1. Laws covering sexual activity
| Same-gender sex: |
|---|
| males | Legal |
females | Legal |
|---|
| Age of consent: |
|---|
| males | 16 |
females | 16 |
|---|
| straight | 16 |
|---|
The position up to 1967
Prior to 1967 all male homosexual conduct was illegal, such conduct being categorised either as "buggery" (i.e., anal intercourse) or as "gross indecency between men" (fellatio or mutual masturbation).
The 1967 Sexual Offences Act brought about the partial decriminalisation of male homosexual behaviour in England and Wales: "the men had to be over 21, fully consenting, and in complete privacy. Section 1 (2) specifies that, "where there are more than two persons present (including a female) the behaviour is not "in private" and that a lavatory accessible to the public is not a private place. Consensual homosexual behaviour between members of the Armed Forces or between members of the crew of the UK merchant ships remained criminal. Furthermore, a man who "procures" another male for an "act of buggery" or for gross indecency with a third party commits a crime, even though the acts for in question may be between consenting adults and not in themselves offences."
Scotland
The 1967 Sexual Offences Act did not apply in Scotland "and male homosexual conduct remained illegal until the passing of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, although in practice prosecutions for private behaviour between consenting adults had long since ceased."
Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
"Following a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights (Dudgeon v. UK, 1981) the provisions [of the 1967 Sexual Offences Act] were extended to Northern Ireland in 1982, to the Channel Islands in 1990, [actually, to the Bailiwick of Guernsey in 1983, and to Jersey in 1990] and to the Isle of Man in 1992".
(Donald J.West and Andrea Woelke - "Socio-legal Control of Homosexuality")
The provisions which set out some of the areas of discrimination are as follows:
Privacy: S. 1(2) Sexual Offences Act 1967 [England and Wales]; s. 80 (2) Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980; Art. 3 (2) Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982; s. 10 Sexual Offences Act 1992 (Isle of Man); Art. 116A (2) Criminal Offences Ordinance (Gibraltar); s. 1 (2) Sexual Offences (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1983; Art. 1 (2) (Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 1990.
Procuring: s. 4 Sexual Offences Act 1967, s. 13 Sexual Offences Act 1956 (England & Wales); s. 80 (9) Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980; s. 11 Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, Art. 3, 7 (2) Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (Northern Ireland); s. 9 (3) Sexual Offences Act 1992 (Isle of Man); s. 4 Sexual Offences (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1983, Art. 3 Loi rélative a la sodomie 1929 (Guernsey); "Procurement" of lawful homosexual acts is however not an offence in Gibraltar (s. 116A (1) (b) (ii) COO) and in Jersey (Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 1990).
(Graupner H. (1997))
2. Progress beyond the 1967 Sexual Offences Act
"Some of the stipulations of the 1967 Act have been relaxed by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The privacy conditions have remained unchanged, but the age prohibition on male homosexual contact was lowered to 18 (s.145) [see below] and homosexual behaviour in the Armed Forces [see below] or merchant ships was decriminalised, although it remained grounds for dismissal. In addition, the definition of rape [in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976,s.1], was extended to include non-consensual anal penetration of a person of either sex ."
Privacy case
In a recent case "seven men in Bolton ... were prosecuted and convicted of gross indecency for consenting sex in their own homes, on the basis that there were more than two people present. Three of the men were also convicted of consenting sex with the youngest man present, who was aged 17 and a half".
(Donald J.West and Andrea Woelke - "Socio-legal Control of Homosexuality")
22 January 1999: The High Court rejected the appeals of the Bolton 7, but reduced their sentences. (Stonewall media release 22 Jan 99)
In another privacy case one of a group of five men who were prosecuted challenged his conviction and the discriminatory law under the European Convention on Human Rights. (ILGA Euroletter 50, May 1997). On 31st July 2000 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that this law violated the European Convention on Human Rights - Court Press release; Text of judgment
Other offences
Soliciting and importuning
It is an offence, carrying a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, "for a man persistently to solicit or importune in a public place for immoral purposes" (Sexual Offences Act 1956, s. 32)..." "In 1993, of 124 males sentenced for the offence, 119 were given fines or a conditional discharge and none was sent to prison."
Sadomasochism
"Sexual acts that involve any kind of physical injury are prohibited, since the consent of the victim is no defence to a charge of "assault causing actually bodily harm"." Based on case law, the position was re-asserted "by a House of Lords decision (R v Brown, 1993) that rejected by a 3 - 2 majority the appeal of a group of men who had been imprisoned for homosexual behaviour in private that had included consensual sadomasochistic acts [the "Operation Spanner case"].... Three of the defendants appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. The decision***, in February 1997, agreed that privacy had been breached, but announced that this was allowable under the principle of "margin of appreciation". This permits individual states to apply differing standards should they find it necessary for the protection of health or morals."
