Tweet
Tuesday, December 15 the British House of Lords is scheduled to debate the Equality Bill. The stated purpose of the bill is “to harmonise discrimination law, and to strengthen the law to support progress on equality.” In other words, the bill would consolidate and streamline the current hodge-podge of discrimination law as well as bring UK law in line with agreed-to EU rules. The UK has been dragging its feet, apparently, and is now under pressure by the EC to get this done soon, and get this done right so that it doesn’t become a matter for the European court of justice.
The European Commission has on 20 November 2009 sent a reasoned opinion to the United Kingdom for incorrectly implementing EU rules prohibiting discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in employment and occupation. In the reasoned opinion sent to the United Kingdom, the Commission pointed out that:
there is no clear ban on ‘instruction to discriminate’ in national law and no clear appeals procedure in the case of disabled people;
exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive.
Disclaimer: I’m wading into unfamiliar waters with this story (UK and EU law and government-church questions). As always, I rely on our readers to correct any mistakes I may make. Thank you.According to the Guardian,
The claim, set out in two reasoned opinions sent to the government last month, includes a warning that the law that applies to faith-based organisations, schools and adoption agencies allows too much scope for discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. …Last month, the long-awaited equality bill was included in the Queen’s speech for a second year and was presumed to be compliant with EU requirements. News of the warning from the commission means the UK is the only European country to have failed to implement two key EU directives on discrimination.
“This directive was agreed unanimously by all EU countries in 2002 but, to be effective, it needs to be fully and correctly transposed into national law,” said Vladimir Spidla, EU commissioner for equal opportunities. “We call on the UK government to make the necessary changes to its gender equality legislation as soon as possible so as to fully comply with the EU rules.”
The government has two months to respond. A spokesman for the government’s Equalities Office said: “We take our European legal obligations seriously. We will be studying the reasoned opinions carefully and will reply to the commission in the new year. The equality bill will be continuing its progress through parliament during the fifth session.”
The criticism is likely to embarrass the government. The bill, which replaces nine existing laws and more than 100 other measures, was intended to be consolidate all legislation on equality.
Among the “characteristics” to be protected against discrimination by the legislation are “sexual orientation” and “gender reassignment”. This is no less controversial among conservative religionists in the UK than it is in the USA. Here, for example, is a gripe from The Christian Institute:
The Bill…contains measures which threaten religious liberty on several fronts. …The Bill contains measures to narrow religious liberty protections in the area of employment by religious organisations. According to the Government the measures may mean, for example, that a church must be willing to employ a practising homosexual as a youth worker. The Bill also contains an ‘equality duty’ which means all public bodies, including schools and the police, will be under a legal obligation to push homosexual and transsexual rights.
Different realm, same ole malarkey. In contrast to the claims of the radical conservatives, the Cutting Edge Consortium, “a unique coalition of faith-based and non-religious social justice organisations, civic groups, trades unions and professional associations” is concerned that the government not further broaden religious exemptions. As I understand it, both the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church support the broadening of exemptions to the discrimination laws.
Btw, I just want to say how awesomely user-friendly Parliament‘s website is. I was able to immediately find the text of the bill and summaries, sign up for e-mail notifications of bill progress, see a diagram of the bill’s status and locate a page from which to watch the House of Lords debate on Tuesday. Anyone who has tried to navigate the various ill-coordinated US Congressional sites will swoon.
13 Comments
The Malarkians are losing in Britain….
In case it gets overlooked, there’s a current story in the British press that vividly demonstrates a far bigger difference between the US and the UK than the story of this national equality bill [and despite random gay bashings/murders there, the continued denial of the word "marriage," and those dragging their feet against the bill].
Via Towleroad, the picture below is not from some campy or homophobic YouTube satire but was taken of OUT gay British Trooper SITTING ON HIS PINK ZAC EFRON QUILT IN THE MIDDLE OF AFGHANISTAN surrounded by his accepting mates.
In addition, earlier this year, the UK equivalent of US Joint Chiefs of Staff head Gen. Mike “out gay soldiers could hurt military families” Mullen was a guest speaker at a UK LGBT conference, and members of each of their branches march in their annual Gay Pride parade IN UNIFORM!
Some think the idea of a soldier sleeping under any pink quilt, let alone a pink Zac Efron quilt, in the middle of a combat zone is ludicrous, but when you stop to think that no gay American servicemember doing this anywhere could long survive regardless of the many random stories of individual acceptance from gay servicemembers relatively out to their peers [while some 65,000 still serve in silence] the “joke” is not on Trooper Rakestrow but on the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.
http://www.towleroad.com/2009/…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…
I have to go here Michael
That is just sooooooo campy, so gay, and so cool.
My question is would this be…the European equivalent to the Omnibus Bill (which would basically include sexual orientation discrimination into the 1964 Civil Rights Act) that we haven’t discussed, oh, in quite awhile?
omnibus bill?not exactly. you can check out the bill itself here. something to remember about this bill is what it is doing in large part is repealing all the various previous laws and repackaging them in one place and harmonizing them. although there are to be some additions to meet EU standards, it isn’t really providing a huge new package of rights and protections that weren’t already there to some degree (i think). remember, the uk doesn’t need to dismantle a dadt law, and while they don’t allow same-sex marriage, they do have full civil partnerships, so there is nothing akin to a doma to defeat.
