Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 19:46:13 +0100 From: David Subject: OutRage! Press Release Gay MPs Refuse to Support Equality. Labour Votes Down Protection From Discrimination. Gay MPs have refused to support an amendment to the Human Rights Bill that would have created Britain's first-ever legal protection from discrimination for lesbians, gays and people with HIV. New Clause Ten was defeated in a House of Commons vote on Thursday, 2 July by 234 votes to 18. Government Minister Mike O'Brien spoke against the amendment and Labour MPs voted it down. New Clause Ten sought to ensure that the rights and freedoms of the European Convention on Human Rights are guaranteed to everyone without'discrimination on any grounds'. This would have required an anti-discrimination clause of the Convention's Article 14 to be interpreted to prohibit discrimination based on homosexuality and HIV. None of the six openly gay MPs voted in favour of New Clause Ten. Ben Bradshaw and Angela Eagle voted against it. The other four (David Borrow, Gordon Marsden, Chris Smith and Stephen Twigg) did not vote. The main sponsor of the age of consent amendment, Anna Kean, also opposed New Clause Ten Only one Labour MP, Jeremy Corbyn - Islington North, who is straight, defied the Government to support the amendment. All the other MPs who voted for New Clause Ten are Liberal Democrats. `Surely it is not too much to expect gay MPs to vote for gay rights?' said David Allison of OutRage! `By failing to support equal treatment for their own community, by behaving like the rest of Labour's automatons, the six gay and lesbian MPs are suggesting that they are more interested in their personal parliamentary careers than in the welfare of the gay community. We would be better off with straight MPs who support equality than with gay MPs who endorse discrimination against gays, lesbians and people with HIV.`. New Clause Ten was drafted by Peter Tatchell and promoted by OutRage! Liberal Democrat MP, Robert Maclennan tabled and presented it in Parliament. Minister Concedes Broad-Based Interpretation of Article 14. Despite the defeat of New Clause Ten, having it debated had the positive effect of profiling the deficiencies of the anti-discrimination provisions in Article 14 of the Convention. It prompted, also, a key Ministerial concession. The Government conceded for the first time, in the words of Home Office Minister Mike O'Brien, that Article !4's lists of grounds on which discrimination is banned (race, sex, religion, etc.) is `not an exhaustive one and should not be treated as one.' In other words, he admitted that Article 14 should be interpreted to prohibit all forms of discrimination which, of course, was the aim and intent of New Clause Ten. `This admission is not as good as a copper-fastened commitment enshrined in the Human Rights Bill,' said Peter Tatchell, ` but the Minister's statement can be cited in legal challenges against discrimination as evidence of how the Human Rights Bill should be interpreted. Usually, the Courts take such Ministerial statements into account when delivering their judgements.' `This means that that a gay person, or someone with HIV who seeks to overturn discrimination arising from their sexuality or HIV status, can cite Mike O'Brien's statement in court and, as a result, is likely to receive a favourable ruling against such discrimination.' Revelation of Discussions on New Anti-Discrimination Protocol. One very significant Government revelation in the debate on New Clause Ten was that discussions are under way at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg to consider the enactment of a new broader-based anti-discrimination protocol to the Convention, with a much wider remit than Article 14. `This new protocol would not merely guarantee that the existing rights and freedoms of the Convention are applied without discrimination, it would create a ban on all forms of discrimination, including those not covered by Article 14 of the Convention, such as employment, housing, pensions and the provision of goods and services.' ` A new protocol with this wider-ranging prohibition of discrimination would have huge potential benefit to lesbians, gays and people with HIV, creating a legal framework for striking down all discriminatory laws,' said Tatchell Further Information from <><><><><><><><>Peter Tatchell 0171. 403.1790