within their community since Orlando. Read their words.

 

Just don’t forget that queerphobia doesn’t start with calling for actual violence against LGBTI people. It finishes there, if anything.”

 

Lane then followed that with an excellent article on Buzzfeed, with the rather self-explanatory title “7 Other Times People were Homophobic and the PM didn’t Condemn it”.

 

So, if Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull genuinely “deplore[s] homophobia wherever it is to be found”, then there are some serious examples of it very close to his political home – will George Christensen, Cory Bernardi and others be similarly told to ‘reconsider their positions’?

 

And, if he wants to make sure homophobia “is not acceptable from a legal point of view in Australia”, then I know two places where he can start: introducing LGBTI anti-vilification protections in Commonwealth law, and removing religious exceptions from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. If he doesn’t, then all his ‘condemnations’ of homophobia will start to sound a little hollow to me.

 

Footnotes:

[i] Don’t limit racial vilification protections, introduce vilification protections for LGBTI Australians instead.

[ii] In NSW, while homosexual and transgender vilification is outlawed, bisexual and intersex vilification is lawful: see What’s wrong with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977?

[iii] See What’s wrong with the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984?

[iv] With the exception of Tasmania and, to a lesser extent, Queensland.

Dear Malcolm Turnbull, You can take my $10 and shove it… into the hands of someone who needs it

Posted on by

UPDATE 23 June 2016:

 

On Monday June 20, I received the following response from the Liberal Campaign Headquarters to my letter to the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, calling for him to abandon the unnecessary, wasteful and divisive plebiscite on marriage equality:

 

“Campaign Support (Liberal Party of Australia)

Jun 20, 18:10 AEST

 

Dear Mr Lawrie,

 

The Turnbull Government believes that a decision on same-sex marriage should be made by a vote by all Australians via a plebiscite as soon as possible after the election.

 

The Prime Minister has publicly supported same sex marriage for a long time and will be voting in favour of same sex marriage.

 

If the majority of Australians vote ‘yes’ in the plebiscite, the Parliament should respect that decision and legalise same-sex marriage in Australia.

 

Thank you for taking the time to write.”

 

It is perhaps unsurprising that, given the brevity of this response, what it doesn’t say is just as interesting as what it does.

 

Specifically, the email does not include ANY qualifications about what would constitute a majority – all it says is “if the majority of Australians vote ‘yes’ in the plebiscite, the Parliament should respect that decision and legalise same-sex marriage in Australia.”

 

Indeed, that is exactly the same language used by the Liberal-National Coalition in their response to the pre-election survey by LGBTI organisations across the country (for more, see #rainbowvotes).

 

In the last few days, there have been multiple reports (on The Stirrer, on samesame.com.au and in crikey) highlighting the possibility some conservative Liberal and National MPs might seek to sabotage the outcome of a plebiscite by imposing additional requirements for ‘success’ – for example, that it would need to be supported by a majority of people, AND in a majority of electorates.

 

In fact, it is almost inevitable that the likes of Cory Bernardi and Eric Abetz will try, and there must be a real risk that they will succeed.

 

But, the response from Liberal Campaign HQ – both to my letter, and to the #rainbowvotes survey – means that, if Malcolm Turnbull and his Government are re-elected, and then seek to include any additional hurdles whatsoever to the passage of the marriage equality plebiscite, they will be nothing short of liars.

 

For a range of reasons (including that, if there is a change of Government on July 2, the plebiscite can still be avoided), I hope we don’t find out –but if we do, and the requirement of a majority of votes in a majority of electorates is imposed, then ‘dishonest’ will be one more adjective we can use to describe the disappointing prime ministership of one Malcolm Bligh Turnbull.

 

ORIGINAL POST:

 

Full Title: Dear Malcolm Turnbull, You can take my $10 and shove it… into the hands of someone who needs it. You can give me my rights for free, and in doing so spare Australia a divisive and harmful plebiscite campaign.

 

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP

Prime Minister of Australia

PO Box 6022

House of Representatives

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

 

Thursday June 16 2016

 

 

Dear Mr Turnbull

 

You can take my $10 and shove it… into the hands of someone who needs it

 

I am writing to you once again on a subject I have previously written to you about[i].

 

Specifically, I am writing one last time in the hope you might abandon your Government’s proposal to hold an entirely unnecessary, fundamentally wasteful and inevitably divisive and harmful plebiscite on marriage equality should you win re-election on 2 July.

 

I call on you to demonstrate the leadership on this issue that, so far, has been lacking. Please drop the proposed plebiscite, and commit to passing marriage equality in the ‘ordinary way’: through a parliamentary vote.

 

A marriage equality plebiscite is entirely unnecessary

 

Given you have previously argued before the High Court, I know you can read a court decision. In which case, I am sure you are aware the High Court has already conclusively found[ii] that Commonwealth Parliament has the power to introduce marriage equality. There is absolutely no need to hold a referendum or plebiscite on this topic.

 

Indeed, holding a national public vote on such an issue, where constitutional change is not required, is almost unprecedented in our nation’s history[iii] – the last time a plebiscite was held on a substantive matter of public policy was 99 years ago (the second plebiscite on conscription during World War I).

 

Even if you haven’t familiarised yourself with the Court’s decision, or the history of plebiscites in this country, you have been a Member of Parliament since late 2004, just months after then Prime Minister John Howard passed legislation to deny lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians the right to marry simply because of who they are.

 

Since then, there have been several further parliamentary votes on this issue, including the last major vote in September 2012, when, with the exception of one Senator, the Liberal and National Parties again collectively voted to deny equal rights to LGBTI people.

 

It seems extraordinary to me, and to a large number of other Australians, that Coalition MPs and Senators are comfortable in using their position in parliament to reject the human rights to fellow citizens but insist on holding a plebiscite before they will use that exact same power to allow LGBTI people to wed the person they love.

 

A marriage equality plebiscite is fundamentally wasteful

 

As confirmed in the Federal Budget on 3 May, you and your Government have set aside $160 million to hold the marriage equality plebiscite[iv]. With some decisions yet to be made (including whether there will be public funding for ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns), the final cost could turn out to be even higher.

 

For context, the Australian Electoral Commission has announced that there are 15,676,659 Australians enrolled to vote at this year’s election[v].

 

In other words, it is your policy to charge every Australian voter $10 for the ‘privilege’ of returning to the polls less than 12 months later to vote on something your Government could pass in a matter of weeks, for no cost.

 

10 dollar note

A marriage equality plebiscite, which is entirely unnecessary, will cost every voter at least $10 to hold.

 

That is incredibly wasteful, especially at a time of ongoing Budget deficits and with both Labor and the Coalition now forecasting a ‘return to surplus’ in 2020-21 (at the earliest).

 

Of course, for many people $10 remains a lot of money and it would be preferable to leave this money in the hands of voters rather than spend it on something as entirely unnecessary as a plebiscite on marriage equality.

 

But, if you remain committed to spending this $160 million, there is a very long list of better ways to allocate these funds[vi], including:

 

  • Programs to alleviate poverty and homelessness
  • Funding more nurses
  • Funding more teachers
  • Undoing cuts to foreign aid or
  • Supporting the resettlement of refugees from Syria and Iraq.

 

It would be remiss of me not to also mention that the amount of money you currently plan to waste on this plebiscite is twenty times the funding which was allocated to Safe Schools ($8 million over four years), a vital program to address homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia, and one your Government has announced will have its funding cut in 2017[vii].

 

So, as someone who can afford to pay the $10 but who fundamentally disagrees with your proposed plebiscite, I implore you: please take my money and give it back to the people who need it, or spend it on something worthwhile, not on an exercise that could be avoided simply by parliamentarians doing their jobs.

 

A marriage equality plebiscite will inevitably be divisive – and harmful

 

There is one aspect of a plebiscite that is already crystal clear, beyond any doubt whatsoever – and that is it will be incredibly divisive. The reason I can say that with such confidence is the behaviour of one organisation that will play a central role in publicly advocating a ‘No’ vote: the Australian Christian Lobby.

 

Not only have they argued for anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws to be suspended for the duration of any campaign[viii] (which, logically, would only be necessary if they intended to breach them), ACL ‘homophobe-in-chief’ Lyle Shelton has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to denigrate the lives and relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

 

This includes recent comments linking Safe Schools and marriage equality to the rise of Nazism[ix], as well as his repeated suggestions[x] that same-sex parenting would create a new ‘Stolen Generation’ – statements that are at once offensive to both rainbow families and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

 

An extended national debate during which groups like the Australian Christian Lobby, and individuals like Mr Shelton, would be granted a ‘megaphone’ to express their views will inevitably cause harm, in at least two profound ways:

 

  • First, it will create an environment of division, hatred and fear in which violent attacks on LGBTI people become more likely.

 

Just this week, we have seen the terrible consequences of widespread and systemic homophobia, in the tragic deaths of at least 49 LGBT people in an Orlando nightclub. But violence based on prejudice, even on a much smaller scale, can still be devastating for the people affected.

 

Earlier this year, a man who lives nearby to my fiancé and me, in inner-city Sydney, was ‘gay-bashed’ twice in one night. Once, by a group of people on the street. And then a second time, by a so-called ‘good Samaritan’, who helped him back to his apartment block but then, upon discovering there was a boyfriend rather than a girlfriend waiting upstairs, turned around and said “you’re one of those fags ya f**king queer c**t” before hitting him in the face again.[xi]

 

If this is the level of verbal and physical violence that is happening in 2016 in ‘our’ Australia, the country that you and I both call home, then I shudder to think what will happen after three, six or even 12 months of homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic hate-speech is inflicted upon the population.

 

  • Second, it will lead to, or exacerbate existing, mental health issues among young and vulnerable LGBTI people.

 

There is also absolutely no doubt that subjecting young and vulnerable LGBTI people to months and months of negative public debate, in the political sphere and in the media, will cause harm.

 

They will hear people and groups repeatedly saying that LGBTI Australians do not deserve to be treated equally under the law simply because of who they are. That they should not have children simply because of who they are. That their relationships are lesser simply because of who they are.

 

For months and months, young and vulnerable LGBTI people will be told that they are lesser simply because of who they are. This campaign will have an adverse impact on the mental health of many – far, far too many – Australians.

