Buckingham University and the Moral Compass

In October of last year, I wrote a post called 'A Moral Compass' in which I pondered the issue of  the Internationalisation agenda for universities, and the issues that come for our own values as part of that.  I recounted the story of one HE manager walking away from a deal (not at my own University) and how this was both unusual and commendable.

This week however, the University of Buckingham (a private institution, and thus we are led to believe, are all about the bottom line) made headlines by walking away from a lucrative deal over the issue of gay rights.

GarStarNews reported: 'The University of Buckingham has announced it is ‘increasingly concerned’ about Uganda’s human rights record, and wanted the country’s Victoria University to include a clause that no person would be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. A statement said: ‘Over the last few months, the University of Buckingham has been in discussions with our partners, Edulink, who own Victoria University in Kampala, Uganda, about our continued validation of some of Victoria University’s courses. ‘We have both become increasingly concerned about the proposed legislation in Uganda on homosexuality and in particular the constraints on freedom of speech in this area.’ The University of Buckingham, as the UK's only private research and teaching college, will allow existing students to complete their studies on their validated courses in Dubai and Kenya.'

The BBC also reported on the story, and noted how it raised ethical issues for UK Universities.  Well, indeed.

200 hundred students were affected according to the BBC, and thus one can conclude we are potentially talking about a significant sum of income that Buckingham have wilfully denied themselves.   They deserve credit for arguing that students should not be discriminated against, when enrolled on their degrees and seeking to uphold the same values that a student studying on campus at Buckingham should experience.

How many other British HE congratulate themselves for having strong equality policies, but discard them when the harsh winds of economic reality bite? Will another UK university now seek to negotiate a deal with Victoria?  If a private provider can do this, the pressures on 'public sector universities' are surely now even greater?

Canal Street Fights Back?

How to fight back against the invasion of Hen and Stag Parties and heterosexual 'Zoo' visitors to Manchester's Canal Street?  We know it's a problem from the research of Skeggs and Moran among others, and we know that the Equality Act makes discrimination impossible.  Here's a rather brilliant solution currently on the doors at Via...

HIV and Online Identities

The ever-lovely @leomack87 flagged up this post on the excellent UKPositiveLad blog.  UKPositiveLad or Sam, set up a blog when he was diagnosed as HIV+ in 2011.  He uses the blog to share his activism and document his own journey with HIV.  His latest post post contains a story that is perhaps unsurprising but that does not reduce the importance of examining it.  Within the post he writes:

'I started wondering last weekend (25th Feb 2012) what kind of responses someone would get if their profile said that they were HIV+. So I created myself a second profile on Grindr, almost identical to mine in (but different enough to look like a different person), still looking for “Friends, fun and dates” – but this time I mentioned my HIV status in the profile text.

'Over the course of the week (25 Feb – 03 Mar) my existing profile received messages from 74 users. On the other hand my (almost identical) profile that mentions my HIV status had 11 people message it. Four of those eleven messaged purely to ask me questions about HIV and one felt it necessary to send me foul mouthed abuse for seemingly no reason. Which leaves me with six people actually showing an interest in me.

'Let’s look at that for a second shall we? That’s a 92% reduction in interest purely by mentioning my HIV status.'

The reduction is somewhat unsurprising (although you'll note he still seems to be doing reasonably well!), reminding us of the 'fear' that men still associate with HIV+ men.  For Sam, it undoubtedly highlights issue of prejudice and discrimination in that men just don't want to be with someone who is HIV+ because of ill-educated beliefs, fears for their own safety or unease at the need to adapt their own sexual practices.  This has perhaps been compounded by the rise in bareback sex.   Knowing your partner is HIV+ may lead to a decision that a condom is necessary in order to make sure that you don't become HIV+ yourself.  You therefore opt to have sex (bareback) with someone else who states they are not HIV+ in order to 'protect' yourself from HIV.  Spot the flawed logic.

It also doesn't take a genius to see the sexual market forces this sets in train.  More people don't disclose their HIV status at a time of increased bareback, leading in turn to a rise in HIV rates.  This can - and I believe will - continue exponentially.  The only things that would stop this are (1) death.  The return of the holocaust, or (2) growing drug resistance creating increased complications in HIV treatment.

So it is that this one incident documented by UKPostiveLad gives us an insight into much larger trends that are taking place in sex lives globally and driving increased criminalisation - and ever tougher measures - in relation to HIV transmission.

Read Sam's post here.

Lesbian couple file lawsuit against Hawaii hotel

A fascinating story has emerged from Hawaii.  According to the Pink Paper, a couple from Los Angeles have filed a lawsuit against a bed and breakfast in Hawaii, claiming they were refused a room because they were lesbians.

The story has parallels with the B&B controversies in this country which saw the Equality Act goods and services provisions tested legally, politically and socially.  It's interesting to see a similar sort of testing in another part of the world, indicating the process that such laws perhaps inevitably, must go through.