(Donald J.West and Andrea Woelke - "Socio-legal Control of Homosexuality")
26-Feb-97: Three British gays who were imprisoned for engaging in consensual sadomasochistic sex in their own homes lost their appeal to the European Court of Human Rights Feb. 19. Ruling in the infamous "Operation Spanner" case, the court said: "The state was unquestionably entitled to regulate the infliction of physical harm through the criminal law. The determination of the tolerable level of harm where the victim consented was primarily a matter for the state’s authorities." (RW/2691)
Gibraltar
At the end of 1992 the absolute prohibition of male homosexual acts in Gibraltar was replaced by legislation decriminalising consensual acts in private by men not less than 18 years old. The corresponding minimum "age of consent" for heterosexual acts is 16 years (ILGA Bulletin 1/93)
Age of consent laws are discriminatory also in Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and Gibraltar. Click here for a table giving the ages, maximum penalties, and legal references for all legal provisions in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.
The Present Law
"The present law fixes 16 [17 in Northern Ireland] as a minimum age for sexual contact (other than anal sex) with the opposite sex or with the same sex in the case of women, but 18 for sex between males.....If two men have sexual contact and at least one of them is under 18, both are guilty of either buggery or gross indecency."
Same-sex age of consent offences are treated much more seriously than equivalent heterosexual offences: "for consensual heterosexual intercourse with girls between 13 and 16 the tariff [a band, established by Appeal Court decisions, within which a sentence is supposed to fall] is a fine or a conditional discharge or imprisonment up to 1 year for older offenders. In practice, the male partner is usually given a caution or, if prosecuted at all, no more than a fine. For consensual sexual activity by a man with a boy of corresponding age, however, the tariff, which in this instance the courts tend to follow, is 3 - 5 years imprisonment."
(Donald J.West and Andrea Woelke - "Socio-legal Control of Homosexuality")
Prosecution statistics
Under the UK's age of consent legislation, the younger party to an age of consent offence also commits a crime. Prosecutions have been falling. Between 1988/89 there were approximately 40 prosecutions of 16/17 year-olds per annum, (leading to around 25 convictions per annum) for consensual acts in private. By 1996 these figures had fallen to 4 prosecutions and 1 conviction. (Parliamentary Question organised by Youthspeak)
Recent work on changing the law
In 1994 an attempt to equalise the male age of consent at 16 was defeated in the House of Commons by 27 votes.
In 1997, the European Commission on Human Rights decided by a majority of 14 to 4 that: "there is no objective and reasonable justification for the maintenance of a higher minimum age of consent to male homosexual, than to heterosexual, acts and that the application discloses discriminatory treatment in the exercise of the applicant’s right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention". (European Commission of Human Rights report on Application No.25186/94, Euan Sutherland against United Kingdom (1 July 1997), par.67).
In June 1998 the House of Commons voted by 336 votes 129 votes to to equalise the age of consent, but this vote was rejected in the House of Lords.
The government undertook to ensure that there was a further opportunity to equalise the age of consent during the 1998/99 legislative term. It introduced the The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill - "A Bill to Reduce the age at which certain sexual acts are lawful; to make it an offence for a person aged 18 or over to engage in sexual activity with or directed towards a person under that age if he is in a position of trust in relation to that person; and for connected purposes". This bill passed through all its stages in the Commons with overwhelming support by the start of March. However, in a vote in the House of Lords on 13 April it was again rejected by 222 to 146 votes.
The Government has made it clear that it will now invoke the Parliament Act to force the legislation through the House of Lords in 2000. However this may not be possible: for the Act to be invoked, an identical Bill must be approved by the House of Commons for two consecutive years, but - because of Scottish devolution - the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill cannot technically be reintroduced next year in exactly the same format. This could delay the reform until 2001 (EA News 17 April 1999)
23 July 1999: The government announced that the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill would be reintroduced in the next parliamentary session (which runs from Autumn 99 to Summer 2000) (Home Office Press Statement); 17 Nov 99: this is confirmed in the Queen's Speech, which outlines the goverment's legislative programme for the coming parliamentary year.
