Croydon Area Gay Society (70 members) has represented gay men and lesbians, Christians and others in and around the London Borough of Croydon for over 30 years. It began as a primarily political organisation though its main role is social.

Perspective

We contribute a distinctive perspective.

Christian and non-Christian members of the Society have celebrated the Christian acceptance of the same-sex relationships in a series of re-enactments in 2003-2004. We did this in a project in which we worked with many churches and Christian organisations.
Our point was that attitudes that are referred to as ‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’ are sometimes very far from what they seem. There is a range of conservative, traditional, Christian attitudes to same-sex partnerships.

The acceptance of same-sex relationships was the traditional position of the much of Church until the 1600s, when social attitudes to homosexuality changed markedly and the Church soon followed.

We re-enacted the ‘adelphopoiesis’ ceremonies of the Greek Orthodox Church which was celebrated until it was ‘banned’ in 1994, although other branches of the Church continue to celebrate it.

We also re-enacted the Roman Catholic ‘ordo ad fratres faciendum’ which had been lost until early last century.

A Range of Christian opinion

Our perspective is that the teaching and practice of the Church over 1500 years was, arguably, to accept and bless same-sex partnerships.

The Croydon Area Gay society does not hold an opinion on theological issues, but we do point out that there is A RANGE OF sincere, devout, traditional, conservative Christian opinion on this point.

It is not simply the anti-gay position of those who feel the need to shout the loudest.

So we believe that those who follow traditional, biblical teaching on homosexuality must be respected as they respect the sincere beliefs of those who disagree.
We would also note that, as law-abiding citizens we have had to act against our consciences from time to time. We accept this as a necessary part of living within a society that has laws. It will always be so, however hard we try to get on with others.

If we feel strongly enough to follow our consciences in breach of the law, then we, like everyone else, must be prepared to endure legal sanctions, however unjust.

Accordingly we feel great sympathy with those who protest that they would have to act against their consciences if they were required to follow a particular clause or principle – particularly when they, too, feel that this is a matter of religious freedom. We respect their sincerity however strongly we may disagree with them.

We ask that the government will exercise compassion to those of conflicting persuasion who will be offended by these Regulations, but we ask that the government will, nevertheless, strive to make the Regulations as good, just and equitable as it possibly can.

Q1 Do you agree that the new sexual orientation regulations should apply to goods facilities and services?

Yes.

If the law is to recognise the right of LGB citizens to equal treatment it must provide, in essence, the same rights and duties to LGBT people as it does to all other minorities: black and minority ethnic people, or religious people. In principle, left-handed people, homophobic people and all others should be treated by the same principles.

We are sadly aware that there are those who seek to impose so called ‘Christian’ values by acting against lesbian, gay and bisexual people. This is clearly unjust, unless lesbian, gay and bisexual Christians are allowed to be equally nasty to these self-styled ‘Christians’. This would be a very unpleasant society. It is only sensible that the Regulations require all parties to respect the others’ differences, without discrimination or harming others.

For instance, the story of Tom Forrest, who barred gay couples from his guest house, provoked anger. It was once suggested that a large number of gay couples might book B&B accommodation for themselves and a couple of kids. A half an hour before taking up the accommodation they could then phone and establish that the guest house banned gay couples. The couple would then have to have no choice but to cancel their booking. However, it would clearly be unreasonable to target Mr Forrest with a summer’s worth of unpaid for bookings. By the same token it is unreasonable for Mr Forrest to target LGB customers. The Regulations should define that the discriminatory behaviour of Mr Forrest, and discriminatory behaviour against him is acceptable.

Q2 Should the concept of goods, facilities and services have the same scope as in other equality enactments, in particular Part 2 of the Equality Act 2006?

No.

The effect of prolonged or intense discrimination against gay people from their schools, their churches or their communities causes poor performance, ill health, depression, suicide and other ills. These results are no less damaging when caused by prejudice against sexual orientation than they are when caused by prejudice on other grounds.