 

I know because I am one of the many who have experienced depression because of the homophobic environment in which they grew up. Yes, there were multiple sources of that homophobia – including the religious boarding school I attended, and the discriminatory attitudes of my conservative parents (although, thankfully, my family ‘got better’).

 

But the homophobic comments in political debate, and the media, were one factor that definitely contributed to my depression. And I weep for the 12 year-old boy today, still discovering who he is, and then discovering that who he is, and who he loves, isn’t accepted by significant sections of the community.

 

Even though there will obviously be many other voices in the plebiscite campaign telling him that who he is is okay, if he is anything like I was back then, he will just hear the criticisms. Only the homophobic barbs will pierce that firmly-shut closet door, exacerbating the fear and isolation he already feels.

 

What he needs to hear is much less homophobia, not more – and particularly not months and months of vitriol from organisations whose primary concern is to ensure he never enjoys the same rights as his cisgender heterosexual peers.

 

You might think a ‘Yes’ vote for marriage equality at a plebiscite will be a unifying national moment, a genuine celebration of inclusiveness – and, should it succeed, there will certainly be elements of that.

 

But I will instead remember the young and vulnerable LGBTI people harmed by the divisive debate that preceded it, including those that tragically never make it to see their country accept them, and others who will be left scarred for years or even decades afterwards by the hateful comments a plebiscite will stir up.

 

**********

 

As you can see from the above discussion, I sincerely believe that a marriage equality plebiscite is not just entirely unnecessary, and fundamentally wasteful, it will also inevitably be divisive.

 

But it is not inevitable per se. As Prime Minister you have the power to stop this harmful exercise, and instead ensure marriage equality is passed in exactly the same way it was banned by John Howard back in August 2004 – via legislation.

 

I acknowledge that changing this policy involves standing up to, and in some cases upsetting, some of your colleagues within the Liberal and National Parties. But showing leadership in this way would also be warmly welcomed by many more people across Australia, none more than members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities, and our families and friends.

 

And so, I tell you for the final time:

 

You can take my $10 and shove it… into the hands of someone who needs it. You can give me my rights for free, and in doing so spare Australia a divisive and harmful plebiscite campaign.

 

All it takes is leadership, from you. Are you willing to show any?

 

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

 

**********

 

If this post has raised any issues for you, you can contact:

 

  • QLife, Australia’s national telephone and web counselling and referral service for LGBTI people. Freecall: 1800 184 527, Webchat qlife.org.au (3pm-midnight everyday)

 

Footnotes:

[i] Letter to Malcolm Turnbull about the Marriage Equality Plebiscite 

[ii] The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55

[iii] Malcolm Turnbull’s Marriage Equality Plebiscite is Truly Extraordinary 

[iv] Media Release: Attorney-General’s Portfolio Budget Measures 2016-17, 3 May 2016.

[v] Media Release: More than 15.6 million Australians ready to vote, 1 June 2016.

[vi] Starting with 7 Better Ways to Spend $158.4 million 

[vii] Star Observer, “Safe Schools Won’t be Funded Beyond 2017”, 18 March 2016.

[viii] Sydney Morning Herald, “Christian Lobby seeks anti-discrimination override for plebiscite campaign”, 16 February 2016.

[ix] Sydney Morning Herald, “Australian Christian Lobby likens gay marriage and safe schools to unthinkable Nazi atrocities”, 31 May 2016.

[x] Sydney Morning Herald, “Senator Wong condemns Christian Lobby’s stolen generations comment”, 21 May 2013 and

Sydney Morning Herald, “Q&A debate flares over claims same-sex marriage will lead to new stolen generation”, 1 March 2016.

[xi] Daily Telegraph, “Gay man bashed twice in Waterloo: I’ve never been so scared in my life and thought I would die”, 23 February 2016.

Letter to Candidates and Parties re LGBTI Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Vilification

Posted on by

[Update 29 June 2016: Responses received by midday today have been posted at the end of this post, generally in the order they were received. Further responses will be added if they are received by 5pm Thursday 30 June.]

 

I will be sending the below letter to all candidates contesting my local electorate (Sydney) and all parties vying for NSW Senate seats at the upcoming July 2 Federal Election (with candidates and tickets announced by the Australian Electoral Commission on Friday 10 June 2016).

 

Specifically, I am asking for their views on how the anti-discrimination laws that cover lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians can be improved. This includes the removal of religious exceptions, both generally and specifically in relation to education, the introduction of LGBTI anti-vilification protections, and the establishment of an LGBTI Discrimination Commissioner.

 

It also seeks their commitment not to introduce new ‘special rights’ to discriminate against LGBTI couples as part of any marriage equality legislation – because the recognition of equal love should not be undermined by including provisions supporting differential treatment.

 

As always, I will post any responses that I receive here. Please feel free to send similar letters to the candidates and parties contesting your electorate and Senate seats respectively.

 

**********

 

Dear [candidate/party]

 

LGBTI anti-discrimination & anti-vilification

 

I am writing to you in your capacity as a [candidate for my electorate of Sydney/party contesting the NSW Senate] at the July 2 Federal Election.

 

Specifically, I am writing to seek your commitments to help improve the current anti-discrimination and anti-vilification protections provided to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians.

 

While the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 was historic, introducing LGBTI anti-discrimination laws at Commonwealth level for the first time, the protection that it offers remains incomplete.

 

For example, the exceptions provided by sections 37 and 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (‘the Act’) to religious organisations and religious schools ensure that LGBTI people remain subject to discrimination across a wide range of areas of public life.

 

Unlike the laws prohibiting racial vilification in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, there are also no protections against LGBTI vilification under Commonwealth law.

 

Nor does the Act establish a Commissioner with responsibility to address LGBTI Discrimination – whereas the Australian Human Rights Commission does have Commissioners for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice, Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination and a Children’s Commissioner.

 

For more on what I believe are the limitations of current Commonwealth LGBTI anti-discrimination law, please see “What’s wrong with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984?”

 

There is one final issue relating to LGBTI anti-discrimination law that is also likely to arise in the next term of Parliament – and that is the question of whether the legislation which, hopefully, introduces marriage equality in Australia will also include new ‘special rights’ for civil celebrants, and businesses that provide wedding-related services, to discriminate against LGBTI couples.

 

In my opinion, the law that finally recognises equal love in this country should not be undermined by provisions that allow for differential treatment (for more on this subject, please see “In the battle for marriage equality, we must not forget to fight against religious exceptions”).

 

I am seeking your views on the above issues – and would therefore appreciate your answers to the following five associated questions:

 

  1. Will you repeal sub-section 37(1)(d) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which currently allows religious organisations to discriminate against LGBTI employees, and LGBTI people accessing services, in a wide range of areas of public life?

 

  1. Will you repeal section 38 of the Act that provides religious schools with the ability to discriminate against LGBTI teachers and students?

 

  1. Do you commit to introducing new laws to protect LGBTI Australians against vilification, on an equivalent basis to racial vilification laws?

 

  1. Will you establish a position of LGBTI Discrimination Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission, with similar responsibilities to existing Commissioners covering the areas of Race, Sex, Disability and Age?

 

  1. Will you oppose the inclusion of new exceptions in any marriage equality legislation that would seek to provide civil celebrants, and businesses providing wedding-related services, with the ability to discriminate against LGBTI couples?

 

I look forward to receiving responses from you in advance of the July 2 Federal Election on these issues of concern to me, and to other lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

 

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

N-3

Responses from Candidates for the Seat of Sydney

 

Tula Tzoras – Online Direct Democracy

Tom Geiser – Science Party

Peter Boyle – Socialist Alliance

Tanya Plibersek – Australian Labor Party

Sylvie Ellsmore – Greens

 

Responses from Candidates for the NSW Senate

 

Ross Fitzgerald – Australian Sex Party

Colin Broadbridge – Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

Phil Jobe – Family First

Ray Bennie – Veterans Party

Ingrid Ralph – Australian Cyclists Party

Jai Cooper – Australian Cyclists Party

Ken Canning – Socialist Alliance

Party Response – Socialist Alliance

Andrew Katelaris – Marijuana (HEMP) Party

Greg Frearson – Mature Australia

Ken Stevens – Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party

Ann Lawler – Citizens Electoral Council

Barry Keldoulis – The Arts Party

Stacey Dowson – Drug Law Reform

Janise Farrell – Voluntary Euthanasia Party

Darren McIntosh – Pirate Party Australia

Party Response – Australian Labor Party

Shayne Higson – Voluntary Euthanasia Party

 

Bryan Lambert – Independent

Nick Chapman – Independent

David Ash – Independent

 

 

Malcolm Turnbull’s Proposed Marriage Equality Plebiscite is Truly Extraordinary

Posted on by

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s policy – that, if re-elected, he will hold a plebiscite to determine whether marriage equality will finally be introduced in Australia – is truly extraordinary.

 

Unfortunately for him, and even more so for us, it’s not extraordinary like Adele’s voice (or, if you’re not a fan, at least her extraordinary ability to sell music).

 

Instead, it’s extraordinary in a ‘Donald Trump is in with a real chance of becoming President of the United States’ kind of way: unprecedented, bizarre, inconsistent and radical.

 

Unprecedented

 

The Commonwealth of Australia is now in its 116th year. A significant number of national votes, other than elections, have been held over that time, including 44 referendums (although only eight of those were successful).

 

But there have only been three plebiscites since Federation in 1901 – and, given the High Court has already found that Commonwealth Parliament has the power to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to introduce marriage equality[i], any national vote on marriage equality would be a non-binding plebiscite rather than a constitution-altering referendum.

 

Of those three plebiscites, only one has been held since World War I: the 1977 ‘multiple-choice’ vote to select a new national anthem (for the record, the options were to retain God Save the Queen, or to change to Advance Australia Fair, Song of Australia or Waltzing Matilda, with Advance Australia Fair ‘winning’ with 43.29% of the ballots cast).

 

With a voting age of 18 (having been lowered from 21 in 1973), only people born before April 1959 were able to participate in that symbolic decision[ii]. To put it another way, nobody born in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s has ever voted in any Australia-wide plebiscite.

 

To find a plebiscite that was used to consider a substantive issue of public policy, we have to travel even further back in time – to almost a full century before the present day. In the depths of the so-called ‘war to end all wars’, the Billy Hughes-led Commonwealth Government conducted the only other two plebiscites in our history, to determine whether to introduce military conscription.