Guernsey
"The States of Guernsey (the Parliament of Guernsey) at their meeting on the 28th January, 1999, agreed in principle to lower the age of consent for male homosexual relations from 21 to 18 and directed the preparation of the necessary legislation to give effect to this decision. In due course a draft law will be presented to the States of Guernsey for approval." (Letter to Helmut Graupner from the Bailiff of Guernsey on 11.02.1999) |
2. Denial of Freedom of Association and Expression
Obscene Publications Act 1959
"Legal prohibitions on the sale, distribution, possession, importation and public display of sexually explicit materials are generally more restrictive in England than in most of Western Europe. This area of law is governed by the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which makes it an offence (ss 1,2) to publish anything the effect of which is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see, or hear it..... Juries have shown greater tolerance in recent years, but it is still the case that homosexual material is more likely to be affected than its heterosexual equivalents."
(Donald J.West and Andrea Woelke - "Socio-legal Control of Homosexuality")
Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988
"According to Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, it is illegal for local authorities to "intentionally promote homosexuality", publish material with the "intention of promoting homosexuality", or to promote the teaching in schools of "the acceptance of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
Section 28 singles out lesbian and gay lifestyles for legal disapproval and was introduced in a climate of hostile attacks by Conservative politicians, sections of the media and the moral right on the initiatives being taken by some local authorities during the late 1980’s to implement equal opportunities policies. It places local authorities in the unique position of having to consider whether the law requires them to discriminate against lesbians and gay men or associations.
While Section 28 may not actually prohibit any local authority practices, it has had the effect of encouraging widespread self-censorship by local authorities and extreme caution in, for example, giving funding to lesbian and gay organisations, or allowing premises to be used for plays, library exhibitions, meetings and youth groups. It has been used by some authorities as justification for discriminatory decisions, and has created a widespread perception that it prohibits discussion of homosexuality in schools."
(Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
BRITISH CUSTOMS SEIZES SAFE-SEX VIDEOS: "12-Jan-95: A tape of international safer-sex videos was seized and branded obscene by British Customs in late December en route to the organization Gay Men Fighting AIDS.The tape contained winning entries from the San Francisco Gay Safer Sex Video Awards, said the newspaper Capital Gay. (RW/1049)
6 June 1999: Following a speech by Jack Cunningham, the Cabinet Office Minister, to the annual dinner of the homosexual rights organisation Stonewall last week, it is now widely expected that the repeal of Section 28 will be announced in the Queen's Speech in the autumn. (Daily Telegraph)
29th October 1999: Scotland to repeal Section 28: "Wendy Alexander, Minister for Social Inclusion, Local Government and Housing today announced that repeal of Section 28 would be put before the Scottish Parliament in the Ethical Standards in Public Life Bill. If passed, Section 28 will no longer apply in Scotland by the end of the year 2000. (Outright Scotland Press Release)
October 30, 1999: Schools’ gay ban to be repealed
"The law banning councils and schools from promoting homosexuality is to be repealed, Downing Street indicated last night. Pressure on the Government to scrap Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act grew after the Scottish executive announced yesterday that the ban would be lifted north of the border next year. Ministers at Westminster are discussing whether to include the repeal of Section 28 in the Local Government Bill in the Queen’s Speech on November 17, or to introduce it as an amendment by a Labour backbencher. A Government spokesman said last night that ministers intended to repeal Section 28 "at the first opportunity or at a suitable opportunity". (London Times)
17th November 1999: repeal of Section 28 these in the included in the Queen's Speech. |
3. Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Vilification Legislation
There is no legislation in the UK which affords protection against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
"In Northern Ireland, the Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment (PAFT) guidelines introduced in January 1994 provide guidance to all public sector bodies on the appraisal of policies to ensure that they do not discriminate on various grounds, including sexual orientation. The PAFT guidelines have considerable symbolic significance, but limited legal standing."
"The peace agreement in Northern Ireland includes an "equality clause" which commits public and governmental bodies to promote equality of opportunity in relation to various forms of discrimination, including sexual orientation, and to the establishment of a Human Rights Commission. This will be the first time that an enforcement agency in the UK will have a duty to address discrimination on the grounds of homosexuality."
(Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
Stonewall has proposed a Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, which has been tabled in the House of Lords, but has little prospect of success in the forseeable future.
Anti-vilification laws and cases:
There are no laws which protect LGBT people from vilification.
|
4. Employment
Employment protection law and cases:
"Since there is no legal protection against discrimination in employment on the grounds of sexual orientation, employers are free to decide to discriminate against lesbians and gay men.
Under employment legislation relating to unfair dismissal, workers who are dismissed by an employer after more than two years employment can bring a complaint of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal...Either the employee or the employer can appeal against a tribunal decision to an Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), the decisions of which create legal precedents. EAT decisions have established as precedents that it can be reasonable for a lesbian or gay man to be dismissed because of public prejudice, the prejudice of other workers in the company or because their job requires them to work with children. Although many of the relevant cases date from a number of years ago, there are no recent judgements which supercede them."
(Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
BRITISH SPY AGENCY LIFTS GAY BAN: "04-Jun-97: Britain’s MI5 spy agency lifted its ban on homosexuals last week. In a communique sent to London’s The Pink Paper, the agency urged gays to apply during the present recruitment drive. At the same time, MI5 staff received a memo announcing that discrimination against homosexuals would no longer be tolerated.
For many years it [homosexuality] was not considered in the interests of national security because of the risk of blackmail," said Government Communications Headquarters Staff Federation Chairman Brian Moore. "That has all changed now and we think it is a very good and progressive policy." (RW/2792)
"Lesbian taunts ‘drove teacher from job’
A teacher was driven out of her job after a campaign of abuse about her sexuality by pupils, a tribunal heard. Science teacher Shirley Pearce, 51, claims she was forced to retire through ill-health after enduring six years of torment. It is alleged pupils at Mayfield Secondary School in Portsmouth, Hampshire, at which she had taught for more than 20 years, regularly called her "lesbian" both in class and out of school. Ms Pearce is claiming sex discrimination against the governors, alleging they did not take effective action to stop the abuse. The tribunal continues." (BBC ONLINE, March 16, 1999)
11 April 1999: See also Lesbian Social Work Boss Hounded Out of her Job
18 June 1999: See also: Taunted gay wins apology and cash
"Gay workers’ legal protection plea
Gay and lesbian workers need new laws to protect them from "severe harassment" and homophobic abuse, according to the Trades Union Congress. The union said lesbian and gay employees were being subject to "extreme levels of harassment" every day at work. They are being denied jobs, overlooked for promotion and even sacked because of their sexuality, it was claimed.
A survey of 400 gay and lesbian trade union members found that almost 50% had suffered harassment, verbal abuse or even dismissal.
Unfair treatment
The TUC said recent cases included a homosexual who was subjected to malicious gossip among colleagues, a lesbian sacked for kissing another woman at work, and a woman teacher who had to take early retirement after being harassed by pupils.
"Clearly gay and lesbian workers are being subjected to the kind of behaviour which is completely unacceptable in the modern workplace," said TUC general secretary John Monks. "What makes the situation worse is that the law can currently offer them no protection. Leaving work can often be the only way to escape the abuser."
The TUC is calling on the government to change the law so that discrimination on grounds of sexuality can be outlawed." (BBC News Friday, May 21, 1999)
Access to military:
Prior to the historic judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Sept 2000, the position was as follows:
"Although homosexual behaviour by military personnel has now been decriminalised, homosexuals are still banned from service in the armed forces since, on existing Ministry of Defence policies, a homosexual orientation is incompatible with military service. Over the period from January 1990 to May 1994, 260 servicemen and servicewomen were dismissed or administratively discharged on these grounds." (Donald J.West and Andrea Woelke - "Socio-legal Control of Homosexuality")
Stonewall, and Rank Outsiders (a group representing ex lesbian and gay military personnel) have now opened a separate legal attack: in 64 separate cases, individuals are suing the Ministry of Defence on the basis that the deeply intrusive and personal interviews to which lesbian and gay services personnel are subjected constitute sexual harassment. The Ministry's attempts to frustrate the cases by withholding secret files has been rejected by the Industrial Appeal Tribunal. Successful cases could lead to substantial awards for damages.
See: MoD fails to block gay challenge and Calum McLean says he was ‘treated like a dog’
"British Military Boots Gay Servicemembers
Sixty-five members of the British armed forces were ejected for being gay in 1998, The Pink Paper reported April 2. Forty-one were men and 24 were women. One was an officer. The majority served in the army." (RW #259/12 April 1999)
August 2, 1999: Sex-change soldiers can stay in Army: Soldiers who have sex-change operations will be allowed to stay in the Army under confidential new guidelines by the Defence Ministry.The policy rethink, which also affects the RAF, has added to speculation that before the next election the Government will be forced to relax the ban on practising homosexuals serving in the forces. (Daily Telegraph)
27 September 1999: The European Court of Human Rights delivers historic judgments in Lustig-Prean & Beckett v. United Kingdom and Smith & Grady v. United Kingdom. From the former case:
"104. In sum, the Court finds that neither the investigations conducted into the applicants’ sexual orientation, nor their discharge on the grounds of their homosexuality in pursuance of the Ministry of Defence policy, were justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
105. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention."
The Defence Ministry announced within hours of the judgment that the UK government had "to accept the ruling" and that "cases in the system will be put on hold".
