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...

Marriage Equality?

There is a Yes Minister joke that the British Civil Service would take care of the hardest part of a proposal by putting it in the title.  So seems to have been the case when it comes to the publication yesterday of the government consultation 'Equal Civil Marriage: A Consultation'.

Many on the usual social media sites and LGB advocacy and campaign groups sprang to life seeking to motivate people into responding to the consultation.  I deliberately held off.  I wanted to see how the debate initially shaped up and - something I'm not convinced everyone who is commenting has done - read the actual consultation document.

Let's deal with the politics of this first off.  The Conservatives need this.  Ever since Cameron announced he was in favour of 'gay marriage' at the Conservative Autumn conference last year, it's been a done deal. It's win-win for Cameron.  He has a majority to pass a bill on same-sex marriage of some description.  if the party does it with just one or two dissenters, he can claim it to be a further sign that the party has genuinely changed.  Something that LGBTory - the LGB group of the party - has been keen to establish as a narrative.

Peter Bone

On the other hand, he may have a fight on his hand.  I don't think this is likely but let's explore the scenario.  In this situation, the comments of Peter Bone (the MP famous for introducing Mrs Bone at PMQs and looking like a man who once ran a football team and slept with Ulrika Johnson) would gain wider support among MPs and party activists in the same way that the NHS Bill did for for LibDems.  This would give Cameron a sort of 'Clause IV moment', defeating his party and able to demonstrate he is a true reformer.  Either of these scenarios also allow the Tories to knock on the head the developing narrative that the Lib Dems are a moderating influence on the coalition.  Tory strategists know this is an effective line and this would go some way to neutralising it.

This brings us to the Liberal Democrats themselves.  Long committed to this reform - and long before it was popular to be - this will probably appear on lots of LibDem election literature as an achievement.  Unfortunately, it doesn't take them any further forward in terms of support in off-setting tuition fees or NHS reforms, and the Tory strategy outlined above removes any possible 'credit' for the LibDems.  The one plus is it does enable them to do is to say that a minister in government has achieved something.  It's a questionable narrative but the party needs every crumb of comfort they can get.  The LGBT+ LibDems have however created a useful resource supporting the bill and telling people step-by-step how to respond to the consultation.

For the Labour Party, this is the natural extension of their reforms.  That narrative - which has not yet been clearly articulated - enables them to reach out to the New Labour voters who have deserted the party since 2010 (arguably in stages since 2001).

So politically, everybody - more or less - backs the idea of same-sex civil marriage.  It's a done deal.  The real politics and the real legal debate should therefore be about the nature of the law, and what it embraces.

Puzzlingly, few activists have engaged with this.  Peter Tatchell has called the consultation out on this issue but seemingly everyone else - notably Stonewall - are fighting what I would describe as the 'wrong war', and seeking to argue for a law on civil marriage.

Every Government figure I've seen on and in the media since the consultation emphasises the same line - this is about 'civil marriage' and not 'religious marriage'.  This is a bid to neutralise the challenge from religious lobbies - notably the Catholic Church  - to attack legal reform.   Don't be fooled by the media brouhaha, the Government need not cave in as dramatically as they have.

The proposals on the table - and this aspect is not up for debate as the consultation makes clear - prohibit religious same-sex marriages or to be more precise, do not change the present arrangements in that regard.

Let's revisit the overall aims of the legal reform, as set out by the Government:

• To remove the ban on same-sex couples being able to have a marriage through a civil ceremony.
• To make no changes to how religious organisations solemnise marriages 
• To allow transsexual people to change their legal gender without having to legally end their existing marriage or civil partnership

So, even if a religious institution wanted to solemise a same-sex marriage they would prevented from doing so by law.  The Government had two alternative approaches.  Firstly, they could have enabled religious institutions to choose not to conduct marriages.  However, as the Church performs a combined civil and religious ceremony, LGB activists could have argued that it was discrimination that only they were begin rejected by a particular church as a class (expect a legal case revolving around comparison to divorcees and so on).  So, the chance of a legal challenge down the line would be high and the churches would have seen this.   Not an attractive option for anybody.

The second option I would suggest, would have been to remove civil marriage powers from churches.  It avoids the discrimination both in the proposed provisions and the first option I just outlined.  It would upset many in faith groups, and would be a more radical or complicated message to convey to the public.  It would not stop churches performing religious ceremonies for whoever they wanted but the actual civil - legally binding - marriage would come into existence outside of a religious institution.  Although the harder road, I believe this would have been the better solution.

