Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 10:34:40 PDT From: anya@stonewall.org.uk STONEWALL NEWSLETTER Volume 3, Number 3 June 1995 Pride Special CIVIL RIGHTS DENIED =================== But judge says "tide of history is against MoD" The four people who were thrown out of the armed forces and took the MoD to court lost the first round of their legal battle to get the ban overturned. The judge, Lord Justice Simon-Brown, roundly rejected the MoD's arguments for maintaining the ban, but said that the court could not overturn a policy that had been approved by Parliament, even though he recognised the ban involved a fundamental breach of human rights. But he went to extraordinary lengths for a judge to give his personal opinion on the ban, commenting that "The tide of history is against the Ministry. Prejudices are breaking down... It seems to me improbable, whatever the court may say, that the existing policy can survive much longer." As Duncan Lustig-Prean, one of the applicants, commented afterwards: "This particular battleship of bigotry is holed below the water line." (See below for full story). DISCRIMINATION BILL LAUNCHED IN LORDS ===================================== The Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 12 June by Baroness Turner of Camden. It has now been printed and is due to be debated at its second reading on Friday 14 July. Stonewall has written to supportive peers with briefings and asked them to turn up to vote the bill through. We would also like supporters to turn up to watch the debate. Although the bill is a private member's bill and Lady Turner as a Labour frontbencher had to obtain a special dispensation to bring a backbench bill, it has long been Labour's policy to support such legislation. Stonewall has written to a number of peers from other parties asking them to put their names to the bill. Even if the bill is voted through at 2nd reading, it is unlikely to become law in this session, but getting the debate, and hopefully winning the vote, will be an important step in getting the issue on the Parliamentary agenda. If the bill does not become law in this session we will be looking for Mps to take it up as a Private Members Bill next year. (See below, THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW, for briefing). THE EQUALITY SHOW ================= The hottest show in town After two weeks of priority booking for Stonewall Friends, this year's Stonewall Equality Show at the Royal Albert Hall on Sunday 22 October has taken over 35,000 in advance ticket sales. All of the boxes are sold out leaving only a few of the Gold Boxes - the corporate hospitality boxes - left to sell. The show is still being cast, but the stars already signed up include Elton John, Joanna Lumley, Jennifer Saunders, Sandi Toksvig, Martina Navratilova, Ruby Wax and John Sessions. With the line-up far from complete, there is speculation as to who else will appear in the show. Sir Ian McKellen is reportedly hot on the trail of k.d. lang, and producer Mig Kimpton is still trying to work out how he can bring the 120 male voices of the San Francisco Gay Men's Choir to Britain - so watch this space. The show is likely to sell out well in advance, so if you haven't already booked - now is the time to do so. The general public can now use the Advance Booking Form. Personal and telephone booking will open on 24 July. See you at the Royal Albert Hall on Sunday 22 October for the hottest show in town! FROM THE DIRECTOR'S DESK ======================== Don't let prejudice prevail The armed forces case in the High Court was the first time in the United Kingdom that prejudice against gay men and lesbians has ever been subject to independent scrutiny. We lost the case because, at this point in time, English law provides no protection against abuses of human rights. The Judge held that he did not have the power to change the policy and it had to be left to Parliament to decide. But he also said that he thought the ban was based on prejudice, and had he been able to use the European human rights test the ban would have been declared unlawful. The European Convention of Human Rights is not some alien piece of European law. It is based on the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The United Kingdom was closely involved in its drafting and was one of the first signatories. It is quite clear that the ban on gays and lesbians will be overturned by the European Court, but in the meantime until Parliament changes the policy the witch hunts will continue, and men and women will go on losing their jobs and their careers. Of course, we will now take the fight to Parliament, but what guarantee can there be, as Lord Justice Simon Brown said, that the human rights dimension does not become depreciated once the court's doors are closed? How long will it be good enough for Parliament or any political party to allow unreasoned and unjustified prejudice to prevail over human rights and individual dignity? Civil rights for lesbians and gay men are not optional extras. They are not concessions to a minority, they must be a fundamental part of a democratic society. A society that denies us our