Check out the full story here.

NWT Canada Finance Minister accused of trans bullying

Jane Fae reports a fascinating incident on her blog. She notes that the Finance Minister of Canada’s Northwest Territory, Michael Miltenberger has been reported to the Human Rights Commission. Why you might ask...Well, he is apparently accused of discriminating against a woman in Fort Smith, NWT, during a visit by the Governor General to Aurora College campus on 9 December because she is transgender.

Read the full story/details on Jane's blog here.

EHRC in Equality Law U-Turn

In the video above, you can hear and see a car screeching as it comes to an abrupt unplanned halt. A similar sound could be heard coming from the Equality and Human Rights Commission as they confirmed that they will not seek ‘reasonable adjustments’ to be made for religious workers who refuse to serve gay people. The Commission had planned on supporting a number of cases appearing before the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds of religious discrimination.

I blogged on the original planned legal action next month (see it here). I wrote:

'This case is about discrimination and ultimately the Commission is trying (and failing) to find a third-way between discriminating against the religious, and discriminating against homosexuals. I often tell students that understanding the law is about the application of values and ideas. There is no such thing as equality in this arena - there is instead the necessary choice of which side you back - a hatred of homosexuals or a hatred of religious freedom.'

Words I stand-by and the Commission has clearly made a fresh choice. In doing so, and as I indicated last month, they merely irritate an alternative audience - this time, the religious.

Pink News reports that Don Horrocks, head of public affairs at the Evangelical Alliance, has condemned the move, stating: “It seems pretty clear that the commission has been successfully intimidated against proceeding as they initially announced.

“They appear to have changed their initial approach as a result of the outcry from those groups who wish to restrict freedom of religion and religious rights of conscience being recognised more fairly by the courts.”

She is right. This is about restricting the freedom of religion, but if you are opposed to that, you must be in favour of homophobia. The EHRC had to made a choice and they have. However, the decision is open for consultation for two weeks so further flip-flopping on this issue can't yet be ruled out.

Consensual Slavery and the Law

Sometimes it seems that Law and Sexuality is just a fun subject, offering some interesting theoretical perspectives in a traditional liberal arts setting. It's not really 'proper' law, some say. Yet, the importance of practitioners understanding the law and sexuality in a socio-legal context is constantly proven in the courts, and before tribunals. Jane Fae comments in the Guardian today on a case that took place last week concerning the issue of 'consensual slavery'.

The case apparently focused on whether BDSM fell within the scope of 'belief' per the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Yes, I was surprised too, given that this regulation (along with what would have been more sensible, the Employment Equality (Sexual orientation) Regulations 2003) were repealed by the Equality Act 2010 (from 1 October 2010). I am left feeling a little confused! I'm assuming that the discussion is around the application of section 10 of the Equality Act (essentially, the old religion or belief regulation) but again, section 12 (sexual orientation) would have been a wiser (although still uncertain) course to pursue.

Read Jane's full piece here.

I also continue to strongly recommend Jane's blog which you can check out here. It focuses on trans issues and specifically her own transition but it will be of terrific interest to anyone interested in gender and sexuality.

Academia, Liberation, Equality, and Diversity

I must confess I missed this story when it appeared in the Times Higher as it had a rather bland headline. No fear of missing it in Pink News however. They scream the headline 'Academia Has Ignored LGBT Issues'. These news stories follow the publication by the National Union of Students (NUS) of a briefing document entitled Liberation, Equality and Diversity in the Curriculum which explores the issues of liberation, equality and diversity in high education curriculum's. The report seems to bear very little to the media coverage associated with it. You can check out the briefing document/report here.

It isn't just about sexuality, it's about disability, race and any other discrimination that can take place. The idea is that 'non-traditional' (in the language of the report) students should be catered for. For example, family law problems might commonly include same-sex couples in exam problem questions, but what about contract law, or commercial law, or tort?

In my experience, academia has actually been addressing these issues for years and the ratcheting up of quotes by NUS folks in a bid to get a headline (rather than base them on the substantive report) coupled with the near hysterical academic reactions on the Times Higher story are both misplaced responses.

This was a well meaning report that seems to have suffered a PR disaster. I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of fellow academics and students on this.

Trans Insights

The ever inspirational, journalist and passionate trans/sexual freedom campaigner, Jane Fae has posted some particularly moving and insightful stuff on her personal blog in the last few days. Take a look here. She also tackles, on her other blog, the new trans prisoner guidance, and you can read that here. Does anyone have a link to the actual guidance? I can't find it on the MofJ website.