 

These votes – held in October 1916 and December 1917 respectively[iii] – are in effect the only precedent of any kind for the holding of a national vote on a policy issue that did not require constitutional change.

 

But, with the voting age then set at 21, and the most ‘recent’ of these votes a mere 98 and a half years ago, in order to participate in a plebiscite of this kind you needed to be born in 1896 or before – or older than the current oldest person in the world[iv]. In other words, nobody alive today has ever voted in an Australia-wide plebiscite to decide a substantive policy issue.

 

The fact that there is literally no-one around who has participated in a policy-based plebiscite confirms that Malcolm Turnbull’s proposed public vote on marriage equality is essentially unprecedented in modern Australia.

 

As for ‘the Donald’, well, you don’t need to be Nate Silver to understand that his Presidential candidacy is unprecedented in contemporary American history too – there hasn’t been anything like him over the past 50, or even 100, years either.

 

Bizarre

 

One of the strangest things about Turnbull’s policy is that he wants to hold the first substantive plebiscite in almost a century on an issue like marriage equality. Think for a minute about all of the significant changes that have occurred since December 1917 without the need for such a vote.

 

We’ve been through multiple wars – World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and more recently we’ve followed the United States into seemingly endless wars in the Middle East (a somewhat terrifying aside: who knows how many more we would enter at the behest of President Trump?) Australia even had conscription during WWII, and again for the conflict in Vietnam – yet none of these wars, nor the introduction of conscription, required a single plebiscite to be held.

 

We’ve experienced the Great Depression, the post-War boom, the major challenges of the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, economic rationalism, and the Global Financial Crisis – still no plebiscite.

 

We’ve seen massive social changes too – including the rise of the women’s movement (imagine for a second the reaction of someone from 1917 to former Prime Minister Julia Gillard), and the recognition of Aboriginal land rights (to some extent anyway), as well as substantial LGBTI law reform, such as decriminalisation, anti-discrimination legislation, parenting rights (in most states and territories) and de facto relationship recognition. Not one of these social reforms needed a plebiscite either.

 

There has even been revolutionary change to the institution of marriage itself – with the 1975 introduction of ‘no fault divorce’ having a much greater impact on a much larger number of families than something like marriage equality could ever hope to achieve. And, once again, it was done without Commonwealth Parliament derogating from its primary responsibility to pass legislation by instead calling a national vote.

 

In this context, it is downright bizarre that, of all the possible issues that could have been the subject of a plebiscite over the past 98 and a half years, Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberal-National Government believe the simple question of whether two men, or two women, can marry is the one worth making the subject of an expensive and time-consuming public vote.

 

Although, admittedly, it’s possibly still not quite as bizarre as the fact someone who is perhaps best known as the star of a reality-TV show, and who has never held public office of any kind, is the presumptive Republican nominee for what remains the most powerful job in the world.

 

Inconsistent

 

One of the things many people find most frustrating about Malcolm Turnbull’s proposed marriage equality plebiscite is that it is entirely inconsistent with recent political history. Or, if you’re being less charitable, that it is hypocritical given the actions of the Liberal and National Parties over the past 12 years.

 

Then-Prime Minister John Howard did not hold a public vote before introducing his Marriage Amendment Act 2004 that legislated to deny the right to marry to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians. There was no push for a plebiscite on the issue by anyone in the Liberal and National Parties during the many failed attempts to repeal that ban in the years between 2004 and 2011, either.

 

During the September 2012 debate, and (sadly unsuccessful) vote, on the most recent marriage equality Bill to be considered at length, then-Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and his Coalition colleagues did not use the opportunity to describe the process of Parliament voting on marriage equality as inappropriate – they simply used the votes that they held as MPs and Senators to help block it.

 

All of a sudden, however, in August 2015, just as it appeared that the numbers in Parliament might finally have caught up to existing majority community support for this reform, the Liberal-National joint party-room decided to ‘backtrack’ on more than a decade of practice, and refused to use their own votes on this issue, either for or against marriage equality, altogether.

 

Instead, they chose to embark upon a process that we have already seen is essentially unprecedented in modern Australia – before they hold any further parliamentary votes on marriage equality, they will first conduct a $160 million Australia-wide public vote.

 

It is difficult to see this dramatic change in process – from MPs and Senators voting on an issue, just like all other legislation, to holding a nation-wide plebiscite – as anything other than unfair, given that it moves the goalposts on people, and campaigners, who have been working to effect this change for the past decade.

 

But, irrespective of whether you think a plebiscite is ‘fair’ or not, it is impossible to deny that the policy Malcolm Turnbull is taking to the July 2 election – to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality – is fundamentally inconsistent with what he, and his colleagues, have done since John Howard’s ban on marriage equality in 2004.

 

Donald Trump could be described as the King of Inconsistency (although he might upgrade himself to Emperor). As his recent embrace of the National Rifle Association – after previously supporting gun control measures[v] – demonstrates, there is no position he won’t change, and no principle he won’t sacrifice, in order to become POTUS.

 

Radical

 

The one defence that Liberal and National MPs – including both former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull – regularly make with regards to holding a plebiscite is that it is ‘the most democratic way to make this decision.’ After all, how much more ‘democratic’ can you get than letting the people decide via a public vote?

 

And I’ll readily acknowledge, holding a plebiscite on marriage equality does fit with certain conceptions of ‘participatory’ democracy. But it is also a very different approach to determining matters of public policy from our usual modus operandi, one that does not sit particularly well with our more traditional ‘representative’ democracy.

 

For example, Tony Abbott has said that holding a plebiscite “is the best way to decide something that’s so important but so personal… It’s to let the people decide so that the decision, whichever way it goes, will have their authority”[vi] [emphasis added].

 

Implicit in describing a plebiscite as the best way to resolve controversial issues is a criticism of our Parliamentary system as an inferior, or clearly ‘second-best’, option.

 

This is actually an extremely radical view of how our democracy should operate – and it’s coming from precisely the same people who usually like to describe themselves as ‘capital C’ conservatives (as an aside: we’ve grown accustomed to a Liberal Party that is not liberal, a National Party that isn’t national, and even an Australian Christian Lobby that isn’t very ‘Christian’, but we should also be highlighting that contemporary ‘conservatives’ are actually nothing of the sort).

 

The logical conclusion of statements such as these is that Australia should be holding more plebiscites, and on a wider range of subjects, rather than simply ‘letting the politicians decide’.

 

In fact, this argument neatly complements the first point of this post – while a plebiscite like this is unprecedented today, by conducting a public vote on marriage equality Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberal-National colleagues would be creating a precedent to hold plebiscites on all sorts of other topics.

 

It is a radical shift that even WA Liberal Senator Dean Smith has identified, while warning of its potential consequences[vii]:

 

“We must also bear in mind the precedent being set as we embark on this latest democratic experiment. After all, if Parliament is to send the nation to a plebiscite to determine the question of same-sex marriage, what is to be done the next time an overseas military commitment is needed?

 

“Into the future, shall we defer to popular vote the question of euthanasia? What of changes to family law and child custody arrangements? These issues are informed by people’s moral views and impact upon people’s personal lives just as much as same-sex marriage.”

 

We could add to Senator Smith’s short list an almost limitless range of possible plebiscites: from abortion to assisted reproductive technology; action on climate change and even access to health and education services – all are influenced by people’s moral views, and all would have an impact on people’s lives.

 

More worryingly, you could easily imagine the same types of people currently agitating for a plebiscite on marriage equality subsequently calling for public votes on – or rather against – immigration, refugees and ‘flag-burning’. You could even see public votes to reintroduce the death penalty or to officially declare Australia a ‘Christian’ nation.

 

The fact that ‘conservatives’ within the Liberal and National Parties are willing to risk these consequences by holding a plebiscite, in what is a fairly transparent attempt to delay or defeat marriage equality, shows just how little they are committed to Australia’s traditional system of representative democracy. Theirs is a genuinely radical agenda, and it should be resisted.

 

It almost goes without saying that Donald Trump’s agenda as a Presidential candidate is genuinely radical too – from building a wall between the US and Mexico (and then making the Mexican Government pay for it – WTF?) to banning all Muslims from entering the United States, he’s more parts radical than conservative.

 

Trump

Just like US Presidential candidate Donald Trump, Malcolm Turnbull’s proposed marriage equality plebiscite is extraordinary, unprecedented, bizarre, inconsistent and radical.

 

**********

 

There are of course several other aspects of Malcolm Turnbull’s proposed marriage equality plebiscite that are truly extraordinary. As I’ve written elsewhere[viii], holding a national public vote on this issue would be:

 

  • Extraordinarily unnecessary, given the High Court has already found Commonwealth Parliament can introduce marriage equality,
  • Extraordinarily inappropriate, because the human rights of a minority group shouldn’t be determined by a popularity contest,
  • Extraordinarily wasteful, with a cost of at least $160 million that would be better spent on other priorities[ix], and
  • Extraordinarily divisive, with a real risk that the next six to 12 months will witness extreme attacks on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

 

But what I have attempted to show in this post is that the process is extraordinary in and of itself. Just like Donald Trump’s candidacy to become US President, the proposal to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality is unprecedented, bizarre, inconsistent and radical.

 

Thankfully, there is another similarity between these two otherwise disparate phenomena: neither is inevitable. In the same way we hope (and for the religious among us, pray) the American people choose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump come November 8, we can also choose not to have a marriage equality plebiscite via our election on July 2.

 

If we elect Bill Shorten and Labor at the upcoming poll, then not only will we avoid a plebiscite, we will also most likely have marriage equality within 100 days[x]. Even if the Liberal and National Parties are returned to Government, the proposed plebiscite could nevertheless still be rejected by the Opposition, Greens and minor parties in the Senate. There’s even a much slimmer chance that 2016 Malcolm Turnbull might remember pre-2015 Malcolm Turnbull’s principled stance against a plebiscite.

 

But none of this will happen if we don’t make our voices heard, telling anyone and everyone who will listen: We don’t want a plebiscite. We don’t need a plebiscite. All we want is to be treated equally under the law – and we shouldn’t have to negotiate an extraordinary, unprecedented, bizarre, inconsistent and radical process to do so.

 

 

Footnotes

[i] The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55.

[ii] The result of the 1977 national anthem plebiscite (‘Anthem-vision’) was treated with so much importance it wasn’t even implemented for another seven years.