If it worked for them...

If you want a model of how this would look in reality, just look at the marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles.  A 'legal' ceremony followed by a religious one.  Legally, they became married in Windsor Registry Office but for the Queen and many, they became married in the Chapel at Windsor Castle.  This would be genuinely equal under law and would also remove any potential legal challenges.  I am sure that this is where we will eventually end up but it's a shame that all three parties are running scared of religious groups this time around.

Thanks to the government proposals on transgender marriage, it is now possible for someone legally defined as a male and someone legally defined as a female to enter into a marriage in a religious building and then for one of those individuals to transition so that there will be some individuals who are legally a same-sex couple and who married in a combined religious/civil ceremony.  Don't be fooled, these proposals create as many legal anomalies as they remove.

Speaking of which, the proposals also contain a paragraph (2.16) which will long be a focus for family law student seminars and tutorials in the coming years.  It states:

'Specifically, non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law, not civil partnership law. However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery.'

This is a polite way of saying that the law tends to think of consummation in terms of penile/vaginal penetration (although no orgasm or ejaculation is needed).   This paragraph in the consultation is the equivalent of lifting a giant rug, shoving half-baked proposals under it, and hoping that nobody will notice.  We did.  This could have significant implications for different-sex marriage and the Government knows that but doesn't want to get into that debate.  We should.

Adultery too will need to be re-visited and a sensible move would simply be to abolish it.  Anything else, and the Government will be lost in the midst of another legal mess.  Again, a potentially major reform for family law.

Speaking of half-baked botches, Let's turn to civil partnerships.  The proposals set out a way that people can 'covert' from a civil partnership to marriage and answers my question in previous posts about the continued presence of civil partnerships - they stay.  Hurrah!  Unfortunately, they remain for same-sex couples only, and in doing so fails to address the arguments of the ongoing Equal Love legal challenge.  That legal challenge will come and I can't understand why the Government isn't pre-empting such a challenge.

Paragraph 2.20 sets out another wonderful fudge:

'The Government is not considering opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples because we have been unable to identify a need for this. However, we appreciate that there are a number of views on this issue.'

How have they explored this need?  What constitutes a need?  If civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples fall below some mystery figure as a result of these reforms, will they then be abolished as there is 'no longer a need'?   Big questions with potentially hugely significant answers, but who is asking them?

This consultation is a significant document but it's formal questions are limited and fail to engage with the real difficulties.  That should not stop the big campaign and advocacy groups from questioning the Government.  Yet as things stand, we are failing to provide that scrutiny to these proposals.  The legal community similarly needs to wake up to the potentially half-baked and wide-ranging reforms that could come through as a result of these reforms with historic implications for marriage.

Read the full consultation here.

Professor Davina Cooper CIGS Annual Lecture 'Bringing back the bodies of the equality state'

Another event that readers may be interested in...


Professor Davina Cooper CIGS Annual Lecture 'Bringing back the bodies of the equality state'
21 March 2012 | Reception 16.30. Lecture at 17.00 | Seminar

Gender Studies Annual Lecture Title: Bringing back the bodies of the equality state, Professor Davina Cooper, Professor of Law and Political Theory at the University of Kent

Yorkshire Bank Lecture Theatre – Leeds University Business School 

Abstract: "Feminist work on bodies has tended to avoid the question of the embodied state. Yet, others continue to debate the body politic’s salience for understanding state-community relations and for understanding political sovereignty. In this lecture, I suggest the state’s relationship to bodies, particularly its own, is politically important since it affects how states are imagined, engaged with, and, ultimately, what they do. Focusing on the liberal state at one of its seemingly progressive contemporary junctures, this lecture explores the body work of national equality governance, drawing on a snap-shot moment of Britain in 2009-2010. Alongside the governmental body image institutional texts project, in which a set of discrete networked public bodies nestle in a wider economic and legal domain, I explore a more physical engagement with the state’s body, through the active citizenship of its public servants. Exploring active citizenship when it takes both overt and covert form, when it promotes dissent, and when it promotes a forceful, committed over-compliance, I consider what happens to the corporeal relationship between the state and its laboring public servants. Do state actors work through the body of the state or does the visibility accorded to transgressive public servants thwart state attempts to appropriate their labour and their bodies? Through these questions, and drawing on feminist body scholarship, the lecture considers the scope of active citizenship to advance a differently embodied state." Davina Cooper is a Professor of Law & Political Theory at the University of Kent (UK). Between 2004 and 2009, she was Director of the AHRC Research Centre for Law, Gender & Sexuality, and in the late 1980s was a local politician on the controversial London council, Haringey (on which this lecture also draws). Her publications include: Challenging Diversity: Rethinking Equality and the Value of Difference (2004); Governing out of Order: Space, Law & the Politics of Belonging (1998); Power in Struggle: Feminism, Sexuality and the State (1995); and Sexing the City: Lesbian and Gay Politics within the Activist State (1994). She is currently completing a book on the transformative conceptual practices of everyday utopias.