However, Part 2 of the Equality Act 2006, referred to in the question, contains exemptions on the grounds of religion or belief. These principles must apply equally. So the right of one citizen to practice his or her religion or belief this does not extend to restricting the rights of another citizen, or to damaging another citizen. One’s rights normally stop at the point where they contravene the rights of others, and this is so in this case. So exemptions for religion or belief in Part 2 of the Equality Act 2006 cannot be extended to apply to sexual orientation.

To extend these exemptions to apply to sexual orientation would increase prejudice against LGB people, and support such prejudice.

This is particularly acute in the case of sexual orientation and religion. Extremists in any religion, denomination or sect are likely to have strong attitudes.

• For instance, the Koran, which is respected by mainstream Islam, forbids the execution of gay people, while Sharia law, which is relatively extreme, specifies that gay men should be killed and how it should be done.

• Similarly, on page one we referred to the traditional Christian practice of blessing same sex partnerships, but the Vatican has recently required that Roman Catholics must break the law, if necessary, to resist civil partnerships.

In both instances the actions advocated by sincere extremists undermine the rights Muslims to life and Roman Catholics to a civil partnership.

So we believe that exemptions can be made for religion or belief, only in so far as they DO NOT infringe the rights of lesbian, gay or bisexual people.

In practice, this means that someone who provides services commercially may openly seek to restrict those services to his own religious group. However it is not acceptable for him to restrict his services to the members of that religious group who also hold anti-LGB attitudes.

When an organisation is paid from public funds to provide a service, there can be no question of it acting prejudicially against its staff, volunteers or clients, on religious grounds. The recent sacking of a gay Roman Catholic employee by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Scotland illustrates how easily the application of ‘religious grounds’ can cross over into law breaking.

It is also important to remember that it is not sufficient to be able to take legal action against one’s employer, when that employer represents the authority and the funds of one’s religion. The victim will be torn between two priorities: the need for compensation and their driving desire to promote their religion, which was the reason they sought employment in its service.

We, in the Croydon Area Gay Society, pointed out to the Scrutiny Committee that the earlier Regulations on Equal Employment had been altered to express in relatively ambiguous terms the ban on discrimination against gay people in religious employment. We wrote that this ambiguity would be used by religious employers to sack devout employees and should be changed back. The Scrutiny Committee agreed, but Parliament did not accept the advice of the Scrutiny Committee. As a result several devout employees have been sacked from by religious employers on grounds of sexual orientation and a supposed exemption for religious employers.

For this reason we emphasise again that the Regulations need express very clearly that there is no exemption on religious grounds.

So far, we understand, none of the sacked employees has been willing or able to pursue the legal action against the employer, when that was their right and their only means of redress. The lack of clarity (not the fault of the DTI) has merely served to promote unjust discrimination against LGB people. The new regulations must not make the same mistake. They must be simple, clear and explicit. They must explain that there is no exemption on religious grounds.

Q3 Do you agree that we should provide an exemption from the prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination so that services to meet a specific and justified need can be provided separately to different groups on the basis of their sexual orientation? What specific activities would such an exception apply to?

Yes, when the purpose is justified.

In Croydon we have just introduced a confidential reporting service, separate from the police, for intelligence and crime reporting for men seeking sex in our cruising areas. This group is known to report to the police very little, for many deep-seated reasons. As a result incidents can build up in a cruising ground until a very serious assault or killing occurs and the police have been unable to take preventative action. At the same time they do not have the witness statements they need to investigate the incident. This is an example of a service that needs to be targeted discreetly and exclusively to one group, however much we dislike their activities, to allow the police to do their job.

Gay youth organisations, specifically lesbian or gay medical services, and services for same-sex parents provide a service level more equal level to that received by heterosexual people where it is needed more. Gay youngsters need to know that they are ‘not the only one’ and to have gay friends, for their own psychological well being. Patients often withhold their sexuality from their GPs, for good reason, and are given the wrong advice or diagnosis as a result. Same-sex parents will meet situations and need skills that heterosexual parents will not. In each of these cases the need is different or greater, and the benefits are greater than they are for heterosexual clients.