[iii] The October 1916 plebiscite voted narrowly against conscription 51.61% to 48.39%, while the December 1917 margin was slightly larger: 53.79% No versus 46.21% Yes.

[iv] The older person alive at the time of writing, Italian Emma Morano, was born on 29 November 1899.

[v] The Guardian, May 21 2016, “Donald Trump endorsed by NRA despite history of gun control support”.

[vi] The Guardian, 30 January 2016, “Tony Abbott will back result of plebiscite on same-sex marriage”.

[vii] Dean Smith, Sydney Morning Herald, December 21 2015, “Marriage equality plebiscite would set a precedent for when we defer to a popular vote.”

[viii] No Referendum. No Plebiscite. Just Pass the Bill.

[ix] 7 Better Ways to Spent $158.4 million.

[x] If Shorten wins, start planning those weddings for Monday 10 October.

“Queer Wars” by Dennis Altman and Jonathan Symons

Posted on by

Today, May 17, is IDAHOBIT (the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia[i] – previously known as IDAHO, and IDAHOT). Described as a “worldwide celebration of sexual and gender diversities”, it was started in 2004, with the date chosen to commemorate the World Health Organisation’s 1990 decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder.

 

To mark this occasion I thought it would be useful to focus on the issue of LGBTI rights around the globe. In my view, given the relatively advanced state of LGB rights in places like Australia[ii], it is time we devoted more attention to considering how we can effectively contribute to the international struggle for LGBTI rights.

 

Fortunately, a recent book, Queer Wars, written by Dennis Altman and Jonathan Symons, concentrates on exactly this issue, so I will use this post to look at the many interesting ideas and debates that they have raised.

 

Specifically, Queer Wars sets out to answer two questions:

  • “[F]irst, why, as homosexuality has become more visible globally, have reactions to sexual and gender diversity become so polarised?”[iii] and
  • Second, “what is to be done? As writers who believe passionately in the right of people to choose how they love and how they present themselves, we are equally concerned to think through how we can best achieve these rights globally.”

 

In answering the first question, the book takes a fascinating look at how, and how far, LGBTI rights have progressed in six extremely varied countries: Australia, Spain, Cuba, India, South Africa and South Korea[iv], including the factors that have aided, or hindered, change in these places respectively (the need to address HIV, and prevent its spread among men who have sex with men, being a frequent, although not universal, motivator for reform among this group).

 

It then spends some time considering the specific factors that may have held back change, especially in other parts of Africa and in much of the Middle East, as well as possible explanations for recent attacks on LGBTI rights from Russia to Uganda and elsewhere.

 

Without wishing to over-simplify what is a complex discussion of often inter-related influences, these include:

 

  • An almost inevitable reactionary backlash to the progress that has been made. This can be triggered when the rights of LGBTI people are recognised more quickly than their acceptance by the community. But it also derives from the well-resourced and highly organised efforts, of people like Scott Lively and groups like the World Congress of Families, to oppose LGBTI rights across the world. As noted on page 105:

 

“International organising to oppose gay rights – and, more broadly, anything that suggests the blurring of gender lines or acceptance of gender diversity – has paralleled the growth of international gay organising. American-based organisations defending ‘family values’ have been particularly active in promoting an anti-homosexual line both in international fora and within a number of overseas countries.”

 

  • The scapegoating of LGBTI communities by authoritarian regimes when they need a distraction from other problems, a tactic perfected by Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe[v], and later emulated, to some extent, by Russian Leader Vladimir Putin.

 

  • The role of organised religion – including the Catholic Church, the virulently-homophobic Anglican Church in parts of Africa, as well as fundamentalist Islam and Hinduism – also cannot be ignored in this context. As Altman and Symons note on page 24:

 

“One of the few issues on which religious fundamentalists of all faiths can agree is opposition to homosexuality, and much contemporary anti-homosexual rhetoric is justified through particular interpretations of religious texts, even where it is driven by other factors.”

 

  • Finally, one of the more interesting recurring topics of Queer Wars is the role of ‘masculinity’, or at least particular conceptions of it, in contributing to attacks on LGBTI rights. From pages 108-109:

 

“RW Connell’s concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’, aimed at preserving the dominance of men over women, is important; as Connell writes: ‘the contempt for homosexuality and homosexual men… is part of the ideological package of hegemonic masculinity’. Opposition to sexual diversity combines both consciously political and unconscious fears and desires, which makes countering it particularly difficult.”

 

The relative local strength of these four factors goes a long way to explaining why, “[d]epending on where in the world one stands there is huge progress towards greater acceptance, or increased intolerance.”[vi]

 

The more pertinent, and challenging, question is what to do about it, and in this respect Queer Wars presents a thoughtful analysis of the opportunities, and pitfalls, of ‘global gay activism’.

 

Starting first with the limits of what those in the developed or ‘Western’ world can do to assist their global queer comrades, Altman and Symons present a stark warning of the risks of campaigns for LGBTI rights being externally imposed on countries (rather than developed in partnership with or, ideally led by local groups, with support where necessary – and only where invited – from outside organisations). As noted on page 34:

 

“Is speaking out strongly for gay rights, as is now the practice of the US and other governments, helpful – or does it, in practice, help fuel, even create, more political homophobia? What to western eyes might seem a basic assertion of human rights can easily be portrayed in much of the world as echoing a colonial language of a paternalistic civilising mission.”

 

Even more damning is the description on page 144, which is perhaps one of the strongest passages in the entire book:

 

“Rahul Rao describes the plight of third world queers, trapped between homophobic nationalist governments and the frequently misguided interventions of the ‘gay international’, with a phrase that he borrows from Hannah Arendt’s account of Jews in World War II choosing between ‘malevolent enemies and condescending friends’. Since the relationship between western and third world activists will often be one of inequality, it is easy for activists to participate accidentally in a ‘discursive colonisation’, which presumes that western concerns will be universal and so ignores the wishes of intended allies.”

 

Given this, what then can ‘we’ effectively contribute? On this, Queer Wars seems to make two main arguments:

 

  • First, that – as frustrating, slow-moving (some might say glacial) and occasionally opaque as its processes are – we should primarily concentrate on using international and regional human rights[vii] instruments, bodies and, where they exist, courts, to push the LGBTI agenda. This includes:

 

“The ‘Universal Periodic Review’ of each [UN] state’s human rights records, conducted every four years by the United Nations Human Rights Council, [which] creates an opportunity for other governments and civil society actors (both domestic and international) to discuss issues of concern, [and] which frequently include sexuality.”[viii]

 

  • Second, that this agenda should be relatively narrowly conceived, focusing on the right to be free from criminalisation, and the right to be free from violence. This argument is best encapsulated on page 135:

 

“If the international system were able to protect people from violence and persecution, this would create space for local activists to push for a deeper acceptance of diverse sexualities, kinships and families. The forms of liberation they pursue may be unfamiliar to us; indeed, some western activists may regard them as ‘liberation-lite’. Since international campaigners are likely to misunderstand the kinds of changes that will gain local acceptance, the international effort should focus on universal protection against criminalisation and violations of personal safety. If international consensus can be built around these minimal protections, this will support more transformative local changes without dictating them.”

 

This is not to completely rule out other types of activity. At multiple points, the book describes the inter-connectedness between this decriminalisation agenda and global efforts to combat the HIV epidemic (with men who have sex with men recognised as a priority population by most international organisations)[ix].

 

After a long discussion of ‘aid conditionality’[x], and the major risks involved in this approach, the authors also do not exclude the possibility of ‘Western’ Governments providing specific aid “to expand support for local community-based and –led LGBTI programmes”[xi], although even here care must be taken to avoid perceptions of the external imposition of a pro-LGBTI agenda.

 

And, of particular relevance for a country like Australia, which detains LGBTI people seeking asylum in countries where they are at risk of criminal prosecution, Queer Wars highlights the importance of the acceptance of refugees fleeing persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status[xii].

 

Nevertheless, Altman and Symons’ main focus remains on working towards an international consensus in favour of decriminalisation, and personal safety, thereby helping to allow the conditions for local activists to push the issues, and agenda, that are most relevant to them. In this way, we, as privileged activists in ‘Western’ countries can best avoid what they describe, perhaps accurately, as the “traps of well-meaning egoism”[xiii].

 

**********

 

Outside of these two main arguments, Queer Wars touches on a range of other pertinent topics concerning international LGBTI issues across its 158 pages, including:

 

  • A necessary reminder that one of the key historical forces that has contributed to the fact that, in 2016, 77[xiv] countries continue to have criminal laws against homosexuality, was the British Empire (later known as the Commonwealth of Nations, or just ‘the Commonwealth’). As noted on page 113 “[t]he majority of countries that retain criminal sanctions against homosexual behaviour are members of either the Commonwealth or the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), or both”.

 

Altman and Symons also note that “Margaret Thatcher’s ‘Section 28’ laws in the UK in 1988, which was aimed at preventing ‘the promotion of homosexuality’, were in some ways forerunners of what is now occurring globally”[xv], including recent laws against ‘gay propaganda’ passed by Russia.

 

  • We should also remember that, just because LGBTI rights might be reflected in a country’s laws, does not automatically mean the ‘real-life’ situation for LGBTI people in that country is especially ‘rosy’. Examples of this include the contrast between Singapore, where homosexuality remains illegal, and Russia, where sexual acts are lawful[xvi], as well as variations within South Africa, with it Constitutional protections around sexual orientation – and recognition of marriage equality – but which also gave the world the term ‘corrective rape’[xvii] for the sexual assault of women perceived as lesbian.

 

  • Highlighting that the rate of ‘advancement’ on LGBTI issues can vary within countries between sexual orientation and gender identity. Some places are more likely to recognise diversity in gender identity – such as India, through the hijra identity[xviii], and fa’fanine in some Polynesian cultures[xix] – while in others transgender rights lag far behind those of lesbian, gay and bisexual people (with few countries explicitly acknowledging, and therefore protecting, intersex status).

 

  • Above all, that even the use of ‘Western’ terms like LGBTI can be problematic, because it assumes that all countries, and all cultures, will adopt the same approach to, and definitions of, differences in sexual orientations (or even that a person’s sexual practice should form the basis of an ‘identity’ in the first place), gender identities and intersex characteristics.