Location Details Yorkshire Bank Lecture Theatre – Leeds University Business School. For a map showing the location of the Leeds University Business school please click here . The building is number 19 on the key. For more information and to book a place at the event please contact Matthew Wilkinson, The Centre Co-ordinator

Spate of New Legal protections in California

I previously blogged on the introduction of the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act in California but KPBS notes it's just one of a range of new laws that are coming into force in California and potentially transforming the lives of LGBT citizens.   These include:

California Gay Bullying Law or "Seth's Law," named after 13-year-old Seth Walsh, from central California, who killed himself in 2010 after years of bullying. The law forces schools to address bullying through mandatory policies.

The "Gay Divorce Law," which allows a gay couple married in California, but living in a state that won't grant them a divorce, the right to divorce in California.

The LGBT Equality and Equal Access to Higher Education Law, which is an anti-harassment law that applies to state universities and colleges.

The Transgender Non-Discrimination Law. It protects transgender Californians from discrimination with regard to employment, education and housing.

Exciting times.  Read more here.

Some People Are Gay...in Prison?

Feltham Young Offenders Institute appears to be in some hot water according to Pink News. They report that Prison staff at the Feltham Young Offenders Institute refused official recommendations to display positive images of gay and bisexual relationships to inmates, according to a report released today.

They don't include a link to the full report but it can be viewed here.   The report seems more positive on equalities than the picture painted by the Pink News Story.  Of greater concern for me was that young people didn't always have access to free telephone calls to their legal representatives but they did have relevant legal books in the library.  Seriously folks?  That's adequate for the demography likely to be needing advice?  (let alone a breach of legal rights).  

Anyhow, the fact prison officers resisted the display of the posters is disheartening but I suspect it came from a culture in which such posters  -it was specifically the Stonewall posters - might have led to increased bullying etc.  Feltham does, the report indicates, have issues with gangs to the extent of riots and in that environment the prison officers might think the Stonewall posters are inappropriate - for a host of reasons.  It doesn't necessarily indicate homophobia on their part.  I'd rather the posters were up, but this seems an area that the Inspectorate should have probed more, and groups such as the Howard League for Penal Reform should be less quick to condemn (as they do in the Pink News piece).

The report points to positive treatment of one trans inmate, stating:

'A transgender young person who arrived during the inspection was interviewed on the day of his arrival by the liaison officer to assess and address his needs. He was placed on a unit with a higher than average staffing level to address his support needs. Staff told us that they had previously put in place a programme of support for transgender young people, including the opportunity to wear suitable clothing for their preferred gender.'

On sexualities, the report concludes that:

'Some impressive work had been undertaken to support gay and bisexual young people and to raise awareness of issues among young people and staff.'

Hardly condemnation.  The report and the Pink News story point to the presence of a group - PRIDE - as a positive sign but many years of report writing made me question thesis action.  The report writes (and this bit is repeated in the Pink News report):

'A support group for gay young people, PRIDE, had been established which met whenever there were young people who wanted to attend it. All young people were told about it on induction, which provided an opportunity for young people to offer information about their sexual orientation if they wished.'

So, how often has it met? How many people attend? What do they do? How useful did people find it.  As currently phrased, this sounds like something that exists on paper but not in practical reality.

Read the full Pink news story here.

After Equality

Apologies for the shameless plugging but you might be interested in a piece I've had posted at the Huffington Post.  It was written a month ago and other writers - Suzanne Moore and Mark Simpson for example - have since tackled the same issue but this does try to knit together the debate on both sides of the Atlantic and ever brings my own unique approach (*cough*) to the subject of where now for equality law.  Check it out here.  Do please also feel free to post a comment on the original post.