Another local example: in the Surrey and London Association of Gay Organisations, to which CAGS is affiliated, we has seen the strong need and extra risks of young gay men with learning difficulties. These young men need to meet, to address common problems and to make gay friends. Without this very specific provision, they can more easily be easily taken advantage of, and they sometimes take great risks involving unsafe sex with strangers.

This is not to argue for benefits above the norm, but to recognise that some subgroups need different service (recognising and addressing different needs) and higher levels of service in specific areas to achieve equal benefit.

The regulations must specify with great clarity that these exemptions must not be allowed to discriminate against people of a particular sexual orientation.

At the same time, those facilities of a specifically religious ethos, gay bars or clubs and others, will be able to refuse entry to those who may undermine the ethos of the establishment or cause trouble. Currently the gay Muslim group Imaan meets with non-Muslim supporters, but non-Muslims are asked to leave, so that there is a Muslim spiritual community (Ummah) in the latter part of the meeting. This is acceptable because it maintains the ethos of the group without discriminating unduly against non-believers.

There is a notable lack of LGBT social or support groups in schools, so it would be defensible and desirable for these to be provided, ideally by staff who are openly LGBT people.

The underlying principle is that it must be clear which group a facility is designed to serve. This must be defined without discrimination against another (usually minority) group. Gay friendly atmosphere is what the gay minority seeks for recreation. Christian ethos has similar value for Christians. The Muslim Ummah serves this purpose in Islam.

It would be unacceptable to advertise a gay club but deny access to Christians or non-Christians, Muslims or non-Muslims. It would be wrong to advertise a Muslim club and eject gay Muslims, or to form an LGBT group, but reject gay parents or gay Conservatives.

It is where two criteria are used to define clientele that the regulations need to be clear. One criterion is often used to discriminate for or against a group that is already targeted. A Christian writers’ retreat, gay Christian holiday, a Croydon beekeepers’ shop should pose no problem. A facility that excludes a minority group often does.

Where public funds are involved, much greater scrutiny is needed.

Q4 Do you agree that premises should be covered by the sexual orientation regulations?

Yes

It is important to prohibit advertising rented accommodation but exclude a minority that is discriminated against. The ethos of a conference centre may not be to the liking of those who decide to rent it, but it is up to them to respect the facility that they pay for.

It is acceptable to advertise a preference for a gay-friendly lodger, so long as the Regulations prohibit discrimination on the grounds of the applicant’s sexual orientation. Because of the risk of persecution or physical assault in one’s home, a landlord is already allowed retain discretion not to accept a lodger who seems to pose a threat to them.

Our Christian members will agree that it is unacceptable to deny use of premises to people on the grounds of sexual orientation. ‘Religious’ exemptions in the use of premises have been a means of implementing harmful prejudice in the past. It is not acceptable to allow exemptions on the grounds of ‘conscience’ for the reasons given on page two. As law-abiding men and women, we often have to weigh our consciences against the law. If we put our conscience above the law then we have to be prepared to face legal sanctions. All citizens in a shared democracy face the same choice.

Q5 Do you agree that an exemption should be provided for selling or letting of private dwellings as described in this consultation paper?

To quote from the ‘Schools OUT!’ submission:
Insofar as this exemption is common to all anti-discrimination law, yes. It will be important however that the exemption is tightly drafted so as to prevent abuse by prejudiced landlords working to deny LGB people the right to rent space. It should not be permissible for (say) prejudiced owners of small hotels, B&B establishments (etc.) to make superficial alterations to the arrangement of their premises or means of functioning in order to avoid their obligation not to discriminate, and the drafting of the regulation should take this possibility into account.

Q6 Do you agree that private members clubs should be included in the sexual orientation regulations?

Yes.