 

Overall, then, Queer Wars was a pretty appropriate book to read in the lead-up to, and then explore via this post on, IDAHOBIT. In my view, it asks the right questions that ‘we’, as LGBTI activists in the ‘Western’ world should be considering about the contemporary global situation, and how we can best assist our ‘queer comrades’ in other countries.

 

Better still, it provides thoughtful answers, even if Altman and Symons’ conclusions can be somewhat frustrating because of their limited scope (although the reasons for that narrow focus are well-argued). And it wraps it all together in an accessible and engaging package.

 

Finally, if I did have one criticism, it would be that the book doesn’t answer some of the more detailed or specific questions that I have, as an Australian cis gay man, about how I can contribute to campaigns for the recognition of LGBTI rights of people in the countries in our region, and especially Papua New Guinea and South Pacific nations.

 

However, given Queer Wars is explicitly global in focus, that’s an entirely unfair criticism to make – instead, it’s a conversation that I’ll need to have elsewhere, albeit one that will be better-informed for having read Altman and Symons’ book.

 

Queer Wars

 

Footnotes

[i] Taken from the official website: http://dayagainsthomophobia.org Personally, I prefer to describe it as the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Intersexphobia and Transphobia, although that terminology is not yet in widespread use.

[ii] Noting that some discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual Australians remains, not just marriage equality but also barriers to inclusive education and limits on anti-discrimination protections, and of course acknowledging that the rights of transgender and intersex Australians remain poorly protected in many more areas.

[iii] Page 3.

[iv] Pages 47-70.

[v] From pages 28-29: “As president Mugabe tightened his hold over Zimbabwe he scapegoated the small homosexual organisations as un-African and responsible for many of the economic troubles of the country, paving the way for increasing homophobic rhetoric from a number of African leaders.”

[vi] Page 32.

[vii] Altman and Symons take a nuanced view of ‘human rights’, including defining it by how they fit within the political systems within which they are recognized – from page 141: “The ‘political conception’ of human rights offers a persuasive explanation of how human rights are formulated in the international system, but it is also inherently conservative: a claim will only become a human right when a preponderance of international opinion (as expressed by states) accepts it” (emphasis in original). As they readily acknowledge, this conception “makes more modest claims for human rights” (p140), which may help to explain their focus on campaigns against criminalization, and for personal safety, to the exclusion of other issues.

[viii] Page 154.

[ix] “The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was founded in 2002 as a partnership between governments, civil society, the private sector and people affected by the diseases, and has sought to link funding to governments’ demonstrating that they are willing to work effectively with marginalized populations most vulnerable to HIV, usually identified as MSM [men who have sex with men]” pages 127-128.

[x] Defined on page 124 as “[c]onditionality refers to linking conditions to the provision of benefits such as loans or aid.” This is a practice that has been emerging in recent years as the Governments of the US and UK have sought to require greater acceptance of different sexual orientations as a pre-cursor to receiving, or continuing to receive, aid.

[xi] Page 130.

[xii] Discussion on pages 88-89.

[xiii] Page 144.

[xiv] The exact number is different according to different sources – this is based on the website of Australian Professor Paula Gerber: https://antigaylaws.org

[xv] Page 98.

[xvi] Page 112.

[xvii] Discussion of South Africa from page 62 onwards.

[xviii] Page 59.

[xix] Page 16.

The GLORIAs 2016 – ‘Winners’

Posted on by

The annual GLORIA awards – for the worst homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic comments of the past year – were held last night at NSW Parliament House.

Organised by NSW Labor MLC Penny Sharpe, they are an opportunity to reflect on all the stupid things that are said about us as a community – and making fun of the stupid people who say them.

So, here they are, the nominees, and winners, of the GLORIA awards 2016, including the winner of the 2016 Golden GLORIA (taking the mantle from last year’s worthy title-holder Germaine Greer):

 

  1. International

 

  • The Indonesian Government who told WHATSAPP to remove gay emojis.

 

  • Uzbekistani President, Islam Karimov who said: “When men live with men and women live with women, I think there must be something wrong up here [points at head]. Something is broken here. There is a saying: When God wants to reveal someone’s vulgarity, he first takes his reason away.” (Pink News, 9 February 2016)

 

  • ISIS for their continued persecution of gay men (see for example Pink News 18 January 2016)

 

  • Qatar for banning film screenings of The Danish Girl on the grounds of moral depravity (Pink News, 13/01/2016)

 

  • Irish Councillor Paddy Kilduff who said at a council meeting: “Personally I won’t be voting for it and the reason I am not voting for it – no problem with gays and lesbians – but the problem I have is with the children… when you have two women having babies and artificially inseminated… It’s gross, it’s gross. So I won’t be supporting it anyway, so you can take that back to Dublin.”

 

  • Prime minister of Fiji Frank Bainimarama who slammed same-sex marriage as “rubbish” and advised same-sex couples to move to Iceland and stay there if they want marriage equality. (SBS Online, 7 January 2016)

 

  • Marco Rubio who says that gay adoption is a “social experiment,” and children better off orphaned. (SLATE, 16 December 2015)

 

Who I wanted to win: It’s hard to go past ISIS

Who actually won: Marco Rubio

 

  1. Media

 

  • Miranda Devine for her column “Same sex marriage: Totalitarian tolerance”.

 

  • Angela Shanahan writing in the Australian, 27 February 2016: “Both sides of this argument are shying away from the truth. Bullying is not the issue here. It is the LGBTI education agenda that seeks to normalise behaviour that most parents do not consider normal.”

 

  • 2CH’s evening host Kel Richards who said on radio: “You really are doing something really dangerous and really terrible to those children.” According to him, the Safe Schools program is “an attempt to sexualise and recruit children for the gay and lesbian movement.” He sums it up as “disgusting gay and lesbian propaganda.” (Same Same).

 

  • Piers Ackerman for this column in the Daily Tele: “McGregor may identify as a woman and may even, with the blessing of the politically correct military establishment, use women’s lavatories, but until the chromosomes undergo some miraculous alchemic transformation, McGregor ¬remains by all biological and scientific rules, a bloke…”

 

  • Rowan Dean, for his column in the Courier Mail “Bullying in the name of dogma”

 

Who I wanted to win: Angela Shanahan (for implying that any child who is not cisgender and heterosexual is not normal)

Who actually won: Kel Richards

 

  1. Politics

 

  • George Christensen, who told Parliament on 25 February 2016: “If someone proposed exposing a child to this material, the parents would probably call the police, because it would sound a lot like grooming work a sexual predator might undertake.”

 

  • NATIONALS MP Andrew Broad, who represents the Victorian electorate of Mallee, who said to regional newspaper Sunraysia Daily: “Do I support calling a relationship between a man and a man, and a woman and a woman marriage? … I can put the rams in the paddock and they might mount one another but no lambs will come out.”

 

  • Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott who addressed anti-gay lobby group Alliance Defending Freedom in New York saying that same-sex marriage is still “a huge ask” that would see “the erosion of family”. (Attitude, 29 January 2016)

 

  • Cory Bernardi who emailed a constituent to say: “You clearly haven’t got any idea what is in the program. If you did then you would be worried about your children being exposed to unhealthy ideas from such an early age.” The email then went on to say Safe Schools links to websites about “bondage clubs and adult sex toys”.

 

  • Former ALP Minister, Gary Johns, writing in Australian: “Private homosexual acts are not an offence by law in any state jurisdiction. Rest assured, there is no discrimination in law against gay people. Gay people are free to pursue their lives, especially happiness with a life partner.” (22 March 2016)

 

  • Reclaim Australia protesters who confronted Perth’s Save Safe Schools insisting they weren’t anti-gay, but needed to protect children from Safe Schools’ “Marxist ideology.” They later shouted “paedo scum, off our streets!” (Same Same)

 

  • Former ALP Senator Joe Bullock who quit the Senate stating: “How can I in good conscience recommend to the people that they vote for a party which is determined to deny its parliamentarians a conscience vote on the homosexual marriage question?”

 

  • Malcolm Turnbull for effectively saying nothing to help defend the LGBTI community from attacks on Safe Schools, and for refusing to overturn the unnecessary, inappropriate, wasteful & divisive plebiscite on marriage equality.

 

Who I wanted to win: Either George Christensen for comparing Safe Schools to grooming by paedophiles, or Malcolm Turnbull for failing to condemn the attacks on Safe Schools by Christensen, Cory Bernardi and others

Who actually won: Malcolm Turnbull

 

  1. Religion

 

  • Lyle Shelton, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, speaking on Q&A on February 29, 2016. “Studies that have been done of transgendered people who have had sex reassignment surgery, people who have been followed for 20 or so years have found that after 10 years from the surgery, that their suicide mortality rate was actually 20 times higher than the non-transgendered population. So I’m very concerned that here we are encouraging young people to do things to their bodies … like chest binding for young girls … [and] penis tucking”

 

  • Lyle Shelton (again) who was asked on Sky News how allowing same-sex marriage would affect his own marriage. His answer: “If the definition of marriage is changed, it’s no longer assumed … that I’m married to a woman. So that affects me straight away.”

 

  • Christian Activist Theodore Shoebat who claimed that the “SWAT team or the National Guard” should be used to take away children raised by “dykes and faggots” because they’re “in danger of being raped”. He continued: “Dykes are criminals! Two dykes that are supposedly married, that’s not marriage, that’s a criminal partnership. That’s an agreement between two criminals.” (Pink News, 16 January 2016)

 

  • The Marriage Alliance for the infamous rainbow noose image tweet

 

  • Colorado evangelical pastor turned random headline generator Kevin Swanson who wants girl scouts put to death for being too pro LGTB (Pink News, 14 March 2016)

 

  • Lyle Shelton managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, for a third time, for his claims same-sex marriage would lead to a new “stolen generation”. (The Guardian, 1 March 2016).

 

  • Greek Orthodox Bishop Amvrosios of Kalavryta who said of gay couples: “Spit on them! Deprecate them! Vote against them!” (Pink News, 14 December 2015)

 

  • The Australian Christian Lobby for wanting the “two dads” episode of Play School cancelled.

 

Who I wanted to win: While it is clear Lyle Shelton desperately wants the title of Australia’s biggest homophobe, it has to be the Marriage Alliance for suggesting legalising marriage equality will lead to people killing themselves as a result of ‘PC bullying’. Seriously, how unhinged can you get?