rights is flawed and tainted. Freedom is not divisible. If prejudice goes unchecked, democracy is undermined. We need now to establish beyond doubt that these are central political issues which must be dealt with. As we look forward to Pride we also need to be looking for ways to make the coming year the Year of Lesbian and Gay Rights. Our case grows stronger every day, but together we can be invincible. Angela Mason FEEDBACK ======== Your views THE BAN IS LUDICROUS I felt I must write and say how sad I feel about the judgment made today in the High Court. It is a ludicrous thing to keep the ban in force. Homosexuality is not illegal in this country, and what has one's sexuality got to do with the type of job one does? I feel saddened and ashamed to be British. BUT, I am in no way ashamed to be a gay woman! With all good wishes for the fight, Jan WHO'S AFRAID... Please find enclosed 10. Can it really be true that those who would stand firm in the face of enemy bombs and bullets would run a mile if they had to take a shower with a gay or lesbian comrade? Sorry I can't afford more (as a student). Tim We have had many similar letters. WHAT THE PAPERS SAID ==================== The armed forces legal challenge was reported in every national newspaper in Britain, and many of the regional and specialist ones, from the Jewish Chronicle to the Edinburgh Evening News. The coverage was overwhelmingly supportive. The Guardian and the Independent ran leader articles against the ban but there was also support from more unexpected sources. Andrew Neil in the Daily Mail said "It is a disgraceful way to treat examples of the best of Britain... and it shames us all. The absurd, outdated ban on homosexuals in the military must go". The Spectator ran a lengthy article and called for the armed forces to reform themselves before they were forced to. Michael Winner, writing in the News of the World, said "It's about time the law and institutions of this country...made a truth out of everyone being equal. Gay men and women are no more going to pervert the Army, Navy and Air Force than chauvinistic males, callous and oversexed, chasing and embarrassing women in the armed forces." He also confessed to having got out of military service by pretending to be gay. The Voice said in its editorial that "Our military top brass claim that having homosexuals in Britain's armed forces would impair efficiency and morale - hogwash that owes more to innate prejudice than to a scintilla of cogent evidence". The Economist ran a leader article entitled "In Both Britain and America the Ban on Gays in the Military Must Go" and said "It is time this foolishness stopped". All in all the newspaper coverage which the judicial review received was very favourable. Our natural enemies merely reported the event, and made very little editorial comment, while those who support us stood up to be counted. JUDGE CONCERNED FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ================================ "My greatest concern ... is for human rights of applicants" Lord Justice Simon Brown said he didn't have the power to overturn the policy. Obviously we disagree with him on that point. But he did go to extraordinary lengths in commenting as he did on his own concern about the policy. He said: "My greatest concern in leaving the matter [with the MoD and Parliament] is lest the policy's human rights dimension becomes depreciated once the court's doors are closed. There is little in the papers before us to instil confidence that the fundamental human rights of these applicants and others like them will be fully and faithfully recognised elsewhere. "What I have just said, of course, relates only to the domestic position. Overhanging this lies Strasbourg [i.e. the European Court of Human Rights]... I for my part strongly suspect that so far as this country's international obligations are concerned, the days of this policy are numbered. "It is not, I think, inappropriate in those circumstances for this court now to urge the respondent to examine the policy afresh in the light of changing circumstances, investigating as thoroughly as may be the experience of those who have lifted their own bans. Can our Forces' present discrimination really be justified in a forum alive to the human rights considerations? That I trust is a question which the Defence Council, the Ministry, and the Select Committee will all wish to keep under close and regular review." The applicants have appealed, and the case is now likely to be heard by the Court of Appeal some time in the autumn. If that appeal is unsuccessful they will appeal to the House of Lords, and then, if need be, to Europe. THROWN OUT FOR BEING GAY? ========================= Now is the time to lodge your appeal The test cases against the MoD will now go to the Court of Appeal. Solicitors acting in the case are recommending that anyone who has been discharged now lodges applications to the Industrial Tribunal as well as to the High Court. Legal Aid can be applied for by those on a low income or benefits. Anyone who does not qualify can arrange to pay by standing order. Since profit making is not the point of these