Q7 What is your view on our proposal that both private members’ clubs and associations should be permitted to include having a particular sexual orientation as a membership criterion, but where this criterion is explicitly connected to the purpose for which the club has been established?

As before, the issue is whether the purpose of the group or club justifies the exclusion. If the restriction is against a minority group that is commonly discriminated against, then it should not be overridden by the Regulations. This is because a group majority ethos remains even if a minority is admitted. This does not undermine the majority. If the purpose of the group is to encourage social support amongst a minority, then it would be reasonable to restrict access to those who do not belong to that majority. But, to be credible, this must be proportionate not absolute.

A Roman Catholic group might seek exemption on the grounds that the catechism, in recent centuries, has decried homosexuality. However, a devout Roman Catholic may maintain that the truth, in the Roman Catholic Church, is what is revealed by the Holy Spirit to the (Roman Catholic) Church as a whole. Many edicts from the Vatican on sexual matters are not accepted by sincere and devout Roman Catholics today, and the Vatican’s attitude to homosexuality is one of them. So according the principle described earlier defining the ethos of a religious group as Roman Catholic does not justify excluding devout Roman Catholics on some ground not central to or defined by Roman Catholicism.

Moslem attitudes to homosexuality vary to extremes in different branches of Islam. The Koran does not permit the killing of homosexuals, yet Sharia law specifies the death penalty and how it is carried out. Similarly many devout and sincere Moslems do not see a conflict on sexuality either, so it would be just to exclude LGB Muslims on the grounds of their sexuality.

This needs to be defined clearly in the Regulations. Past experience suggests that where Regulations are not extremely clear, religious bodies will declare that they have exemption and will act is if they had. It is not reasonable to require someone already persecuted in their own personal faith, to take legal action against the religious body when they support it fervently. The requirement to take action against one’s religious group simply encourages the offending group to repeat the discrimination. And they do. Sadly, the Regulations need to be expressed very simply and clearly, with penalties for transgressors.

Our own Society and societies of which we know define their membership as open to those who follow the aims of the Society. While this could mean that we were suddenly swamped by saboteurs, who did not follow the Society’s aims, but wanted to close the Society or misuse the funds, this level of protection has been adequate so far. Strongly anti-gay religious groups could possibly be threatened by LGB people joining them, but it is very much less likely. So we would argue that they have no need to be allowed to discriminate by preventing membership by LGB people.

Q8 Do you agree that the new sexual orientation regulations should apply to public functions as well as to goods, facilities and services? Do you think that any specific additional exceptions might be needed from a prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination in the exercise of public functions?

The consultation paper makes limited exemptions for Parliament, Secret Services and so on. This list applies in other areas of anti-discrimination law and there is no justification for extending it, as an exception, in these Regulations.

Apart from these, it is clear that when public money is being spent, particularly when it is spent by a religious body to administer services to the public then it may not discriminate on grounds of sexuality. This will need to be spelled out with great simplicity and clarity in the Regulations as it has not been in the past.

The local Baptist Church in Purley has long had plans to buy more premises and extend its services ‘to the community’ by fulfilling roles delegated to it by the Council. However, it was far from happy to allow it’s premises to be hired for the re-enactment of the Church blessings of same-sex couples, referred to at the beginning of this submission; it has enthusiastically publicised the Alpha Course, known amongst LGB people for its irrational and homophobic teaching; and it supported the Baptist Union when it campaigned to retain Section 28. Accordingly, when local uniformed police use it as a base for public contact, or when it advertises it youth club, it conveys its attitude of reaching out to all, excluding LGB people. It’s youth club would not be inviting to young LGB (or questioning) kids, and the present writer feels very uncomfortable in relating to the police through this premises.

Q9 Do you agree that schools should be covered by the sexual orientation regulations?

Yes: see the answer to Q 11.

Q10 Are there any circumstances in which you consider that schools, or a part of the schools sector, should be exempted from the regulations?

No: see the answer to Q 10.

Q11 Are there any areas of activity for schools for which you consider special provision needs to be made?