Wow! Some of the provisions of this proposed bill are awesome!
No I get thatbut this seems as though it’s a very very sweeping nondiscrimination ordinance that is (as you imply) filling some of the gaps.
For example, I have read that in white/racial minority gay relationships, both the racial minority and the “white” person have been subjected to racial as well as sexual orientation discrimination. This bill would actually cover both partners, hypothetically.
it does seem to go places that american law doesn’t, i agree. on the other side of things, i’ll be watching to see if they allow public employees to use religion as an excuse to not serve gay or trans people.
btw, i thought it was interesting that the bill itself included examples. interesting idea. that must help the judiciary tremendously if they’re faced later with questions about the intent of the law.
I wonderI could never imagine a federal law this sweeping being passed but I do wonder if even some local and perhaps even state civil rights ordinances are as sweeping as this.
Actually…
…I’ve read that Great Britain does still have a law on the books defining “marriage” as between a man and a woman.
Limited Legislation
There’s already a case going through the British court system, brought by the now-infamous Lillian Ladele against Islington Borough Council, which is dealing with that. Ladele wanted to be excused from performing Civil Partnership ceremonies, which she considers to be against her religion. Ladele won the first round, but her victory was overturned on appeal and it looks likely that the appeal’s ruling will be confirmed; when last I heard, the third ruling was expected to be issued some time this month but I don’t have a precise date – Uganda and the Single Equality Bill (1EB) have been kinda grabbing the headlines recently.
The 1EB does expand UK discrimination law to include protections for trans persons, however it only covers trans persons who intend to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment surgery. This excludes any trans people who don’t fit into that very narrow definition. For example, I don’t have the option of GRS because I’d need a colovaginoplasty, which isn’t an option due to IBS. Because GRS isn’t an option for me, I’m not covered as a trans person. However because I’m socially and physically male, I’m able to pass myself off as a gay guy – and gay men are covered. In addition the 1EB only protects males and females from gender discrimination, excluding people who are genderqueer &/or intersex.
Also, as noted by Peter Tatchell in his Guardian article:
rigth, but…considering their relationship recognition laws are done at the national and not the local level like in the usa, the legal rights being withheld from couples with civil partnerships are almost nil. whereas, of course, some of the most important rights are federal here and still being withheld from married gays like me.
tavdy! i was hoping you’d stop by!i’m also glad you commented on the trans aspect of the bill, because i’d seen the wording only having to do with being post-op, and wondered if i’d missed something. what is the rationale being offered for, in essence, allowing people to be punished if they don’t have grs? seems very strange to me. is this one of the deficiencies in the bill that the e.c. is pointing to?
DADT is an interesting case…The US military is exempt from a lot of US human rights legislation including parts of the US constitution, however as agencies of state governments most European militaries are subject to the European Convention on Human Rights; the few exemptions are the militaries of states like the Vatican City or Belarus, which aren’t subject to the Convention.
It was because of this that the UK’s ban on gays in the military was able to be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights nine years ago. Somewhat annoyingly, the ruling hasn’t been enforced elsewhere in Europe: Russia has restrictions on gays in the military, while Greece, Serbia and Turkey all have bans. I don’t know of any EU states other than Greece which have a ban, although the situation in Italy is somewhat insulting – there’s no ban, but gays can get a medical exemption!
GRS & stuff…TBH I’m only commenting on what I’ve read of the bill itself. The trans rights movement is a decade behind its American counterpart. I don’t think it’s one of the deficiencies that the EU is pointing to though. To my knowledge the EU has no laws relating to the trans community at all, and the EU’s rebuke was based on existing EU directives.
EU laws don’t automatically become law in all 27 (soon to be 28) states; instead they have to be passed by the legislatures of each state. In most cases it’s a simple case of rubber-stamping the legislation, since it’s already available in that country’s language (all EU legislation is available in each of the 23 official languages) so there’s a simple case of editing it to make sure it fits with how that state’s government works.
However the UK’s semi-federal structure slows down the process. The UK has no official language (English is an official language of the EU because it’s the co-official language of Eire) and there are several languages used in British legislation which aren’t used by the EU, so EU directives sometimes have to be translated before they can be debated and made law here. For example, EU legislation relating to agriculture falls within the competencies of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh & Northern Irish Assemblies, so before debate it is translated into Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Scots and Ulster Scots. That delays the process in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
England doesn’t yet have a Witenagemot, so the delays in England are purely due to the procedures that happen inside Wesminster Palace. The relationship between the Lords and Commons means that controversial legislation can take a longer time to be passed than you’d normally expect – in essence, you add an extra year. This is why the UK is seen to be “dragging its heels”, and why controversial legislation is almost always passed during the latter half of a 5-year parliament.
The worst-case scenario right now would be that the Lords delay the 1EB and prevent it from being passed before the general election next year. If that happens you can probably kiss the trans protections goodbye, as the Tories are expected to take power.