Centre for Sex, Gender and Sexualities: Inaugural Lecture

North East based students, scholars and thinkers will be interested in attending this.  I would encourage my own students to attend - it will be relevant to your assessment!  I'll also be going along so hope to see some of you there.

Thursday 17th November
6:15 – 7.30pm Appleby Lecture Theatre
Durham University Science Site, South Road, DH1 3LE

We know that Durham has sometimes had the image of being something of a blue stocking among universities – well, not any more. On 17th November in Durham, the University’s new Centre for Sex, Gender and Sexualities is holding its inaugural lecture.

Titled ‘Equality, Diversity, Queer Theory and Children in the Modern Age’, the lecture will explore the issue of sexuality, queerness and children. It is being given by celebrated queer theorist, Professor Kathryn Bond-Stockton of the University of Utah. 

Professor Jo Phoenix is the Director of the new Durham-based Centre. She says: ‘The Centre for Sex, Gender, and Sexualities will be unique in the UK, so its creation is a break-through moment both for queer studies nationally and for the University. The Centre is going to shape, inform and influence the often contentious debates surrounding sexuality, gender, identity, equality and politics, while the fact that it is being created by what some might regard as a more traditional, establishment university shows how forward-thinking Durham really is.’

 Please arrive from 6.00 pm for registration. The lecture will start at 6.30 pm and will be followed by a drinks reception and nibbles from 7.30 pm. If you have colleagues or associates you think would be interested in attending, please let us know via your RSVP and we will be happy to include them on the guest list. Please note that places are limited and it is wise to reserve your place. RSVP to

JoPhoenix.csgs@durham.ac.uk by 10th November.

Goin' to the chapel and we're gonna get errr...civil partnered

The Equalities Office (based within the Home Office) made international waves with a landmark announcement this week - yes, sons and daughters will have equal right to the throne.  It's curious what amounts to modernisation at times.  US networks - thrilled at the opportunity to show more Will and Kate footage - gave these tory prominence and looking at the Equalities Office press release pages you might think it's the only thing they've done this week.  It's not.

Pink News reported that the government has confirmed religious premises will, from the end of 2011, be able to seek approval as venues for civil partnerships.  The government doesn't need to pass a law to do this -despite the original Civil Partnership Act 2004 excluding religious premises as sites for civil partnerships.  Instead, the government will 'activate' through a regulation, section 202 of the Equality Act 2010.   It does not of course mean that religious organisations must offer their premises for such ceremonies but it means that they can - enabling groups such s the Quakers to begin offering these ceremonies.

The move creates a further layer of complexity to the marriage/civil partnership divide - a divide which the government may well sweep aside next year - and it will be interesting to see how this latest move evolves.

Gay Marriage: The Right Perspective

Charles Moore, the right-wing columnist has written an interesting piece in the Telegraph in which he challenges the recent acceptance by David Cameron of same-sex marriage.  Whilst Cameron has cleverly taken the concept of marriage and used it to include homosexuals in a very 'traditional' conception of the family, Moore appears to short-circuit at such ideas and uses his piece to propagate the kind of hateful homophobia that many have to expect from the media of the right.  In case his diatribe against 'tolerance' and homosexuality more generally didn't convince readers, he moves on to include a reference to Muslims (always a sure fire way to have readers in full boggle eyed mode).  He writes:

'...for example, roughly as many Muslims in Britain as there are homosexuals. Muslims believe in polygamy – for men only, up to four wives. Muslims insist that women, just as much as men, welcome this rule. Suppose that Mr Cameron had got up and told his conference, “it shouldn’t matter whether commitment is between a man and a woman or a man and four women”, would he have been able to make the audience clap? Mightn’t they have recognised that a situation in which men were now permitted to marry four women would damage a society in which, until now, one man could only be married to one woman at a time? Wouldn’t they have said that the consent of those involved was not the only issue at stake? Wouldn’t they have been right?'

Now, for liberal loons like me, that's an easy one, yes, polygamy should be 'allowed' and recognised by the state.  Moore reminds us that the 'victories' of gay marriage/same-sex marriage are in fact about the incorporation of homosexuals to heteronormative institutions. These acts of 'progress' are not about a fundamental re-appraisal of the marriage construct, which remains inherently conservative.  As such, these attacks by the likes of Moore can act as a 'smokescreen', creating a reaction among LGBTQ activists to argue for same-sex marriage - if the nuts are against it, we must be for it.

 Check out the full piece here.