October 17, 1999 - £4m payout for gays sacked from Services; "The Ministry of Defence is to pay millions of pounds to Service personnel dismissed from the Armed Forces for being homosexual. At least £4 million has been put aside by Geoff Hoon, the new Defence Secretary, to pay compensation to 60 homosexuals and lesbians suing the Government." (Daily Telegraph)
January 12, 2000: "Britain on Wednesday lifted its ban on gays serving in the military, accepting a landmark European court ruling, but laid down a code of conduct to try to ensure the effectiveness of the armed forces was unaffected.
"There is no longer a reason to deny homosexuals the opportunity of a career in the armed forces," Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon told parliament. "Accordingly, we have decided that it is right that the existing ban should be lifted." .....
A new code of conduct, developed by service experts, will govern personnel in the armed forces, complementing existing policies cracking down on harassment, discrimination and bullying, Hoon said.....At its heart will be one question – "Have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely impacted or are they likely to impact on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the service?"
Commanding officers will have to use the code to rule on individual cases. The code gave examples of behaviour which could undermine cohesion in the forces – unwanted sexual attention, verbal or physical, over-familiarity with partners of personnel, displays of affection which may offend others or taking advantage of subordinates.
"(The armed forces) cannot choose the people they live and work with, often in difficult, cramped conditions," Hoon said. "Operational effectiveness depends on team cohesion and the maintenance of trust and loyalty."
Those who have in the past been forced out of the forces for being gay may rejoin as long as they continue to meet the standard entry requirements, the official said.
(Reuters -. "Britain ends ban on gays in military" Reuters, January 12, 2000) |
5. Partnership Recognition (other than parenting)
"Lesbian and gay couples are not allowed to marry, and there is no provision in law for the recognition by the state of same-sex partnerships." (Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
Immigration rights:
"In October 1997, the government announced a fundamental change in immigration policy which gave some formal recognition, for the first time, to same-sex partners. Under the new policy, the same-sex partner of a British citizen, European Union national or permanent resident of the UK can, subject to certain conditions, be granted permission to remain in the UK.
The policy, which applies equally to heterosexual partners who are unable to marry, stipulates a four year relationship requirement and states that the couple should have lived together for at least four years. [This] is more onerous than the two years previously required for unmarried heterosexual partners and would, if strictly applied, exclude many couples with long standing relationships... However, according to the Stonewall Immigration Group, successful applications have been made where the couple have had a four year relationship but not cohabited for all that time." (Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" ) Click here for the text of the guidelines governing this new policy
16 June 1999: The four year relationship requirment was reduced to two years, but with a probabationary period of 2 years, announced in the form of a reply to a parliamentary question: " It has been decided that, in order to demonstrate a commitment akin to marriage, it is not necessary to demonstrate a prior cohabitation period of four years, and the prior cohabitation period has, therefore, been changed to two years. The probationary period before settlement may be granted has been increased to two years, which means there will be a four year cohabitation period before the grant of settlement. Where applicable, these new arrangements will be taken into account when deciding whether or not to initiate enforcement action. The other provisions of the concession remain unchanged."
Inheritance laws:
"If a person dies without leaving a will, they die "intestate" and the disposal of their estate is governed by the rules of intestacy. This means that the person’s next of kin have claims on the estate, but a same-sex partner does not. Similarly, certain categories of people have limited rights to challenge the provisions of a will, and the application of the intestacy rules. These rights are more extensive for those classed as next of kin than for a bereaved same-sex partner. " (Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
Domestic partnership employment benefits:
"Nearly all occupational pension schemes provide for a widow’s or widower’s pension if the pension contributor dies before his or her spouse. Many schemes, however, either do not give survivor pension rights to unmarried partners or allow pension rights to heterosexual common-law partners but exclude same-sex partners. Some schemes also provide for survivors benefits for a dependent child or children, but the children of lesbian and gay parents are often unable to receive them.
The six major public sector schemes, which are statutory schemes regulated by Acts of Parliament, all discriminate against unmarried partners. These schemes (covering the civil service, local government, the health service, teachers, the police and fire service) only provide survivors benefits to married partners. They also discriminate against the children of lesbian and gay co-parents and unmarried step-parents.
All private pension schemes must conform to Inland Revenue rules.... In May 1996, the Inland Revenue issued a "Practice Note" which ...clearly stated that survivors benefits could be payable to unmarried partners, including same-sex partners, and made clear that children who are not the biological or adopted children of the scheme member can also qualify as dependants."
(Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
Fringe benefits
Employers who provide fringe benefits to the husband or wife or heterosexual partner of employees may – and often do – refuse to provide the same benefits to same-sex partners. Examples include health insurance, life insurance, discounts on goods produced or sold by the company, and cheap or free use of the employers services. The case brought by Lisa Grant to the European Court of Justice ( Case C-249/96) related to the refusal by South West Trains to provide the benefit of free travel to her partner, on the basis that her partner was a woman. (Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
BBC News, October 5, 1999 -Gay railway workers have won the same travel perks for their partners as heterosexual couples: Gays win equal travel rights. This follows a change of position by South West Trains in its treatment of Lisa Grant (see above)
Social welfare:
State widow’s or widower’s pensions can only be paid to a surviving spouse. (Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
Succession rights in housing:
Under housing law, married and unmarried heterosexual partners have the right to succeed to a local authority or private sector secure tenancy on the death of the partner who is the tenant. In 1993, the Government rejected an attempt to extend this right to same-sex partners, but issued guidance to local authorities recommending that they allow same-sex partners to succeed to a tenancy. This guidance is not binding; while some local authorities do allow succession rights to same-sex partners, many do not. It does not apply to private sector tenancies.
A significant test case is being pursued through the legal system by a gay man, Martin Fitzpatrick, who was issued with an eviction notice by a private landlord after his partner of 20 years died. The Appeal Court ruled in a 2:1 judgement that he could not succeed to the tenancy, because the law does not recognise same-sex partners, but all three judges called for the law to be changed. (Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
October 28, 1999: UK top court says gays have equal tenancy rights
"Britain’s top court made a major ruling on Thursday in favour of gay rights, saying a homosexual man was entitled to the same tenancy rights as a heterosexual spouse. The Law Lords’ ruling meant Martin Fitzpatrick, a former Royal Navy serviceman, could stay in his late partner’s London flat. The landlord had asked him to leave after the death of his partner, John Thompson, who was listed as the tenant.
The 3-2 ruling, which overturned an appeals court and an earlier London county court decision, held that in the eyes of the law Fitzpatrick was to be regarded as a member of Thompson’s family, entitling him to the same tenancy rights. Legal experts said the Law Lords’ ruling was a landmark that gave homosexual relationships a new and more binding legal status". (Reuters)
Click here to access the judgment
Other areas of the law in which Domestic Partnerships recognised:
Married couples are entitled to certain special tax arrangements. They benefit from a married couple’s tax allowance ....They can transfer property between one partner and the other without paying capital gains tax, and can leave property to each other in their will without the surviving partner being liable for inheritance tax. Unmarried partners do not have these rights. (Jackie Lewis - "quality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
August 4, 1999: "Gay couples will be recognised by law : Homosexual couples will get official recognition for the first time later this year under a shake-up of the £200 million criminal compensation system being planned by Jack Straw. The move .. comes in the wake of the Admiral Duncan pub bombing in Soho three months ago, which left three dead and 80 wounded. Gary Partridge, whose partner John Bright was killed, was denied compensation because the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority does not recognise same sex couples. Had the couple been heterosexual, Mr Bright’s partner could have received up to £10,000. Their friend Julian Dykes, whose wife also died in the blast, will be entitled to the full amount." (London Times) |
6. Parenting
Custody of own children:
Lesbians and gay men who have children in a heterosexual relationship can, and do, still face discrimination if there is a dispute with their former partner or spouse over the arrangements for their children....However, the most recent reported judgements involving lesbian mothers indicate that they have generally been successful in gaining custody. This trend towards a more enlightened approach has not been followed in cases involving gay fathers who are still often subject to restrictive conditions on contact with their children.
(Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
Adoption and fostering:
There is nothing in law to prevent lesbians and gay men from applying to adopt or foster, and many have been quietly doing so for years. However, openly lesbian and gay applicants have faced considerable obstacles and discrimination in being approved as suitable... The picture is mixed – some local authorities and agencies now have explicit policies of welcoming applications from lesbians and gay men and considering these on the basis of the caring abilities of the applicants, but many others are reluctant to make placements with lesbian and gay carers because of the media interest and political controversy that has sometimes been generated in such cases.
Adoptions are regulated by the Adoption Act 1976, which allows for applications for adoption orders to be made by married couples or by single persons. The law does not allow unmarried couples – whether heterosexual or same-sex – to make joint applications to adopt. In practice, it is possible for unmarried heterosexual and same-sex couples to adopt through one of the couple applying to adopt as a single person. If the application is successful and they do adopt, only one of the couple becomes the legal parent. A court order is necessary for adoption, which means that the court must approve the arrangements for the child.
