News from Swedish gay/lesbian politics Published by the Swedish Federation for Gay and Lesbian Rights (RFSL) No. 16/94 (April 18th-24th, 1994) 1 The Parliament rejects motions on adoption On April 20th, the Parliament rejected a motion urging an inquiry on the possibility of gay men and lesbian to adopt. The Standing Committee on Health and Welfare states in its motivation that "the issue about the possibilities of homosexuals to adopt has been considered in the report of the Partnership Commission. The proposals of the Commission are considered after a round of formal remarks. The Standing Committee believes that upcoming proposals should be awaited." 13 MP's did not support the motivation of the Standing Committee and voted instead in favour of the reservation of Eva Zetterberg, Leftist MP: "I think that a new inquiry about adoption is needed. Legal usage today excludes gay and lesbian adoptive parents by making a particular interpretation about what is best for the child. The issue about the sexual orientation of a person who wishes to adopt may not, to my opinion, determine whether he or she is suitable as a parent." It was Elisabeth Persson, Johan L”nnroth and Eva Zetterberg, Leftist MP's, who in January 1994 submitted motions urging an inquiry on the possibilities of gay men and lesbians to adopt. 2 The Parliament rejects motions on the Infectious Diseases Act On April 20th, the Parliament rejected a motion urging a review of the Infectious Diseases Act. The Standing Committee on Health and Welfare states in its motivation that "a review of the infection protection activities and the Infectious Diseases Act has been made by the National Board for Health and Welfare. The Government has advised that there will be a bill in May on some changes of the Infectious Di- seases Act. The Parliament should not forestall the proposal from the Government in this issue." However, the RFSL has learnt from the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs that the advised bill will not be submitted before the end of the Parliament's spring session. 11 MP's did not support the decision but instead voted in favour of the Leftist MP Eva Zetterberg's dissenting opinion: "The Council of Europe has in a recommendation established that all HIV testing is to be voluntary and that it should be conducted under guaranteed confidentiality. There are also strong requirements for when systematic HIV testing is to be allowed. Contact tracing must be done on a voluntary basis in order to be effective and the Council dissociates itself from HIV related detention. The Swedish Government has as the only country registered its dissent against the recommendations. Sweden wanted to keep the possibility of incarceration that is provided in the Infectious Diseases Act. I believe that the position of the Council of Europe is correct and want the Government to withdraw its reservation. In an address to the Ministry for Health and Social Affairs, the National Institute for Public Health has offered to make a review of the whole Infectious Diseases Act. I believe that the Government should approve of this proposal. Many people would like to have an HIV test but refrain from that because of fear for the measures that the authorities may take if the test proves to be positive. I therefore propose an amendment to the Medical Records Act. I believe that contact tracing should only be done in a confiding cooperation between patient and physician. The Government should therefore assign to the National Board of Health and Welfare to propose directives on how contact tracing can be conducted on a voluntary basis." It was in January that the Leftist Party submitted a motion urging that - Sweden withdraw its reservation against the recommendations of the Council of Europe on the treatment of HIV positives. - The National Institute of Public Health be given an assignment to make an overview of the Infectious Diseases Act as regards HIV infected. - The Medical Records Act be amended in order to make it possible to have an HIV test with a guaranteed anonymity. - Directions should be elaborated on how HIV tracing can be conducted on a voluntary basis. 3 Statement on Norwegian Infectious Diseases Act A number of people, professionally active within the AIDS field, have supported a statement that is to be sent to the Norwegian Parliament before its consideration of a proposal to introduce an Infectious Diseases Act according to the Swedish model. "In view of the fact that the Norwegian Parliament considers to include HIV in an Infectious Diseases Act which in all negative regards resembles the Swedish one, we feel called upon to make this statement. Our work within health care, politics, legal institutions and HIV prevention during the nine years that have passed since HIV infection was included in the Swedish Infectious Diseases Act in 1985, has made us draw these conclusions. - The only way of fighting HIV is through consent and respect - not with coercion, control and threat of incarceration (deliberately infecting someone is a crime according to the ordinary penal code). - The construction of the Infectious Diseases Act leads to a worrying lack of legal security and inequality before the law. - The Infectious Diseases Act is counter-productive - it makes the HIV prevention work more difficult. Therefore we appeal to the Norwegian Parliament not to adopt the proposed legislation." The statement has been signed by e.g. the Social Democratic MP Hans G”ran Franck and the Leftist MP's Elisabeth Persson, Gudrun Schyman and Eva Zetterberg. 