Yes: In the case of a religious teacher or faith schools, we have, all too often found that hatred of gay, lesbian and bisexual people as been taught, with passion, in the classroom. When a school’s teaching on Sex Education, HIV and AIDS Education and Moral Education were brought under the express control of school governors, teachers were presented with the material that could be taught, and were told that this, and nothing else was permitted to be taught in a prepared lesson, in answer to questions or in any circumstances. Teachers who were unhappy to teach the material were allowed to decline to do so, and those lessons were delegated to other teachers.

This, or similar special provision, will need to be made here. It must be defined with great clearly in the Regulations or it will not be adhered to.

A faith school that teaches (or allows to be taught) that homosexuality is unnatural or wrong, cannot prevent the bullying of LGB pupils with sincerity or success. In Croydon we are currently working to encourage schools to implement effective policies on LGB bullying, and adoption of LGB bullying policies, which are still very uncommon, needs to be required of all schools.

The same applies to non faith schools.

To quote the Schools OUT submission:

The consequences of homophobia (and transphobia) for LGBT pupils and students are recognised in the research literature as including truancy and school refusal, under-performance at school, increased risk of mental impairment, low self esteem which is linked to more risky sexual behaviour and risk of self-harm, included attempted and successful suicide.

To teach disdain for LGB pupils is just as damaging as teaching racist attitudes about black pupils. To fail to address the issues of homophobia and of bullying in schools is to risk compromising the life chances of LGB pupils. It is arguable that any school that does not accept this proposition cannot be given public funding.

The Croydon Area Gay Society endorses the more detailed submission of Schools OUT on questions 9, 10 and 11.

Q12 Do you consider that an exemption should be provided from the regulations for some of the activities of religious organisations?

A Church that specifically rejects LGB members or adherents (including children) then it is up to the adults who attend to decide how they conduct themselves and how they treat each other.

A Church that does not specifically reject LGB members or adherents (including children) must be subject to the same Regulations as everyone else.

Q13 Do you agree that these exemptions should be restricted to activities that are primarily doctrinal? Are there any other activities that you consider should be covered by an exemption, what are they and why do you consider they need to be exempted?

A Church should be free to organise the conduct of worship in all its aspects as it sees fit. However the government needs to make it clear what is meant by ‘doctrinal’ matters. Unless it does so we are not able to respond adequately to this question.

It must be clear that there can be no ‘mission creep’ under cover of these clauses. What happens in a Church, with a consenting congregation, must not be allowed to creep into faith hospitals with or without the consent of patients, and it must not be allowed to creep into faith school assemblies, with or without the consent of parents. This will need to be made very explicit in the Regulations. This is an issue of changing practices that have continued over very many decades, since before religious schools were brought under the regulation of the state.

The only exception to the requirement that religious bodies must provide equally, might be when such a body has a clearly defined exception for LGB people in its Aims or Constitution that has existed (say) five years before the enactment of these Regulations.

The understanding of this aspect of equality is already established in law. The Race Relations Act prevents discrimination on the grounds of religious doctrine. This is important as many Christians have believed the doctrinal justification of slavery, and, have much more recently taught the inferiority of black races as a doctrine. The principle of equality requires that LGB people are treated no more or less equally than other minorities who are discriminated against. This includes the ethnic minorities covered by the Race Relations Act.

It follows that there must be no exemptions on doctrinal grounds that would allow discrimination against LGB people.

The preaching and teaching of the hatred of LGB people and the incitement to attack, burn, maim or kill has had preceded an upswell of horrendous and fatal attacks across the world in recent years. The law against incitement in this country has proved ineffective and new legislation is proposed to address the present situation. It would be a hideous anomaly if LGB people were, at last, to receive legal protection from these incitements, while a special exemption is introduced for teachers to teach the same doctrines to kids in our schools.