Who actually won: Lyle Shelton – for his comment that if marriage equality was introduced, people might no longer assume he’s married to a woman.

 

  1. Sport

 

  • Jeremy Clarkson who attacked the trans community in his column for The Sunday Times – claiming the issues facing transgender people have been over exaggerated. “They were called lady boys, and in my mind they were nothing more than the punchline in a stag night anecdote.”(Pink News, 24 January 2016).

 

  • Footballer Serge Aurier who was been suspended for making alleged homophobic comments during a Periscope broadcast to fans. In the live video chat, Aurier claimed that coach Laurent Blanc and teammate Zlatan Ibrahimovic had engaged in oral sex – referring to Blanc as “une fiotte” (faggot). (PINK NEWS, 15/02/2016)

 

  • World boxing champion Manny Pacquiao has sparked criticism in the Philippines after describing gay couples as “worse than animals”. “It’s common sense. Do you see animals mating with the same sex?” Pacquiao told local broadcaster TV5.

 

Who I wanted to win: Manny Pacquiao (at least in part because this week he has been elected to the Philippines Parliament)

Who actually won: Manny Pacquiao

 

And the overall award, voted on by crowd participation (aka who got the loudest boos in the room on the night), the winner of the 2016 Golden GLORIA was:

 

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (emerging victorious after a three-way boo-off against Marco Rubio and Lyle Shelton).

 

151222 Turnbull

Winner of the 2016 Golden Gloria – Prime Minister the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP.

 

One final note on the winner: Some people might think it unfair that he won the politics category, let alone the Golden Gloria, especially because he didn’t actually say anything. But then that is kind of the point – when the right-wing campaign against Safe Schools was in full swing, and people like George Christensen and Cory Bernardi were intent on making Australia a less safe space for young LGBTI people, he said nothing, therefore encouraging their attacks to continue.

 

And, even though he knows that the plebiscite is unnecessary, inappropriate, wasteful and divisive, and as Prime Minister he should be able to do something about it, he is still pursuing Tony Abbott’s public vote as his own policy – not because it is the right thing for the country, but because it appears to be the right thing for his career. Both things make him a worthy, albeit somewhat controversial, ‘winner’.

 

See you all next year when, if we do have a marriage equality plebiscite, there will be absolutely no shortage of nominations (and where Lyle Shelton might finally get to take home the coveted crown).

What’s Wrong With the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984?

Posted on by

This post is part of a series examining anti-discrimination laws around the country, focusing on how well, or in many cases how poorly, they protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians against discrimination and vilification. The other posts can be found at the page LGBTI Anti-Discrimination[i] while the text of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (‘the Act’) can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation.[ii]

In this post I will be analysing the Act in terms of three main areas: protected attributes, religious exceptions and anti-vilification coverage. I will then briefly discuss any other key ways in which the protections offered by the Act could be improved or strengthened.

As we shall see, while the fact the Sex Discrimination Act includes all sections of the LGBTI community is to be welcomed, there are still some serious deficiencies that need to be remedied before it can be considered an effective anti-discrimination, and anti-vilification, framework.

**********

Protected Attributes

The Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is one of only four anti-discrimination laws in Australia that explicitly includes all of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals[iii], and transgender[iv] and intersex[v] people (with the other jurisdictions being Tasmania, the ACT and South Australia).

This high level of inclusivity is in large part a consequence of the fact the Commonwealth was the last jurisdiction in Australia to introduce any protections against anti-LGBTI discrimination.

The Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 was only passed in June 2013, taking effect on August 1st of that year – more than three decades after the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 first covered homosexual discrimination (way back in 1982).

It is perhaps logical then that the most recently passed anti-discrimination law in the country would use the most contemporary terminology. Nevertheless, the achievements of the Act, and the breadth of the protected attributes that are covered, should still be celebrated.

In particular, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 was the first national anti-discrimination law in the world to explicitly include intersex status as a stand-alone protected attribute. Although, it should be noted that, in the March 2017 Darlington Statement, intersex activists called for this terminology to be replaced by the protected attribute ‘sex characteristics’ as being more accurate and more inclusive.

The definitions of the other protected attributes introduced – sexual orientation and gender identity – are progressive in that they do not reinforce a sex or gender ‘binary’.

Sexual orientation in the Act refers to attraction to “the same sex” or “a different sex” (rather than the opposite sex), while the definition of gender identity does not require a transgender person to identify as male or female (and does not impose any medical or surgical requirements to receive protection either).

Overall, then, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is strong in terms of the protected attributes that it covers. Unfortunately, it is mostly downhill from here.

**********

Religious Exceptions

While the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is close to the best of any jurisdiction when it comes to protected attributes, in terms of religious exceptions it repeats the same mistakes of most state and territory anti-discrimination legislation.

Under sub-section 37(1), the Act provides religious organisations with extremely broad special rights to discriminate against LGBT[vi] Australians:

“37 Religious bodies

(1) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 affects:

(a) the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of any religious order;

(b) the training or education of persons seeking ordination or appointment as priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order;

(c) the selection or appointment of persons to perform duties or functions for the purposes of or in connection with, or otherwise to participate in, any religious observance or practice; or

(d) any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.”

If religious exceptions are supposed to protect ‘religious freedom’, then the first three paragraphs above, (a)-(c), at least have the benefit of being targeted at activities that are essentially religious in nature (the appointment of religious office-holders, and the holding of religious ceremonies).

However, paragraph (d) appears to endorse discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Australians across large swathes of public life, including in community, health and welfare services, provided the organisation that does the discriminating was established by a religious body.

This is overly generous, and completely unjustified – especially, although not solely, because the vast majority of these services receive public funding. After all, the sexual orientation or gender identity of a social worker or healthcare professional has absolutely zero bearing on their competence in their role.

The same provision also means that these services can turn away lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender clients – irrespective of their personal circumstances and need – which is perhaps even more offensive than discriminating against LGBT employees.

Just in case there was any doubt whether religious schools were covered by sub-section 37(1)(d)[vii], the Act then includes an entire section which allows these schools to discriminate against LGBT teachers[viii], contract workers[ix] and students[x].

It appears some religious schools believe the capacity of a person to teach mathematics or science or English is somehow affected by their sexual orientation or gender identity. And it seems that the teachers employed by these schools are expected to impart the values of exclusion and intolerance to their students – what better way for young people to learn to discriminate against LGBT people, all endorsed by the Sex Discrimination Act.

There is however one area in which the Act refused to provide carte blanche to religious organisations to discriminate against LGBTI people, and that was through the inclusion of sub-section 37(2):

“Paragraph (1)(d) does not apply to an act or practice of a body established for religious purposes if:

(a) the act or practice is connected with the provision, by the body, of Commonwealth-funded aged care; and

(b) the act or practice is not connected with the employment of persons to provide that aged care.”[xi]

In other words, religious organisations that operate Commonwealth-funded aged care services cannot discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people accessing those services (although they can continue to fire, or refuse to hire, LGBT employees).

This ‘carve-out’ was passed despite opposition from some sections of the then Tony Abbott-led Liberal-National Opposition, including Shadow Attorney-General George Brandis[xii], as well as some particularly vocal and extreme religious organisations, with the provisions taking effect on August 1st 2013.

In practice, there has been no controversy about the operation of this carve-out[xiii] – basically, it works to protect LGBT people accessing aged care services, irrespective of who operate those services, while having no adverse impact on religious freedom.

It is now time that this approach – limiting the ability of religious organisations to discriminate against LGBT people in one area of public life – was expanded to protect LGBT employees in those same aged care services, as well protecting employees and clients across education, community, health and welfare services[xiv].

After all, the worthy objects of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, including “to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy or breastfeeding in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs”[xv] cannot be met if, in the same text it allows LGBT Australians to be discriminated against by a large number of organisations, and across a wide range of services.

**********

Anti-Vilification Coverage

This section will be the shortest of this post because, well, there isn’t any – the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 contains no coverage against vilification for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

This stands in marked contrast to the situation for vilification based on race, which is prohibited by section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 – a section that has operated effectively for more than two decades (just ask Andrew Bolt), and which has withstood multiple recent attempts at its severe curtailment.

Given homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic vilification are just as serious, and just as detrimental, as racial vilification, there is no reason why LGBTI Australians should not have equivalent protections under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984[xvi].

This would also bring the Commonwealth into line with the four Australian jurisdictions[xvii] that already prohibit vilification against at least some parts of the LGBTI community.

**********

Other Issues

There are several other areas in which the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 does not currently provide adequate protections for the LGBTI community, including:

The failure to create an LGBTI Commissioner

Part V of the Act creates the position of Sex Discrimination Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). Other areas of discrimination also benefit from the appointment of stand-alone full-time Commissioners, whose primary purpose is to combat such discrimination (including the Race, Age and Disability Commissioners).

However, no equivalent position, addressing LGBTI discrimination, was created with the passage of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013.

This serious oversight meant that, for most of the last term of Parliament, LGBTI issues were handled on a part-time basis by the then ‘Freedom Commissioner’ (and now Liberal MP), Tim Wilson, whose primary role was to ‘defend’ traditional rights. Whenever those two areas of human rights were deemed to come into conflict, LGBTI issues seemed to come off second-best[xviii].

If LGBTI discrimination is to be treated seriously by the Commonwealth Government, it must provide the same level of resources to address it within the AHRC – and that means introducing an LGBTI Commissioner as a matter of priority.

Superannuation protections exclude transgender and intersex people

Section 14 of the Act prohibits discrimination in employment, with sub-section 14(4) focusing on superannuation. However, while it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it excludes gender identity and intersex status from the list of relevant attributes[xix], apparently leaving transgender and intersex people without protection in this area.

Partnerships of five or less people can discriminate against LGBTI people

Section 17 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 prohibits discrimination in relation to ‘partnerships’, including who is invited to become a partner and the terms and conditions on which they are invited. However, these protections only apply to situations where there are six or more partners, meaning that LGBTI are not protected where there are five or less partners[xx].

Voluntary bodies have no restriction on their ability to discriminate

Section 39 of the Act provides a very broad ‘right’ for voluntary bodies to discriminate on a wide range of protected attributes, including sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, including in determining who may be admitted as members, and the benefits that members receive. While acknowledging the importance of the ‘freedom to associate’, it seems strange that there is no requirement that the discrimination be related to the purpose of the voluntary body, but is instead essentially unrestricted.