4 "The Liberal Party is divided" The Liberal MP Elver Jonsson writes in the christian daily Dagen on April 20th on the partnership reform: "I am against a Partnership Act only for homosexuals but find it important to conduct an active moulding of public opinion in order to create a better understanding. The fact that marriage is reserved for husband and wife is not a discrimination against other forms of loving. Forming couples between man and woman aims in the general case at reproducing the race. In this function almost all known civilizations have chosen to support the family formation in the form of marriage. In a long range, discrimination is fought better by a broader legislation than that proposed by the majority of the Partnership Commission. I support the formal remarks of the bishops and the Cooperation Group of the Non-Conformist Churches that it is important with a modulated and honest discussion on how a cold position regarding the homosexuals is to be abandoned. It would have been useful with a longer preparation time in line with the directives of the Partnership Commission. A forced Parliamentary decision may in the worst case lead to a deterioration of the situation of homosexu- als. It is important that the development is in reasonable harmony with the common sense of justice. Therefore it is important that the legislation is constructed so it cannot be perceived as a privilege only for homosexuals. Mutual respect requires that both sides see to both wishes and possibilities. The complexity of the issue demands that this is done with good judgement and consideration. Heavy criticism has been directed at the majority of the Standing Committee on Civil-Law Legislation that proposes a le- gislation. Some MP's beat the drum about the fact that the Government is 'ignored'. But the Government has not succeeded in producing a reform. Now it is up to the minority of the Standing Committee on Civil-Law Legislation to present a proposal that is so open that it can unite a majority of the Parliament. The formal remarks of the bishops and the non-conformist churches, a number of legal bodies and for example the motion by the Liberal MP Bengt Harding Olson can together constitute a good basis for an alternative. Among the MP's of the Liberal Party there are many of us that expect such an effort. This will be a test on whether the minority of the Standing Committee on Civil- Law Legislation has serious aims or only an opportunistic demonstration!" 5 Christian Democratic debate in Skaraborg The Christian Democratic MP Holger Gustafsson, vice-chairperson in the Standing Committee on Civil-Law Legislation, has written a number of identical articles in the newspapers in Skaraborg Counrty, e.g. in Sk”vde Nyheter (April 14th): "The Liberal party has traditionally consisted of two factions, the christian faction, with values from the christian culture and the liberal faction, with values that are very difficult to interpret and which have led to that they rather meet everybody's needs, without any basic or guiding principle. There has been made a consideration, that more than 75 to 85 per cent of the Swedish people does not want the Parliament to create any new marriage law for homosexuals ('registered partnership'). Despite this, the liberal faction with the Liberal Party has found it so important to introduce this law that they in the Standing Committee on Civil-Law Legislation have left the non-Socialist majority, in order to ignore both the Government and the Standing committee together with the Social Democrats and the Leftists." "What ideological bases make the Liberals force through this law? Has the liberal faction become so dominant within the party that it cannot say no in this value issue, due to the generally liberal position? It is my personal hope that the christian faction within the Liberal Party perceives this as a signal to say stop in order to correct the politics of the party. It is not too late to contact the MP's and say what demands one has concerning the party's stand before the decision in the plenary session of the Parliament on June 7th, 1994." Eva Ahlberg, coordinater of the RFSL, has responded to Gustafsson's articles. This is what she commented, in the daily Skaraborgs L„ns Tidning on April 15th, upon Gustafsson's reports about the Swedish public opinion: "This is not true! According to a recent poll, 57 per cent of the Swedish population say yes to marrige for gay men and lesbians. The partnership is not as far-reaching as marriage; therefore probably even more people would accept partnership." Bengt Ros‚n, Liberal MP, and Eva Eriksson, vice-chairperson of the Liberal Party, has also responded (Sk”vde Nyheter, April 15th): "Holger Gustafsson discusses the partnership reform, which he calls 'marriage legislation for homosexuals', despite several corrections. He starts off with expressing himself in a very derogatory way about the 'liberal faction' within the party that 'rather meets everybody's needs, without any basic or guiding principle'. Allow us to remark that the liberalism is the political ideology that has remained during the centuries and that is characterized by tolerance and respect for dissidents. Jesus praised these features, something the fundamentatlists do not even know the spelling of. Holger Gustafsson asks what ideological principles 'that make the Liberal Party force through a partnership reform'. Besides the misunderstanding that the Liberal Party could force through legislation at all, our consideration is that if a majoirity of the MP's support a partnership