cases, costs will be kept to an absolute minimum and appropriate payment individually negotiated. All actions will be lodged but stayed pending the outcome of the test cases. There is no guarantee that we will win in the British courts, but all the lawyers involved, and indeed Lord Justice Simon Brown, believe we will succeed in the European Court. If you do not act now you may well lose any claim to compensation. Contact Madeleine Rees at Tyndallwoods on 0121 624 3333, or Stephen Grosz at Bindmans on 0171 833 4433. NEWS IN BRIEF ============= MPs and mayors to march As we went to press four MPs had agreed to march with Stonewall on Pride. They are Chris Smith, Tony Banks, Dianne Abbott and Neil Gerrard, all from London. Many others replied that they would have liked to come but they hold regular surgeries on Saturdays. Four London mayors have also accepted an invitation to march with us including Alan Dobbie, the out gay Mayor of Haringey. We will also be joined by the Jacket Potatoes, a ceilidh band. Women up West Stonewall celebrated with a fundraising evening of women performers at the Duke of Yorks Theatre in the West End. Donna McPhail, Sandi Toksvig and the Well Oiled Sisters joined an impressive line-up of women entertainers. The event made history by being the first ever all women benefit in the West End, on stage, although a few men were spotted in the audience. The evening raised just over 2,000. Postal problems We have been experiencing major problems with the postal service. Over a dozen mailings sent from our office have disappeared into thin air. We have taken the matter up with the Royal Mail but they say they cannot find any problem. Yet the problems continue. We have also experienced problems with our incoming mail, and with the mail we forward. If you have any concerns that your letter to us, or our letter to you, has not arrived, please call and check with us. Also, if you too are having problems with the postal service, please drop us a line as we intend to get consumer journalists to take this up. Do keep a copy of your letter in case it doesn't reach us! THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW! ======================== The Problem We have all experienced, or know someone else who has experienced, discrimination or harassment at work. Research undertaken by Stonewall (Less Equal Than Others) and SCPR (see below) shows that. But the problem is that British law does not recognise those experiences. We must now call upon Parliament to legislate at the earliest opportunity to ensure that we have the same legal protection as any other group facing discrimination. The Solution The Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill would amend the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) to make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. The Equal Opportunities Commission would be responsible for implementation. No new commission would need to be set up to deal with sexual orientation discrimination. The SDA was extended to cover the armed forces in December 1994 so the SOD Bill would require the MoD to lift the ban on lesbians and gay men. But will it work? Yes, for the following reasons: * A law against discrimination would be an important statement of principle about the place of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men in society and a signal that discrimination is no longer acceptable. * It would give us at least the chance of redress if we could prove our case. Why shouldn't we have the same employment protection rights as everyone else? * Many employers model their equal opportunities policies on existing legislation. At present this does not include us. * The biggest problem for most lesbians and gay men is the closet. A new law would make it safer for all of us to stop leading double lives. * Even the government accepts that sometimes legislation is necessary - they themselves have introduced a Disability Discrimination Bill, showing they have finally accepted that persuasion alone is not enough. POSTCARD MESSAGE: * 8% of lesbians and gays lose their jobs because of their sexuality * 48% are harassed at work * 68% of gays and lesbians are not "out" at work * 67% of heterosexuals say yes to a law against this discrimination There ought to be a law! Support the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill WHAT YOU CAN DO =============== Lobby * Write to your MP asking him or her to read the SOD Bill and lend it their full support. * Ask your MP to consider taking it up as a Private Members Bill in November. * Write to Michael Portillo MP at the Dept of Employment, Tothill St, London SW1. * Write to any Lords you know asking them to support the Bill on 14 July. * Results of the SCPR survey (opposite) can be used in your letter to convince MPs and peers of our case. * Remember to ask for a reply and follow up if necessary. Campaign * Start up letter writing campaigns, and/or organise mass postcard sending within groups you are involved with. * Postcards (below left) are available from Stonewall on request. * Attend the debate on Friday 14 July. Educate * Make sure all your family and friends know about the SOD Bill