Discrimination by marriage celebrants

As part of the recent passage of LGBTI marriage by Commonwealth Parliament, the Sex Discrimination Act was amended so that, in addition to the existing ability of ministers of religion and military chaplains to decline to perform wedding ceremonies, the new category of ‘religious marriage celebrants’ will also be free to discriminate against LGBTI couples seeking to marry[xxi]. This is despite the fact this includes existing civil celebrants who have nominated to so discriminate based on nothing more than their personal religious beliefs.

Protections in sport exclude transgender and intersex people aged 12 and over

Section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 limits the coverage of anti-discrimination protection in relation to sport, in particular by allowing discrimination against transgender and intersex people in “any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant” where the participants are aged 12 or over. As with the voluntary bodies provision, this exception appears unnecessarily broad.

Requesting information that does not allow options other than male or female is not prohibited

Finally, section 43A provides that “[t]he making of a request for information is not unlawful… merely because the request does not allow for a person to identify as being neither male nor female” and that “[n]othing… makes it unlawful to make or keep records in a way that does not provide for a person to be identified as being neither male nor female.” If we are to truly recognise diversity in sex and gender, it should be reflected in requests for information.

**********

Summary

Based on the above discussion, the LGBTI anti-discrimination protections that were introduced via the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 can be described as a good start (albeit one that was long overdue).

That it includes all sections of the LGBTI community is obviously welcome, and the ‘carve-out’ of aged care service provision from religious exceptions is important in and of itself, as well as demonstrating that those same kind of exceptions are both unnecessary and unjustified.

On the other hand, the fact the Act permits discrimination by religious aged care services against LGBT employees, as well as religious organisations providing education, community, health and welfare services – against employees and clients – is its biggest downfall.

Other major problems include the complete absence of anti-vilification coverage for the LGBTI community (unlike section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975), and the failure to create an LGBTI Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission.

All of which means there is plenty of work left to do until the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 provides a comprehensive and effective anti-discrimination, and anti-vilification, framework for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

Christian Porter

Commonwealth Attorney-General Christian Porter should spend a little more time fixing the serious problems of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and a little less trying to undermine it through his proposed Religious Discrimination Bill.

If you have enjoyed reading this article, please consider subscribing to receive future posts, via the right-hand scroll bar on the desktop version of this blog or near the bottom of the page on mobile. You can also follow me on twitter @alawriedejesus

 

Footnotes:

[i] See LGBTI Anti-Discrimination

[ii] See the Federal Register of Legislation

[iii] Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is prohibited by section 5A, with sexual orientation defined by the Act in section 4 as “sexual orientation means a person’s orientation towards:

(a) persons of the same sex; or

(b) persons of a different sex; or

(c) persons of the same sex and persons of a different sex.”

[iv] Discrimination on the ground of gender identity is prohibited by section 5B, with gender identity defined by the Act in section 4 as “gender identity means the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth.”

[v] Discrimination on the ground of intersex status is prohibited by section 5C, with intersex status defined by the Act in section 4 as “intersex status means the status of having physical, hormonal or genetic features that are:

(a) neither wholly female nor wholly male; or

(b) a combination of female and male; or

(c) neither female nor male.”

[vi] Prima facie, it also appears to allow discrimination against intersex people, although the lengthy consultation process that preceded the legislation’s passage demonstrated that religious organisations did not propose to use this exception for that purpose. The Explanatory Memorandum for the Act also indicates these exceptions should not be used with respect to this protected attribute.

[vii] There isn’t really any doubt – sub-section 37(1)(d) clearly applies to religious schools, which means that, just like the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, religious schools can actually choose from between two different exceptions to defend their discrimination against LGBT teachers and students.

[viii] Section 38 Educational institutions established for religious purpose

(1) Nothing in paragraph 14(1)(a) or (b) or 14(2)(c) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first-mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.

[ix] Section 38(2) Nothing in paragraph 16(b) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, martial or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with a position as a contract worker that involves the doing of work in an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first-mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.

[x] Section 38(3) Nothing in section 21 renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with the provision of education or training by an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first-mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.

[xi] This provision is reinforced by sub-section 23(3A) which states that religious organisations cannot discriminate against LGBT residents of Commonwealth-funded aged care facilities in terms of accommodation: “Paragraph 3(b) does not apply to accommodation provided by a religious body in connection with the provision, by the body of Commonwealth-funded aged care.”

[xii]See #QandA, Senator Brandis and LGBTI anti-discrimination reforms

[xiii] Given the wide range of scare campaigns run by the Australian Christian Lobby, and others, over recent years (calling for the abolition of the Safe Schools program, and their unsuccessful opposition to marriage equality) there is no doubt if there had been any practical problems with the aged care provisions they would have been splashed across the front page of The Australian by now.

[xiv] This would involve repealing sub-section 37(1)(d) entirely, as well as restricting related provisions (such as sub-section 23(3)(b) that allows religious bodies to discriminate in the provision of accommodation) so that they only apply with respect to the appointment and training of ministers of religion, and the holding of religious ceremonies.

[xv] Sub-section 3(b).

[xvi] For more on this issue – the contrast between section 18C of the RDA, and the lack of LGBTI anti-vilification protections federally – see Don’t Limit Racial Vilification Protections, Introduce Vilification Protections for LGBTI Australians Instead

[xvii] Queensland, NSW, the ACT and Tasmania.

[xviii] For more on this issue, see Why we need a full-time LGBTI Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission

[xix] (4) Where a person exercises a discretion in relation to the payment of a superannuation benefit to or in respect of a member of a superannuation fund, it is unlawful for the person to discriminate, in the exercise of the discretion, against the member or another person on the ground, in either case, of the sex, sexual orientation or marital or relationship status of the member or that other person.

[xx] The same situation applies with respect to sex, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities.

[xxi Section 40 includes the following:

“(2A)  A minister of religion (as defined in subsection 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961) may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in Division 1 or 2, as applying by reference to section 5A, 5B, 5C or 6, if any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 47(3)(a), (b) or (c) of the Marriage Act 1961 apply.

(2AA)  A religious marriage celebrant (as defined in subsection 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961) may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in Division 1 or 2, as applying by reference to section 5A, 5B, 5C or 6, if:

(a)  the identification of the person as a religious marriage celebrant on the register of marriage celebrants has not been removed at the time the marriage is solemnised; and

(b)  the circumstances mentioned in subsection 47A(1) of the Marriage Act 1961apply.

(2AB)  A chaplain in the Defence Force may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in Division 1 or 2, as applying by reference to section 5A, 5B, 5C or 6, if any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 81(2)(a), (b) or (c) of the Marriage Act 1961apply.

Note: Paragraph 37(1)(d) also provides that nothing in Division 1 or 2 affects any act or practice of a body established for religious purposes that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.”

In the battle for marriage equality, we must not forget to fight against religious exceptions

Posted on by

The long struggle for marriage equality does not involve waging just one battle. Instead, it includes a range of related, and sometimes overlapping, fights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) equality.

 

Obviously, there is what most would consider to be the ‘central’ fight – to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to ensure all LGBTI couples who wish to can be married under secular Australian law. Victory on that particular issue is long overdue.

 

A closely-related fight is ensuring that the definition used to amend the Marriage Act is sex and gender neutral – referring to the union of two persons (replacing man and woman which is currently used in section 5) rather than referring to man/man, or woman/woman, unions. The latter would only be gay or same-sex marriage, instead of genuine marriage equality, and would continue to deny equal rights to some members of the LGBTI community.

 

Fortunately, most recent legislative attempts to amend marriage have used this more inclusive definition[i], although this is something that we will need to be vigilant about until equality is finally achieved in Australia (whenever that might eventually be).

 

And then there is the current procedural fight about how marriage equality should be implemented – with Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal-National Government intent on holding an unnecessary, inappropriate, wasteful and divisive plebiscite.

 

The $158.4 million-plus[ii] public vote appears to be supported by only the Australia Christian Lobby and other extremists opposed to LGBTI equality, while pretty much everyone else believes Parliament should simply do its job and pass a law to introduce equality (in exactly the same way then-Prime Minister John Howard entrenched inequality in the first place, way back in 2004).

 

However, there is one fight that is inherently connected to the larger battle for marriage equality that seems to be commonly overlooked – and that is the need to ensure that, irrespective of how marriage equality is ultimately achieved, no new special rights are created allowing religious organisations, and individuals, to discriminate against LGBTI couples.

 

These so-called ‘religious exceptions’ could take several possible forms. The narrowest version would be the introduction of a new right for civil celebrants and other celebrants, like military chaplains, who are not ministers of religion to be able to refuse to officiate ceremonies solely on the basis of the sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status of the couple involved[iii].

 

The next, more expansive type of special rights to discriminate would allow businesses that provide wedding-related services to deny those services to couples where one or both persons are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex. This is the type of exception that excites Christian fundamentalists in the United States, with claims that requiring florists and bakers to sell their products to LGBTI couples is oppressive or even totalitarian in nature.

 

The broadest form of new religious exceptions would more radically change existing anti-discrimination laws, allowing all individuals and businesses to discriminate against LGBTI couples on the basis of their own religious beliefs, with such discrimination not restricted to wedding-related activities.

 

No matter how narrowly or broadly these new special rights to discriminate are defined, they are all completely unjustified – there is no reason why civil celebrants, businesses or anyone else operating in public life should be free to deny LGBTI people equal treatment.

 

But, just because they are unjustified, doesn’t mean they are not on the public agenda, as recent experience in the United States amply demonstrates.

 

From Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who found fame by refusing to perform the duties of her Government job[iv], instead denying service to members of the public solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, through to more recent state-wide Bills to ‘restore religious freedom’ (or, more accurately, to reinstate the rights of individuals and businesses to treat LGBTI people as second class citizens) in North Carolina, Mississippi and elsewhere, there has been a renewed push for religious exceptions to undermine marriage equality, and anti-discrimination laws more generally.