The decisions to make an adoption order in the W case to a lesbian with a partner (in England) and to a gay man with a partner (in Scotland) have ... made clear that it is possible for lesbians and gay men to adopt as "single persons", even if they have a partner. Since the W case, the Official Solicitor (who is often appointed by the court to act as the child’s guardian in a lesbian or gay adoption case) has stopped the previous practice of insisting that lesbian and gay applicants see a psychiatrist. The Deputy Official Solicitor has stated that "in future, there is no need to drag experts into Court to give ‘psychological opinion’... lesbianism is no longer a contra-indication."(Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
July 28, 1999: "Charity backs gay adoptions: A children’s charity closely linked to the Church of England has decided to lift its ban on gay and lesbian couples adopting or fostering children. The Children’s Society said the move was aimed at bringing it in line with recent legal judgements, the Children Act and the practice of all other national voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities." (BBC News)
October 15, 1999: Top UK family judge backs gay adoptions
"England’s top family law judge, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, gave her backing on Friday to gay couples who want to adopt children. She said that while the idea would have been greeted differently when she first became a lawyer many years ago, she now thought there were cases where the best future for an adopted child could be with a gay couple.
"We have moved a very long way in our concepts," Butler-Sloss told a news conference. "I was, when I started, surprised and dubious about the stability of children living in families with two parents of the same sex. But over the years all research has shown that for some children this turns out to be the best that can be available for them."
Butler-Sloss, 66, who was appointed President of the High Court’s Family Division earlier this month, said it would be wrong when looking at the welfare of the child not to recognise that different children need different types of parents. "We should not close our minds to suitable families who are clearly not within the old fashioned approach." She also supported adoption by single parents. (Reuters)
Parenting rights for non-biological partner
"The Children Act 1989 is the only piece of legislation that enables lesbians to protect their status as co-parents. In 1994 two women with a 22 month-old son were awarded a joint residence order giving the mother's partner equal parental responsibility as long as they share a residence (Williams, 1994). The Children Act allows any "significant adult" in a child's life to apply for a residence order." (Lesbian Motherhood in Europe p. 220)
Access to reproductive technologies:
"Donor insemination provided by clinics is regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Although attempts during parliamentary debates on this Bill to explicitly prevent lesbians and single women having access to donor insemination services were defeated, the Act contains the provision that clinics are not allowed to provide services without taking into account "the welfare of any child who may be born as a result including the need of that child for a father. (s.13) Effectively, this means that clinics can decide whether or not to provide donor insemination services to lesbians. Some have stopped doing so, but others continue to provide the service."
"Private donor arrangements are not regulated, and in this case the donor is regarded in law as the child’s father with the same status as an unmarried father."
(Jackie Lewis - "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men" )
"The [Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990] Act also made it illegal for any third parties, other than those in licensed clinics, to handle donated gametes. This means that any informal self insemination networks in which people act as go-betweens to provide anonymous sperm could be in breach of the Act" (Lesbian Motherhood in Europe p. 220) |
7. Asylum
"Law Lords say gays do constitute a ‘social group’:
The House of Lords has allowed the appeal of two women who were claiming asylum in the UK. The Lords were considering the meaning of the words "membership of a particular social group". In their decision, last Thursday, the Lords also stated that anyone persecuted for their sexual identity who was not protected by their own governments’ laws could seek asylum in the UK. This would include lesbians and gay men.
Four of the five Law Lords specifically mentioned homosexuals, believing that they could indeed form a social group.
In the past, lesbians and gays who have claimed asylum in the UK, on the grounds that they feared persecution because of their sexuality, have been refused asylum on the grounds that homosexuals do not from a particular ‘social group’. The Immigration Appeals Tribunals have considered the issue but have come to different conclusions in the past. This judgement now clarifies the law in this area." (29 March 1999 - Stonewall press release)
For full details see Judgment' - Islam (A.P.) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another Ex Parte Shah (A.P.) (Conjoined Appeals). |
8. Transgender Rights
TWO transsexuals who were born male and underwent sex-change operations in their forties lost a long battle yesterday to be recognised in English law as women. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Government had not breached the rights of Kristina Sheffield and Rachel Horsham, both 52, by denying them new birth certificates showing that they were female. The court also upheld, by 18 votes to two, the Government’s right to prevent Miss Sheffield and Miss Horsham from marrying men. It ruled that marriage may legitimately be restricted under national laws to a union between a man and a woman "of biological origin". (Electronic Telegraph - July 1998)
TRANSSEXUALS WIN RIGHT TO FIGHT DISCRIMINATION
"Transsexuals have won the legal right to challenge discrimination they face at work because of their sex change. The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that discrimination against transsexuals was unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act. Kamlesh Bahl, chairwoman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which backed the case, said: "This bold and far reaching decision finally recognises that transsexuals need legal protection against the considerable discrimination they face. "The law now requires employers to review their employment practices to safeguard against such discrimination in the future." (UK Press Association report 15 July 1997 quoted in ILGA Euroletter - No. 52 August 1997)
"A seargant major is facing expulsion from the army after 18 years’ service because he decided to have a sex change. He is considering legal action against the army if it forces him out. The soldier, understood to have served in several war zones, is one of a number of transsexuals in the armed forces undergoing hormone treatment to become women. ... the soldier wants to continue to serve. He was angered earlier this year when he was forced to go before a medical board. It proposed to discharge him on the grounds that he was mentally unfit and he is now awaiting confirmation of that decision from the MoD. He has told friends that if it goes ahead he is likely to sue the army for discrimination." (August 2 1998 - The Sunday Times)
The absurdity and injustice of the current laws in the UK is highlighted by the story "Lesbians win equal rights by marrying" - in which a male to female transsexual and her lesbian lover married, by making use of the fact that the authorities still regard the transsexual as a man.