Any such exemption and any lack of clarity on this point will give credence to the claim – already made on the grounds of the Equal Employment regulations – that religious organisations are exempt from the law of the land as it applies to everyone else, and are allowed to preach and practice discrimination or hatred specifically against LGB people.

If an teacher is found teaching hatred of gay people, this needs to be dealt with through the criminal law. The same applies to any one who seeks to do this whether on grounds of doctrine or not.

Q14 Do you agree that exceptions should be provided for charities that provide services specifically to people because of / according to their sexual orientation?

On the principle of equality, the answer to this question must be the same as that given on religious exemptions: the primary charitable aim of the society may provide support for a specific disadvantaged group and the services of the charity may be to compensate for that disadvantage. However this cannot be allowed to encompass discrimination against another group if that too is implied in other aims. If the charity supports (e.g.) the wives of dead soldiers, it cannot then discriminate by excluding a subgroup of those wives.

Q15 Do you agree that the sexual orientation regulations should include direct and indirect discrimination as well as victimisation? Are there any particular considerations or situations that should be taken into account in how such provisions are drafted?

Yes.

We agree that victimisation, discriminatory practice and indirect discrimination should all be covered by the Regulations.

Five forms of discrimination also need to be covered.

The first is where someone is denied the education, training or higher educational qualification that they seek on the grounds of their sexual orientation. It is critical that an individual is able to excel in the areas in which he or she is best able. In the past this ploy has been used to prevent someone from gaining the qualifications they seek, and their lack of the crucial qualifications prevents them from entering the sphere of work in which they would have excelled.

Secondly, many people suffer discrimination, even violence, on the grounds of their presumed sexual orientation. The Regulations need to take into account the equal effect of targeting someone as if they were lesbian, gay or bisexual. Examples of this problem are very diverse and numerous, but the discrimination, disadvantage, psychological damage attacks, violence, and killings are every bit as evil.

Thirdly, discriminatory instructions or documents covering discriminatory religious doctrine often have a critical importance in establishing the ethos of organisations and working environments. As the Regulations stand no consideration is given to such oral or written material. They must be prohibited by the Regulations. But also the Regulations should clarify that the law of the land takes precedence over discriminatory verbal material in this country, and that such material may not be used in a way that suggests otherwise.

Fourthly, the failure to consider the existence of LGB people, their needs, or the intentional but equivalent ignoring of LGB people must to be included, as a form of discrimination, in the Regulations. This might be included in a definition of discrimination.

A school child who hears nothing about homosexual or bisexual orientation throughout their school career, whose fiction includes no gay characters, whose history lessons include no LGB figures, whose social and citizenship training ignores same sex relationships and where no gay youth provision is ever mentioned will feel increasingly alienated from the school and its ethos, with consequent effects upon their educational achievement.

Working environments seldom need to refer to issues of sexuality, but when they refer only to husbands, wives and girl friends (for males) or boyfriends (for females) a similarly hostile environment grows up, which can similarly depress the individual’s performance at work, and particularly the team work of departments.

Fifth is discrimination by association. This includes the child who is denied a place at a school because the child’s parents are gay. It also covers the targeting the pupil who befriends or tries to support a victim of discrimination. The Regulations need to include this explicitly.

Q16 Do you agree that discriminatory practice should be included in the scope of the sexual orientation regulations?

The Regulations should include unwritten policies that would be in breach of the law if they were written.

Although there was no ban on gay officers serving in the police force twenty five years ago, there was a strong tradition, reinforced orally, that this was unthinkable and that the judgement of any officer who disagreed was so compromised that his career would be fatally damaged.

After years of the effect of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1987 on schools, there is still a demonstrable fear of dealing with bullying of LGB pupils, and a real fear about what can be said in the class room.

In particular, it is still assumed that behaviour is acceptable in the case of a heterosexual pupil but that the same behaviour, or its equivalent, is not acceptable in the case of a gay pupil.

Recently am employee was being strongly pressured to transfer to another post in town very far away. He did an Internet search to look for gay services, venues and social life, in that town, by typing in the name of the town and the word ‘gay’.