Easy on the Mud

The easiest thing in the world to do is to throw out allegations, to make sweeping assumptions, to throw mud. The publication by the Daily Mail of a cartoon this week by their cartoonist in residence, Mac, plays into a narrative of the Daily Mail as a hateful newspaper. Certainly, the Daily Mail has a history of publishing articles that many - including myself - have viewed as homophobic. It's tone is one of bewilderment at the modern society the paper finds itself read within but it would be wrong to assume that every cartoon, that every article, every journalist at the Mail is somehow homophobic and a spreader of a hate. Easy, certainly, but wrong.

Following the B&B legal case this week, the Daily Mail satirised the incident in the cartoon pictured above. The caption beneath reads: “Isn’t that romantic, George, dear? Mr and Mr Smith would like the bridal suite.”

The Mac cartoon that has got the cyberworld talking, and led to this comment piece on Pink News, that suggests the hoteliers are respectable and civilised, and having to 'take in' burly gay men with Nazi tattoos. It is not an assertion that all gay men are burly skin-head Fascists. It does suggest two worlds colliding, which they did in the B&B case. It's also worthwhile checking out this piece from the Guardian which further explores the role of religion.

This is a couple - middle aged, conservative in appearance, running a clearly labelled 'Christian Hotel' and calmly dealing with a gay couple that are clearly anathema to them. Crucially, they are accepting the couple.

For me, the Nazi tattoo is significant, but not denoting gay Nazis - but rather to denote the 'Fascism' of law; the intolerance of law, and the assertion of monolithic truth and state power over the individual.

The logical conclusion of this argument is to advocate the freedom to hate and that's the problem with this position. What of those whoa re racist? Ageist? Where ought the line to be drawn and at what point should the law be an intervening force?

Civil Partnerships, Marriage and Discrimination

Most of you will have heard the news yesterday about the victory in the B&B discrimination case. As Pink News reported, Martin Hall and Steven Preddy, who are civil partners, sued devout Christians Peter and Hazelmary Bull for sexual orientation discrimination, after being being refused a double room at their B&B. The case was supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but the Judge in the case quashed the reports (which I confess I thought were true) that the couple had gone to the hotel originally at the behest of Stonewall to test the law in this area.

The hotel owners, Peter and Hazel Bull, are devout Christians who do not allow couples who are not married to share double rooms because they do not believe in sex before marriage. Mr and Mrs Bull maintained that their refusal to accommodate civil partners in a double room was not to do with sexual orientation but 'everything to do with sex'. The owners said the restriction applied equally to heterosexual couples who are not married.

The case was therefore not as simple as this being a Christian couple who don't like gay people, it was, do we need to treat a Civil Partnership the same as a marriage for the purposes of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007? The answer from this case was a clear yes.

The Guardian has an interview with the winning couple below.

There is of course another dimension to this case, the Christian couple and the impact this will have had upon them. They consider themselves good decent people. They try to live their life as good citizens. I have little doubt that this case would have been devastating to them. Each day feeling like a week. It's easy to forget in the instant knee-jerk world of cyberspace and journalism that they are human beings but we should resist that easy route. They have honestly held beliefs, and they tried to warn people of their approach to unmarried straight couples and gay couples on their website. Yet, they lost. The law in this area is fairly straightforward and legally, it is quite right they lost. Morally, we do not accept the signs - so common in the 1950's - that B&B's would place: 'No Blacks, No Irish'. It is morally right that we reject discrimination based on homophobia. The trouble with this is what about religion? It remains the elephant in the room that law-makers, lawyers and policy-makers dodge around making pragmatic and - typically English - messy law.

If a moral argument about homophobia can assert itself in the provision of goods and services, why not the provision of marriage services? Why should the provision of marriage services by Churches be limited to straight people? If a Civil Partnership is the equivalent of a straight marriage, surely Civil Partners can - and must - therefore be allowed to marry in Churches. No? One to ponder. The current law represents a compromise between the religious and those who reject homophobia (I am not suggesting all religious people are homophobic), and the question no-one seems willing to really debate is where that line should be drawn, and why it is currently drawn in totally different places on different issues of policy and law.

Finally, let's ease off the B&B owners. They can now get on with their lives. Let's focus the criticism where it is needed - a law that is discriminatory and muddled.

Sexism, Human Rights and Paedophilia

I have to thank Brian for flagging up this story to me. Last week saw an interesting case before the Scottish courts in which a teenager accused of having sex with an under-age girl claimed the law is unfair to heterosexual men, and sought to bring a case case under article 8, read in conjunction with article 14, of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also sought a declaration in terms of section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that section 5(3) of the 1995 Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act is incompatible with the Convention in these respects.

The law does (as the opinion makes clear) seem relatively straight forward in this area but the teen at the centre of this case does raise an interesting question about what he regards as our sexist attitude towards paedophilia. The very words paedophilia or paedophile are avoided in the reports about this case but that is what the law is saying this teen is - as someone 17 or 18 having sex with a girl aged 14. The teens point is that we would be less inclined to prosecute a girl in the same situation. I'm not sure I agree but it's an interesting one to mull over.

The full opinion can be read here.