 

There seem to be three, inter-related and mutually reinforcing objectives behind the religious right’s latest homophobic ‘crusade’:

 

  1. In a practical sense, they genuinely want to prevent the equal treatment of LGBTI people – both by being legally permitted to refuse service to LGBTI couples themselves, and to encourage the broader population to do the same;
  2. In a symbolic sense, they want to undermine the equality aspect of marriage equality – if lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people are allowed to marry under secular law, then Christian fundamentalists want to ensure that they are still treated as differently as possible, turned away by civil celebrants, wedding-related businesses and even public servants; and
  3. In a strategic sense, they want to use this ‘moment’, when marriage equality and LGBTI rights are being discussed across the community, to reassert the supposed primacy of ‘religious freedom’ and use it to dismantle LGBTI anti-discrimination laws where they exist – or hinder their development where they have not already been passed.

 

Before we judge our US counterparts too harshly, however, we must remember that conservative and other right-wing forces in Australia are engaged in exactly the same campaign here.

 

For example, Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm’s Freedom to Marry Bill 2014, that would have introduced marriage equality (of a sort), included provisions that would have granted civil celebrants the ability to reject people on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status[v].

 

Others on the ‘religious exceptions’ bandwagon include former Human Rights Commissioner, and now Liberal candidate for Goldstein, Tim Wilson[vi], as well as his former employers, the Institute of Public Affairs.

 

In addition to their outrageous calls for what limited LGBTI anti-vilification laws we do have[vii] to be temporarily suspended for the duration of the plebiscite, fringe group the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) have also repeatedly argued for any Marriage Amendment Bill to include permanent special rights for individuals and businesses to discriminate against LGBTI people.

 

In his own words, ACL ‘homophobe-in-chief’ Lyle Shelton believes existing anti-discrimination laws are somehow a threat to Australian democracy:

 

“The rights to a free conscience, freedom of religion or belief, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the nuts and bolts of democracy. If they are to fall, then we have serious questions to answer regarding out democracy…

 

“Most fair-minded Australians would accept the right of a person to maintain their belief that gender and biology still matter to marriage and family and to always be free to give voice to that belief.

 

“Marriage between a man and a woman is fundamental to a flourishing society. When the definition is changed, the law will say that gender is irrelevant to the foundation of society.

 

“Those who believe gender, kinship and biological identity do matter to society’s fabric will be fundamentally at odds with the law and the anti-discrimination laws will be weaponised against them.”[viii]

 

Leaving aside the fact the ACL have been able to use their disproportionate-sized megaphone to publicly spew forth hatred against LGBTI Australians for many years[ix], without any apparent consequence, on this as with too many other issues they have found numerous supporters within the Liberal-National Government.

 

Indeed, ongoing debate on the issue of whether a draft Marriage Amendment Bill should include new ‘religious exceptions’, and if so how broad they should be in scope, is a key reason why Malcolm Turnbull was forced to back down from previous statements he would announce the timing and details of the marriage equality plebiscite ahead of the 2016 Federal Election.

 

In reporting on the decision by Turnbull to shelve the plebiscite announcement until after the poll, Dennis Shanahan in The Australian made the following observation:

 

“The key to reassuring those opposed to same-sex marriage, including conservative Coalition MPs, is not only the wording of the proposed plebiscite question changing the Marriage Act but also the protections for freedom of religion and speech.

 

“Those involved in the talks regard it as essential that Senator Brandis provide protections for those beyond the tight circle of religious and marriage celebrants who do not want to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.”[x]

 

Lenore Taylor in the Guardian Australia had earlier reported that internal tensions over the extent of these exceptions could cause the Government to delay announcing the Bill:

 

“The Turnbull government is wavering on its commitment to reveal details of its planned marriage equality plebiscite before the federal election because of deep divisions on crucial issues such as public funding and exemptions from anti-discrimination laws…

 

“[C]conservative MPs have been demanding broad exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for officials and wedding service providers, including florists, bakers and reception centres. Government sources said there were concerns that the issue would become internally “divisive.””[xi]

 

These reports confirm that the potential creation of new special rights to discriminate is very much a live option within the Turnbull Liberal-National Government.

 

This development is something that should have anyone interested in achieving marriage equality worried, especially because, as previous debates around Safe Schools and the plebiscite itself have demonstrated, the conservative and/or religious right are not shy about throwing their weight around inside the Coalition party room – and that applies just as much, if not more, under Prime Minister Turnbull as it did under his predecessor Tony Abbott.

 

The consequences of a conservative victory on this issue would be dire. On top of the practical and strategic problems identified above, the inclusion of new special rights to discriminate against LGBTI people in the plebiscite question – or its associated legislation – would make campaigning for marriage equality significantly more challenging.

 

In effect, it would ensure that the proposal considered at a plebiscite was fundamentally flawed from the beginning and that therefore many people in favour of genuine marriage equality would be forced to campaign, and vote, for something less than ideal while effectively ‘holding one’s nose’.

 

It would also tarnish the achievements of a successful ‘Yes’ campaign – instead of a unifying moment of national celebration, where true relationship equality was extended to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians without qualification, we would be left with a law that continues to permit discrimination in certain circumstances. In short, a ‘Yes’ result would be marred, leaving the overall job half-finished – and making it bittersweet to celebrate ‘equality-lite’.

 

For all of these reasons, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that, at the same time as we fight for marriage equality, we fight against the introduction of new religious exceptions, whether in the Marriage Act itself, or the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (or its state and territory equivalents).

 

Fortunately, we already have allies in this particular fight. In addition to the Greens, who have long campaigned against religious exceptions, the Australian Labor Party is also firmly opposed to their introduction.

 

160417 Guardian Why Knot

The Guardian Australia/Australian Marriage Equality event ‘Why Knot?’ where Opposition Leader Bill Shorten gave a firm commitment that Labor will oppose any expansion of religious exceptions – and will seek to repeal any provisions that are introduced by the Turnbull Liberal-National Government.

 

At the recent Guardian Australia/Australian Marriage Equality ‘Why Knot?’ forum in Sydney, I had the opportunity to ask Opposition Leader Bill Shorten the following:

 

“There is a real risk that, when Malcolm Turnbull finally gets around to drafting it, his Marriage Amendment Bill will seek to include new special rights for civil celebrants and other wedding business-providers to discriminate against LGBTI couples. Just to get it on the record: Mr Shorten, will you commit the Labor Party to voting against any attempt to expand religious exceptions beyond existing provisions and, if they do somehow end up being passed and polluting the Marriage Act, will you seek to repeal them at the earliest available opportunity?”

 

Mr Shorten’s answer was unexpectedly strong, and reassuring: “Yes, and yes.”

 

As reported by the Guardian Australia, he went on to note that “[i]t’s not allowed now under the current law – why would we water down existing laws? We don’t need to water down anti-discrimination law to keep some people [who oppose same-sex marriage] happy.”[xii]

 

It is possible that, after the Federal election, the combined votes of Labor and the Greens in the Senate will be able to block any attempt by a re-elected Turnbull Liberal-National Government to include expanded religious exceptions as part of its legislative package creating the plebiscite.

 

However, with a double dissolution election now almost inevitable on July 2nd, and the reduced Senate quotas associated with it, the final result in that Chamber will be especially hard to predict, with a range of minor parties still chances to win the 12th and final seat in each state.

 

Which means that there are now only two ways to avoid the creation of new special rights to discriminate against LGBTI Australians: for Shorten and Labor to be elected (and then implement their own policy to introduce marriage equality legislation within 100 days), or for a re-elected Prime Minister Turnbull to publicly commit to not introducing new religious exceptions in his own Marriage Amendment Bill.

 

Given his track record on LGBTI issues since taking over from Tony Abbott last September – selling the LGBTI community out on multiple occasions by ‘gutting’ the Safe Schools program and abandoning his previous personal position against holding a plebiscite – securing any enforceable commitments from Mr Turnbull will likely be an incredibly difficult task.

 

But, if we are committed to genuine marriage equality, then I believe this is a fight we must take on. Because if we don’t, we might find that we win marriage equality in the next 12 to 18 months but, instead of being able to celebrate achieving a better, fairer and more equal Australia, we are left to deal with new forms of exclusion, discrimination and state-sanctioned homophobia.

 

**********

 

[i] Although Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young’s Recognition of Foreign Marriages Bill 2014 disappointingly only sought to recognize overseas marriages between “a man and another man or a woman and another woman”.

[ii] As quoted on page 22 of the Senate Committee Report: Matter of a popular vote, in the form of a plebiscite or referendum, on the matter of marriage in Australia, 15 September 2015.

[iii] Thus providing them with the same right to ‘reject’ couples that ministers of religion already enjoy under the Marriage Act.

[iv] It is instructive to consider how people like Ms Davis would be received were they to refuse to serve African-American people, rather than LGBTI people – presumably such acts of outright racism would not be tolerated, or even celebrated, in the same way her egregious acts of homophobia and transphobia have been.

[v] For more on why Leyonhejlm’s Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 was offensive, see “Senator Leyonhjelm’s Marriage Equality Bill Undermines the Principle of LGBTI Anti-Discrimination: Should we still support it?”

[vi] In Wilson’s opinion piece in The Australian on 6 July 2015, “Religious freedom and same-sex marriage need not be incompatible” he argued for religious exceptions to be extended not just to civil celebrants but also to a wide range of wedding-related businesses.

[vii] Only four states and territories currently have vilification laws that cover lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people: Queensland, NSW, ACT and Tasmania. There are no protections federally. Instead of suspending the paltry laws we do have, the Commonwealth Government should actually be introducing LGBTI anti-vilification laws of its own. See also: “Don’t limit racial vilification protections, introduce vilification protections for LGBTI Australians instead”.

[viii] From ACL Media Release, 5 April 2016 “ACL Concerned by Shorten Plan to Fine Business Owners who Disagree with Same-Sex Marriage.”

[ix] With Mr Shelton’s predecessor Jim Wallace saying that smoking was healthier than gay marriage, and the ACL under both leaders drawing comparisons between LGBTI parenting and the creation of another Stolen Generation, which is not just deeply offensive to LGBTI Australians but to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as well.

[x] Dennis Shanahan, The Australian, 26 March 2016, “Federal election 2016: Same-sex marriage plebiscite pause for poll”.

[xi] Lenore Taylor, Guardian Australia, 16 March 2016, “Marriage Equality: Coalition disunity puts pre-election plebiscite details in doubt.”

[xii] Paul Karp, Guardian Australia, 31 March 2016, “Shorten: Labor won’t change discrimination laws to please gay marriage opponents.”