The Equality Act (Specific Duties) Regulations

An important legal development took place earlier this month, and I've not had chance to mention it before now (and you may well not have even realised it had happened).  The Equality Act (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011 came into force on 10 September, requiring public bodies to publish data as to how they are meeting the 'equality duty' (in force under s149 of the Equality Act 2010 since 5 April 2011).  The government stated that:

'The Government believes that public bodies should be accountable to their service users. Publishing information about decision-making and the equality data which underpins those decisions will open public bodies up to informed public scrutiny. It will give the public the information they need to challenge public bodies and hold them to account for their performance on equality. Moreover, knowing that such information will be published will help to focus the minds of decision-makers on giving proper consideration to equality issues.'

As such, the regulations are a quiet but important step in transforming the relationship between minorities and public bodies.  The 'equality duty' is itself significant, requiring public bodies in the words of Government,  'to consider all individuals when carrying out their day to day work – in shaping policy, in delivering services and in relation to their own employees. It requires public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between different people when carrying out their activities.'

Same-Sex Marriage

I wrote Friday evening on the rumours of a same-sex marriage announcement.  As became public a short time after my post, the rumours were confirmed.  Of sorts.  The eventual announcement came in Lynne Featherstone's speech on Saturday at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Birmingham.  Featherstone is Equalities Minister, and one of the few 'left' Liberals in government.  Her speech can be read in full here, and as you'll see, gay rights came in a short section at the end of her speech.  If you were to believe some of the media coverage (based on the preemptive leak, rather than the actual statement), you would think her announcement was to reveal that a new same-sex marriage bill would be imminently introduced, passed, and address current equality concerns.  In reality, it won't be imminently introduced, it probably will be passed, but it won't address current equality concerns.

At the end of her speech, Featherstone remarked:

'And while on my travels as a Champion for Women’s Rights, I am and will be a Champion for Gay Rights too.
 

I will be raising the issue with Governments all over the world and will continue to push everyone, from allies to adversaries, to recognise what we know is true: 

That Gay Rights are Human Rights. No excuses, no exceptions, no compromises. 

But, conference, as with the treatment of women, Britain must not get complacent. 

We are a world leader for gay rights, but as this conference made clear last year with your call for equal marriage, there is still more that we must do. 

That is why I am delighted to announce today that in March, this Government will begin a formal consultation on how to implement equal civil marriage for same sex couples. 

And this would allow us to make any legislative changes necessary by the end of this Parliament. 

Civil partnerships were a welcome first step – but as our constitution states, this party rejects prejudice and discrimination in all its forms. 

And I believe that to deny one group of people the same opportunities offered to another is not only discrimination, but is not fair.'

Curiously, the announcement fell rather flat among the blogging and tweeting liberal types (i.e. folks like me) who far from praising the move, were critical of the move.

The first wave of criticism is focused upon the lack of action - that this is a consultation rather than a an announcement of legislation.  I have some sympathy with this view but the coalition has been rather useless when it comes to rushing through ill-thought through legislation (e.g NHS reforms and privatised forests - remember that?) so taking time to get this right, is a welcome shift.  That said, the Government could have announced a Green Paper this Autumn with a White Paper next Spring and legislation introduced in Autumn 2012.  That would at least give the feel of this moving forward.

However, the second criticism - that this is merely about creating same-sex marriage and NOT extending civil partnerships to different-sex couples, suggests the government has pretty firm ideas about what will and won't be involved.  In other words, they must be at the White Paper stage now in their thinking.  They know broadly speaking what the options are, and what they've ruled out.  They could therefore get on with this now rather than wait.

However, I think the timetable for their reform - a 'consultation' (no reference to whether a Green or White paper)  next Spring provides an opportunity for lobbyists to pressure the government into a re-think.  This is an opportunity to take a serious look at civil partnerships, same-sex marriage and relationship recognition in a holisitc way.  The Liberal Democrats should be driving this issue and not merely accepting what David Cameron - the Conservative Party leader and PM - has said he would do anyway - presumably regardless of whether the Liberal Democrats were in coalition or not.

A third level of criticism was that this was something already known.  Indeed, Stonewall were quick to publish their response and a detailed response to a  consultation (which doesn't according to Featherstone start until next Spring) and that response was dated July 2011, suggesting that something is amiss.  Either Stonewall possess remarkable powers, or an insider deal has already been cooked with select groups.