"Brit Panel to Review T* Laws
While the courts have brought mixed results, British transsexuals appear to be on the road to winning changes in the law by the political route. Saying that, "The Home Office accepts there are anomalies in the law," Home Secretary Jack Straw announced to the Parliament on April 14 the creation of a Working Group on Transsexuals with representatives from a dozen government departments to consider "appropriate legal measures" to address "the problems experienced by transsexuals, having due regard to scientific and societal developments." The group will examine other countries’ approaches as well as review problems faced under existing British law, which denies new birth certificates and legal marriage to transsexuals. Of the 39 European countries, Britain is one of only four which do not legally recognize sex reassignments. (NewsPlanet - April 15 1999)" |
9. Street Violence, "Social Cleansing", Police Harassment, etc
BRITISH POLICE CALL OFF ‘PRETTY POLICEMEN: 26-Jan-98: "The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has confirmed to London’s The Pink Paper that entrapment operations using so-called pretty policemen in public toilets and cruising areas are a thing of the past. Said ACPO spokeswoman Assistant Chief Constable Ann Summers: "Unless there is an emergency situation, such as someone being physically attacked, officers will only police cottages [tea rooms] and cruising areas on the instructions of an operational commander. As for entrapment operations, they achieve nothing, they are counter-productive and they waste a lot of time and money, and get us absolutely nowhere. There is no place for such operations, and I don’t foresee them being used any more in this country." (RW/2997)
April 99: The violence and intimidation faced by lgbt school students is highlighted in School Student Plans to Sue School after homophobic assault by fellow student
30 April 1999: The Admiral Duncan, a gay pub in Soho, was bombed, leaving three dead and at least 60 injured. This followed two bomb attacks in previous weeks on London's Afro-Caribbean and Bangladeshi communities.
"Attack sparks ‘gay bashing’ fears: A gay man has been seriously injured in a vicious homophobic attack by up to 15 men on Clapham Common, prompting fears of a renewed outbreak of so-called gay-bashing in the area. Police say there is no doubt that the man, who was punched, kicked and beaten with various weapons, had been singled out because he is gay. The victim, who was found in a pool of blood, needed emergency surgery on his skull. He was also left with fractured ribs and terrible bruising." (London Evening Standard, August 13, 1999)
October 29, 1999: A study, commissioned by the community safety unit of Edinburgh City Council, revealed that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Edinburgh lived in fear of abuse. The survey said 81% of respondents had experienced verbal abuse, 61% in the last year. More than half had also been subject to some kind of physical assault, 35.9% in the last year.(BBC News)
|
10. HIV/AIDS Human Rights Issues
"The Home Office, however, maintains that to provide condoms [to men in prison] would be to condone crime, since it regards neither the cells nor any other part of a prison as "private places." (Donald J.West and Andrea Woelke - "Socio-legal Control of Homosexuality")
"British Judge OKs Condoms in Prisons: ......In his ruling, the judge said the Home Office’s refusal to supply condoms to prisoners who asked for them was not unlawful and that the Prison Service was entitled to take the view that it "should not be seen to encourage homosexual activity." But he said that the real issue was one of health and that gay prisoners who would otherwise indulge in unsafe sex should be offered protection. Prison medical officers should carefully decide whether a request for condoms springs from genuine health reasons, the judge said. "The policy itself might be reformulated so as to make it clear what the limits of the prison medical officers’ discretion should be," he said." (Associated Press, July 5, 1999) |
|
The Worldwebsite
©2010 Blakout Networks. All Rights Reserved. Terms & Privacy.
![[ Google! Maps London, United Kingdom ]](/images/maps_res_logo.gif "[ Google! Maps London, United Kingdom ]"){kind=logo}