The word ‘gay’ had been blocked as an unwritten corporate policy.

Q17 Do you agree that the discriminatory advertising should be included in the scope of the sexual orientation regulations?

Yes: balance needs to be applied as implied in the answers above. If a premises advertises (eg) many specialist heath services but avoids existing services for LGB people, this carries a discriminatory message. Conversely advertising LGB services should be in response to genuine need, not merely tokenism.

Similarly, premises sometimes use religious posters and slogans as if to declare themselves anti-gay, but without saying so. The use of the word ‘family’ is sometimes used as a defensive weapon, in the same way. While this in not a valid invocation of religion, and ‘family’ has two opposite meanings in this context, this practice can also be used to intimidate LGB people while preserving the prejudice of the service provider. Where a commercial, social or other body wishes to serve only non LGB people, it needs to say so without circumlocution, and, in saying so, must be able to establish clearly whether it is within the Regulations.

Q18 Do you agree that instructions to discriminate should be covered by the sexual orientation regulations?

Yes.

This point has been made in more detail in the answer to Question 5 point 3. The need has been made increasingly clear as the Vatican has instructed Roman Catholic politicians how they MUST vote on certain issues, how other civil servants and employees must break the law, if necessary, to oppose civil partnerships, and how others must oppose the parenting of children with gay parents.

It is not clear whether this would apply to songs. But the Buju Banton’s song “Boom Bye-bye” decrees that gays “haffi dead” (have to die). A maxim that he has attempted to apply in the attack on a Jamaican gay man. Much energy has been expended to remove such songs from venues, suppliers and radio stations across the world – in very large measure because there is no adequate legislation to address this sort of instruction or incitement under UK law.

The effect of rap singers like Buju Banton is believed to be strong among the strongly Jamaican cultures in this country. Legislation or Regulation is badly needed to specify that this sort of incitement is prohibited and can be met with adequate penalties.

It would be ridiculously inconsistent with the rest of the legislation and Regulations to omit instructions to discriminate.

Q19 Do you agree that the validity of contracts should be covered by the sexual orientation Regulations?

Yes.

The Croydon Area Gay Society has referred in an earlier consultation to the case of a teacher who had received a conviction for gross indecency and was therefore unable to teach children. (The gross indecency offence was, until recently, prosecuted in an entirely discriminatory manner for gay sex only, and never for heterosexual sex.) When his conviction lapsed, the teacher’s Education Authority still refused to employ him in spite of the invalidity of his conviction. Eventually he was reduced to taking legal action against the Education Authority. The Education Authority removed the ban just in time to avoid a confrontation in court, but it delegated its recruitment to an agency. The agency merely applied the same illegal ban to the same teacher.

There clearly is a need to prevent this devious practice.

Q20 Do you agree that the enforcement provisions for the sexual orientation provisions should match those for other equality enactments?

Yes

As a principle of equality the enforcement provisions should apply equally.

However there may be exceptions. As indicated under Question 18, there is already strong legislation against incitement to racial hatred, but when the issue was researched by expert lawyers four or five years ago, even incitement to murder gay men in rap lyrics was not clearly covered in legislation, and for this reason the police were unable to act against the offenders.

It may be that in order to gain equality in the case of some unacceptable behaviour, the measure of enforcement to measure against may be in legislation other than the obvious equality Acts. This may well apply in the case of incitement to murder, or incitement to murder expressed in rap lyrics.

As gay men and lesbians our members are very well aware that equality will only be achieved in legislation if the Regulations and enforcement apply equally across ALL strands. It will fail, as it did on the Equality in Employment Regulations, if fuzzy wording is introduced, to appear to allow religious people exemptions on the grounds of faith, when no corresponding exemption is allowed for LGB people.

Q. 21 Do you have any comments on the Government’s plans for how the sexual orientation regulations will be enforced and supported by the CEHR?

We endorse the considered points made, in response to this question, by the Trades Union Congress and by Schools OUT.