Peter Tatchell and the Equal Love Campaign are already challenging the move.  Tatchell tweeted after the announcement the following:

Curiously, the move to extend same-sex marriage but NOT civil partnerships would create a very clear position of inequality - potentially strengthening the human rights legal action.  Thi9s practical argument, more than ideological arguments may persuage minsiters to have a re-think of civil partnerships.  This could however, back-fire with the total abolotion of civil partnerships to avoid the entrenchment of legislative inequality.  This would force same-sex couples to become 'married' even for those who fidn the term undesireable.

Whatever happens next, this is an important step, but it could be an incredible opportunity.  It would be a mistake for Featherstone and her allies to think that it's a case of 'job done' for if this really is about addressing equality, the work has a long way to go.

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.

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.

When Rights Collide

The media are still focused on the phone hacking stuff (possible economic disaster in Italy and Spain is pushed to the 'by the way' news slot), and so it's unlikely that an extraordinary story from the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission is going to get much of a look in. It should.

Yesterday, the Commission released a statement indicating (if it was given leave), that it would be bringing a legal action arguing that Judges have interpreted the law too narrowly in religion or belief discrimination claims, and it is now seeking to intervene in four cases at the European Court of Human Rights all involving religious discrimination in the workplace.

The Commission will propose the idea of ‘reasonable accommodations’ which they argue, will help employers and others manage how they allow people to manifest their religion or belief.

They even offer an example of a Jew asks not to have to work on a Saturday for religious reasons, his employer could accommodate this with minimum disruption simply by changing the rota. This would potentially be reasonable and would provide a good outcome for both employee and employer.

This has in turn led to Stonewall riding into battle. Stonewall Chief Executive Ben Summerskill said in a further press release:

"Stonewall is deeply disturbed at the EHRC’s statement announcing applications to intervene in European Court cases of claimed discrimination against Christians in the workplace. The case features two individuals, Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane, who have refused to provide public services to gay people.

The Commission should be crystal clear that if it seeks to defend the claimed right of any public servant to turn away any user of a public service, it will face strong opposition. Gay taxpayers currently contribute £40 billion a year to the cost of Britain’s public services and no lesbian and gay person should ever be deprived of access to them."

Quite right too, but it's worth remembering the function of the EHRC. In the words of the Commission, it has a 'statutory remit to promote and monitor human rights; and to protect, enforce and promote equality across the nine "protected" grounds - age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.'

This has meant that the Commission has a barmy set-up of trying to represent a 'batch' of 'minority' interests which anyone who has ever sat on an equality group will tell you, doesn't work. Now we see those groups in conflict. This move by the Commission is all the more extraordinary for it apparently didn't consult with its own board - which would surely have flagged up these issues.

The most obvious difficulty that would arise from a successful move by the Commission is that those Christians who do not want to conduct a Civil Partnership - or down the line - a possible gay marriage - could decline on religious grounds. In parts of the country with a large Muslim or other orthodox religious population, it's not inconceivable that it might become difficult to have a civil partnership conducted at all. What about the cleaner in a large hotel who doesn't want to change the bedding in the bedroom of a gay couple - where the cleaner is one of many and someone else could do the room - a successful action by the Commission would arguably render such behaviour acceptable.

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.

It is easy for me, as an agnostic gay man, to choose a side in that dispute. It is arguably impossible for any 'Equality' Commission and yet, remarkably, that is what they have done.

There is no middle ground in this debate. This is after all, a debate in which the law is cast as an instrument of values and who wins this battle will define legal attitudes to sexuality.

Diversity and the Judiciary

I missed this story originally, but Durham University's ever-excellent Erika Rackley had a piece on the Guardian website in which she considers the issue of gender and the UK Supreme Court. You can read it in full here.

The Equality Flip-Side

The Telegraph reports today that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is examining whether "gay-only" guesthouses breach new laws designed to prevent people being treated unfairly in the provision of goods or services. My students will tell you that I do bang on about this aspect of equality. That is to say, gay venues that appear to discriminate against straight people - the gay hotel or the gay pub and bar. The ghetto has continued to discriminate in subtle ways despite equality legislation - bouncers asking "this is a gay bar, are you sure it's your type of venue gents?" Someone once said this to me and I remain unsure whether he was saying I was too unattractive to enter the venue or simple looked too straight.