and are lobbying for it themselves. * Table motions with your union or local party in support of the SOD Bill. APPEAL FOR CASES ================ Stonewall wants to hear from people with personal experience of being discriminated against at work who are willing to tell their story to the press, even if you will only let them run the story under a pseudonym. We need good strong cases which will stand up to scrutiny. If YOU have a story to tell, please write with an account of your story on NO MORE THAN 2 SIDES OF A4, along with a daytime telephone number (if possible) and an indication of which media (print, radio, TV) you would be prepared to talk to. PENSIONS CAMPAIGN ================= Inland Revenue have no objection to dependants pensions for same sex partners James Arbuthnot, junior social security minister, made it clear during a debate on a Stonewall amendment to the Pensions Bill that the Inland Revenue would not challenge trustees' judgments on payment of benefits to dependants. The amendment, moved by Labour MP John Denham, would have required occupational pension schemes to end any discrimination against unmarried heterosexual or same sex couples. A growing number of firms are doing this out of choice, but the amendment would have required them to do so in the interest of equal pay. Although it was not successful, the clarification was helpful because until now many employers believed that the Inland Revenue would not allow them to treat same sex partners as dependants. If you are in an occupational pension scheme you should now lobby your trustees to make sure that the rules of the scheme allow them to make payments to lesbian and gay partners. One hook to do this may be the publication of new regulations which will amplify the requirement on trustees to give information to prospective members about future benefits. The clarification will also be of benefit to people with private pension schemes, as there is nothing to prevent insurance companies from providing joint life annuities for two men, or two women, living together. The Stonewall Pension group will now try to persuade trustees to make equitable arrangements for the payment of benefits. NEW SURVEY OF LESBIANS, GAYS AND BISEXUALS ========================================== A remarkable new study provides compelling evidence of discrimination against lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. The study, by independent researchers Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR), includes the first ever survey of a randomly selected and representative sample of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, and also a survey of a representative sample of heterosexuals. Both samples were drawn from the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviour, published by SCPR last year. The new study provides compelling evidence that discrimination is a problem. Many heterosexuals were happy to admit that they would discriminate. Although the figures for discrimination and harassment at work were lower than those found by Stonewall in Less Equal Than Others, the two studies are not incompatible because far more of our sample identified as gay or lesbian (half of the SCPR sample were bisexual or ex-gay) and our sample was twice as "out" as the SCPR sample. SCPR found that the more "out" people were, the more discrimination they experienced. As a special offer to Stonewall supporters, SCPR will send the report (which normally costs 15 plus 2 p&p) for a reduced price of 10 including p&p if you use the order form below. The lesbian, gay and bisexual sample (116 people) I have had insults shouted at me in a public place: 43% I have been physically threatened or attacked: 25% I have been harassed at work because of my sexuality: 21% I have been refused promotion because of my sexuality: 8% I have lost my job because of my sexuality: 4% None of my colleagues know that I am gay/lesbian/bisexual: 53% None of my family know that I am gay/lesbian/bisexual: 37% None of my friends know that I am gay/lesbian/bisexual: 24% The heterosexual sample (600 people) There should be laws to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination: 67% Discrimination against gays and lesbians is always wrong: 62% Homosexual sex between two men is always wrong: 41% I would be less likely to employ a job applicant who was gay: 36% It is not acceptable for a gay man to be a primary school teacher: 46% Gays and lesbians should be banned from working with children: 26% SPECIAL OFFER ============= (NOTE for on-line readers. SCPR have approved the paper version of this form for sending to Stonewall supporters in the UK. They probably won't mind if UK on-line readers print off the form and use it to order, but 10 will not cover the postage overseas. Overseas readers wishing to order the report should contact SCPR for advice, tel 0171 250 1866 or write to the address below.) Please send me .... copies of the SCPR report, Discrimination Against Gay Men and Lesbians at the offer price of 10 each. I enclose a cheque made out to SCPR. SPECIAL OFFER ORDER FORM ======================== Name: Address: Postcode: Telephone: Please return to: SCPR, 35 Northampton Square, London EC1V 0AX. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET ====== Attention all Londoners! Premier, the new radio station which started broadcasting this month, is aimed at London's Christian community. They have said that they will neither employ lesbians or gay men nor cover any gay news items. Confronted about excluding the large lesbian and gay Christian community in London, they said "genital activity between people of the same sex is outside God's plan and is therefore wrong." The Radio Authority has said that if listeners complain about the station, and investigations prove that the complaints are founded, they will close the station down. Please write to the Head of Programming and Advertising, The Radio Authority, Holbrook House, 14 Great Queen Street, London WC2B 5DG, and say you object to Premier excluding lesbian and gay Christians from their service and from their employment. WORKPLACE ========= Voluntary Sector Forum The Lesbian and Gay Voluntary Sector Forum is a new group which aims to provide a mutual support network for lesbians and gay men working in the voluntary sector. The next meeting will take place on 19 July at LVSC, 256 Holloway Road, London N7. Or write to Sally Knocker, c/o Stonewall. Fare's Fair Fare's Fair is a new group campaigning for equal rights for lesbian and gay railway workers - including free travel for same-sex partners. For further details call Richard on 01554 774356, Lisa on 01703 323756 or Roy on 01256 467116; or write to Lisa Grant, Fare's Fair, c/o Stonewall. WHITE REPORT FUELS ANTI-GAY BACKLASH ==================================== The reaction to the White report on the Islington childcare scandal, published last month, brought home to us just how far we have to go on childcare issues. Even the coverage in the more sensible papers set up a false opposition between gay rights and the best interests of the child. Not only were "gays" to blame for the alleged abuse, but "gay rights" were blamed for the fact that the allegations were never dealt with. Some childcare experts are now beginning to argue that equal opportunities are expendable in the childcare field. Norman Warner, chair of the Warner committee on children's homes, commented on the White report for the Guardian. He acknowledged that while abusers are overwhelmingly male, heterosexual men are just as likely to abuse as gay men. However he went on to suggest the means of prevention lies in careful scrutiny of job applicants, including "in-depth informal interviews covering issues such as their sexual orientation and the stability of their personal relationships." Careful scrutiny by all means, but why ask about sexual orientation? What use is it to know that X is a single gay man with an interesting and varied sex life - assuming that X is willing to divulge all this? And what if X, who is not an abuser, lies about his sex life to avoid discrimination and comes across as shifty and doesn't get the job? And Y, who is a married man and a paedophile, and a plausible liar, gets the job instead? Warner acknowledges that his approach raises concern for civil liberties. His response is to argue that while equal opportunities legislation has done a lot of good, "it can be set aside when it impedes the best interest of children." If Warner were only talking about the kind of formulaic equal opportunities that bans follow-up questions in interviews, we would agree with him. But if he means that all applicants for child care jobs should be interviewed about their sexual orientation, their relationships and their lifestyle in general, and those of us who are lesbian, gay or bisexual can either put up or shut up - and this is what he appears to be saying - then it is time we sat up and paid attention. FAIR CHECKS? ============ A newly launched vetting service, Faircheck, which offers to help local authorities and NHS employers weed out applicants who are potential child abusers, has admitted it will inform employers if candidates are gay. Asked about this, Faircheck's managing director Michael Hames, former head of the Obscene Publications Squad, replied that "Sexual orientation doesn't matter. Being lesbian or gay should not be a bar from working with children." In which case why find out, and why pass the information on? Psychiatrist Oliver Briscoe, a director of Faircheck, said that he would be "surprised" if local authorities would be worried if a person was lesbian or gay, but added that "our psychologist might see something in the fact that an individual doesn't reveal his or her sexuality." Like what? That lesbians and gay men have less confidence than Faircheck does in the fairness of local authorities? It seems the problem is that Faircheck don't realise just how many people would still discriminate, given the chance. Stonewall has asked for a meeting with Faircheck to raise these issues and ask what they are willing to do to help counter such discrimination. IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM NEWS =========================== The Stonewall Immigration Group is celebrating its first success this month. Luis, a gay Brazilian facing deportation, who tried to commit suicide rather than be separated from his British lover, has been granted the right to stay in the UK. Luis came to the Group for advice whilst recovering from his suicide attempt. Although a personal triumph for the couple, it is not the breakthrough we have been waiting for as there is no sign of a change in heart by the Home Office, which is still refusing applications by other same-sex couples. On a sadder note the gay Romanian soldier, Iona Vraciu, whose case led to the historic decision by a Tribunal to recognise homosexuals as a social group for asylum purposes, lost his appeal in May on the grounds that the Home Office did not believe he was gay. They presented clippings from the Daily Star and the Daily Mail as evidence and called for an "anal examination" to see if he was really gay! In an outrageously homophobic decision the adjudicator accepted that he was not gay because "gay men are gentle and sensitive" and if really gay he would have stayed in Romania to be arrested and tortured with his boyfriend! His case will now go back to the Tribunal for appeal. GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN ====================== A sad goodbye to two well known Stonewall faces, Suad El Amin, our Office Manager, and Terry Harding, our Fundraiser. No organisation, as Terry is always telling us, can exist without a regular income, and as we all know it is organisation on the ground that wins the battles. A very big thank you to Suad and Terry for their contribution to Stonewall. TARGET: 5,000 FRIENDS ===================== This year we are aiming for 5,000 Friends. We rely financially on our supporters, but more than that, only with these kinds of numbers can we have the political influence to reach MPs in every constituency. We hope you will play a role in helping us to achieve this: * If you are already a supporter make a commitment today to encourage a friend to join. * Pass this newsletter on to a friend and ask them if they would like to be a supporter. If you need more copies, let us know. * Don't forget to renew your subscription! You should have a reminder letter with this newsletter if it's due. * If you would like a Stonewall speaker to address a meeting, please let us know. Together we can push forward the battle for legal equality and social justice for lesbians, bisexuals and gay men. Michael Cashman Chair STONEWALL ========= Working for lesbian and gay equality 2 Greycoat Place London SW1P 1SB Tel: 0171 222 9007 Fax: 0171 222 0525 E-Mail: info@stonewall.org.uk ISSN 1358-6807 STONEWALL STAFF Angela Mason Executive Director Anya Palmer Deputy Director Emma Peskin Research Assistant Terry Harding Fundraising Manager Mig Kimpton Events Producer Millie Patrick Acting Office Manager Mark Roche Administrator Mark Watson Immigration Volunteer STONEWALL BOARD Gill Butler Michael Cashman, Chair Andy Elvers Lee Marshall, Treasurer Rebecca Rendle Dr Peter Rivas Elaine Willis, Vice Chair STONEWALL GROUP Board members, plus: Louise Ansari Marc Burke Cordelia Ditton Simon Fanshawe Edmund Hall Ceri Hutton Anne Lawrence Gerard Lemos Ian McKellen John Miskelly Lucy Scher WHY I SUPPORT STONEWALL ======================= It's rich that I should be writing this article when Stonewall has supported me so vigorously recently. Since, however, military men are used to obeying orders, I will do my best! "Gays in the military" dominated the media for weeks. Such attention doesn't just happen, it takes weeks of careful planning and preparation. Informative and compelling arguments need to be produced, and careful rehearsal and briefing for press work is essential. The enormity of the coverage and the almost universal positive reporting reflects the brilliance of Stonewall's campaign. We haven't won the case, yet, but we have already won the argument. The general public are increasingly uneasy about policies which breach fundamental human rights and civil liberties. There is growing support for legislation which provides us with equal protection. The SOD Bill, Stonewall's logical next step in the campaign, gives Parliament an early opportunity to consider such legislation. Stonewall lobbies MPs from all sides because gay issues should not be party political - only with cross-party support can we hope to achieve significant and lasting change. Constructive persuasion does achieve change, although sometimes the process does seem frustratingly slow. Given that we are demonstrably second class citizens in law, it is understandable that some of us are angry. But change by revolution is alien to the British mentality. The British do, however, have a strong sense of justice. Stonewall's strategy of demonstrating the injustices suffered by our community, helping groups like Rank Outsiders and the Stonewall Immigration Group to put forward faces and stories to illustrate the discrimination, is beginning to pay off. I believe that our rights and freedoms are worth fighting for. That is why I joined the Navy; that is why I am challenging the MoD; and that is why I support Stonewall. Stonewall is fighting for all our rights. Please help them in every way you can to win that fight. Duncan Lustig-Prean