reform, this is done because of humanity and tolerance and respect for dissidents. Jesus - the friend of sinners and harlots - made strong judgements about the Pharisees, the fundamentalists of that time. We wonder what He says about those of our time?" Holger Gustafsson responds in Sk”vde Nyheter on April 20th: "In my article, I have not urged one single voter to leave the Liberal Party. This would not be thinkable even in an election campaign. But the material issue on why the Liberal Party pushes the partnership issue in the Parliament is so important to me that I think that it should be answered by those responsible. This is what has happened. The Liberal MP Barbro Westerholm has, as a chairperson of the Partnership Commission, forcily worked for an additional law within the Commission. During the general motion period, Barbro Westerholm et.al. have proposed that the Parliament should make a decision now about a legislation. In our democracy the normal way of working is that the Government through its ministries submit well-elaborated bills to the Parliament, which then decides. Since the other non- Socialist parties (the Christian Democrats, the Conservatives and the Centre Party) do not want this legislation it was probable that there would not be a bill. The Parliament may through its Standing Committees adopt legislation and thereby ignore the Government. This is the way that the Liberal Party has chosen, together with the Lefists and the Social Democrats, in order to force through a marriage law for homosexuals. Right now, a working group consisting of the Liberal Party, the Leftist Party and the Social Democratic Party are working in the Standing Committee on Civil-Law Legislation to make amendments to the proposed act that then is to be submitted to the plenary session of the Parliament for a decision." "It is against this background of these resolute initiatives in this issue, that I have questioned what space there is for the christian faction within the party. I want to add: What does the liberal faction stand for?" 6 Editorals about the church The daily ™stg”ta Correspondenten, non-Socialist, writes on April 18th: "It is easy to agree with the disappointment of the Ecumenical Group for Christian Gay Men and Lesbians. The choice of the Swedish Church to compare gay and lesbian love with e.g. the relationship between cohabiting students is cowardly." The daily Norra V„sterbotten, Liberal, writes on April 16th: "The Church should say yes to homosexuality, as well as to heterosexual love.' 'Support the genuine homosexuality.' 'Heterosexual promiscuity is a much worse problem than the homosexual one.' 'The Church has to get rid of its prejudice against the homosexuals and stop persecuting them.' Statements like this from the clergy would have been completely unthinkable ten years ago. More of them can apparently accept to bless homosexual relationships. A radical and beneficial change is aparently underway." The periodical of the Swedish Church, Kyrkans Tidning, writes in no. 15/94: "Is is understandable that secularized people have difficulties in understanding the reasons for the position of the Church when defending the marriage. But is it really easier to understand the parties - the Liberals risking severe loss of christian votes - that now are ready to force through a partnership act which explicitly aims at morally legitimizing homosexuality? Homosexuality thereby becomes the only sexual variation that is really 'legal'; the marriage law has - millenia afterwords - been introduced in order to regulate law and economy. And how will the promotors maintain respect for the new law? What will the authorities do when couples who declare that they are not homosexual ask to be registered? Close their eyes and register, probably? And if two sisters or two brothers ask for a registration? Or mother and daughter? Close their eyes? One can predict that the law, as soon as it is introduced, will lose its character of moral legitimation. The only possibility is probably, as the Archbishop has remarked, to introduce a partnership act that is not exclusively valid for homosexuals. If the law becomes open for everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, it becomes meaningful and as a regulator of economy and law comparable to the marriage legisla- tion. Unfortunately, the word household community have given the wrong colour to the position of the churches. What it is all about is to give people, whose life and economy are tied together, a practical safety net. Love, 'stronger than death', does not need such arrangemtns. It is when it starts shaking the net is needed. Or when the death parts the loving ones." 7 Olof Johansson on partnership Olof Johansson, leader of the Centre Party, says to the daily Expressen (April 24th) that he supports the partnership: - Yes, I think that homosexuals shall be allowed to enter into partnership. However, marriage is reserved for man and woman in a couple relationship. Harriet Colliander, new leader of the New Democracy Party, answers, when asked whether gay men and lesbians are to be allowed to enter into a partnership: - No, the relationship between children and adults will not be natural. 8 32,000 names against partnership Save the Family, represented by the former vicar Sven Helmerius, on April 21st handed over a good 32,000 signatures against partnership to the Standing Committee on Civil-Law Legislation, according to the daily ™stersunds-Posten. -- Tobias Wikstr”m RFSL, Box 350, S-101 26 Stockholm, Sweden Telephone +46-8-7360213 Telefax +46-8-304730