Anyway, I think the review is right and over-due. It raises some very serious questions for those who have sought to see equality as something to be imposed upon others, and not apply to themselves. The trouble with this simple right-wing narrative is that it fails to appreciate that there's a reason for 'gay' bars, hotels and other spaces and it is a desire to appropriate a space that can be deemed 'safe'. Safe from fear, and safe from violence. We still need such spaces today. However, we must recognise that to argue such a position is to also argue against equality.

Equal Love Files

The Equal Love case has been filed to European Court. Eight British couples - four gay and four heterosexual - have filed a joint legal application to the European Court of Human Rights today, Wednesday, 2 February, seeking to overturn the twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships (picture credited to Chris Houston). An academic alwyer, Robert Wintemute is at the forefront of the campaign, commenting in a press release that:

“Our Equal Love campaign wants both marriages and civil partnerships opened up to all couples, different-sex and same-sex. Let everyone have a free and equal choice,” said Professor Wintemute.

“Banning same-sex marriage and different-sex civil partnerships violates Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“It's discriminatory and obnoxious, like having separate drinking fountains or beaches for different racial groups, even though the water is the same. The only function of the twin bans is to mark lesbian and gay people as socially and legally inferior to heterosexual people.

"I am confident that we have a good chance of persuading the European Court of Human Rights that the UK's system of segregating couples into two 'separate but equal' legal institutions violates the European Convention. I predict that same-sex couples will be granted access to marriage in the UK and that this will be because the UK Government will eventually accept that it cannot defend the current discriminatory system,” he said.

Wintemeute is a highly respected human rights lawyer and his support of the case (he's also been a big activist of LGBT equality in Russia) adds weight to the case. That said, I remain pessimistic about the outcome but I continue to wish the campaign well.

Read more on the Equal Love website here.

It's Equality Stupid

There I was, typing away, writing a piece about not throwing mud, being reasonable and - truly shocking - defending the Daily Mail. Meanwhile, they were busy publishing another piece of hateful ignorant journalism. I tried, I really did. In a piece headed 'Equality Madness', the Mail on Sunday attacks equality and the fact the Government has - dun dun dun - been obeying the law in terms of the equality duties imposed upon it. It is essentially a non story. Yet, it also plays into a public psyche that still doesn't understand why these provisions exist and why these measures are a good thing. The story also cropped up on the BBC Andrew Marr show this morning and among a panel consisting of Clare Short, Peter Hitchens and Amanda Platell, nobody defended the move. Unsurprising from Hitchens and Platell who used the story as an example of political correctness gone mad, but Short's failure to explain was a major disappointment. Here are examples the Mail highlights (reproduced in full - not my language):

* Officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport carrying out a so-called ‘equality impact assessment’ to ensure minority groups are able to take a full part in the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations next summer.

* The Department of Energy and Climate Change issuing a report last month assessing whether a range of groups, including people in civil partnerships, had been unfairly treated when it suspended its £300 million scheme to help people insulate their homes.

* Government officials undertaking a study into India’s traditional caste system and its implications for discrimination in the UK.

* The promotion of the first leadership course specifically for gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual National Health Service managers.

* The Department for Work and Pensions publishing a report into whether proposed changes to its scheme to help disabled people find jobs would have implications on a range of issues from religion to gender reassignment.

* Kent Police issuing fresh equality guidance earlier this month, to comply with the Act, saying that transsexual staff are protected as soon as they start to dress, behave or live ‘in the gender they identify with’.

You can read the full Mail story here.

This isn't a debate between right and left, it's a debate between right and wrong. Ensuring that all citizens have equal access to services is the right thing to do. It's not loony left, it's the mark of a decent society. That educated and thoughtful journalists continue to fail to understand sexuality, gender, disability, and race is truly terrifying. The only thing more scary, is the failure of other members of the press to stand up, explain and defend these legal measures.

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.

Goodbye to 'Harman's Law'

Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equality, Theresa May popped up on the Today programme this morning to talk about her decision to scrap the so called 'Harman's Law'. May announced in a speech on Wednesday that the ‘socio-economic duty’ on public bodies to enforce equality (introduced in the Equality Act 2010) would be scrapped, saying: “You can’t solve a problem as complex as inequality in one legal clause.”

May also announced that up to 12,000 men will be treated more fairly thanks to the changes relating to convictions for consensual gay sex with over 16s. The Freedom Bill, due to be published by February next year, will change the law so that people can apply to have such convictions deleted from the Police National Computer. A welcome move.

Read the full story on PinkNews here and watch a video of her original speech below: