Lord Alli speech on the Equality Bill

Lords debate begins: December 15th

There was plenty of speculation over the last few weeks as to whether or not the Equality Bill would make it to the Lords before Christmas. Original word from the Equalities Office and others in-the-know had predicted no action until January at the earliest. But it’s now confirmed and set in stone: December 15th will see the Second Reading debate in the Lords.

A word on procedure: the Second Reading debate is intended to act as a ‘broad brush strokes’ debate, so no amendments will be voted on at this stage: that will have to wait until January, after Parliament returns from the Christmas break.

Lords Committee, where the crucial amendments will be discussed, will probably begin around the 14th of January, and carry on over the following two weeks. We’ll obviously let you know the key dates as and when they emerge.

Our campaign will nonetheless use the debate next week as an opportunity to give notice that we will be submitting amendments - both to lift the current ban on Civil Partnership Ceremonies from taking place in religious premises, and to remove the exemptions in the Equality Bill which continue to allow the persecution of gay members of the clergy. Details of these amendments to follow.

Equality Bill moving to the Lords

The Equality Bill is now going through its final debate in the Commons. After this, the bill will move to the Lords, where we will be seeking amendments.

As you may have read already in the papers, our primary focus will be on lifting the current ban on Civil Partnership Ceremonies from taking place in religious buildings.

This is something that a lot of you had got in touch about, and something that we feel can easily be reversed by the Equality Bill. We will be working with Stonewall and others to ensure that we have the votes to get the amendment through.

Stay tuned for updates.

Briefing with Vera Baird (Solicitor General)

There is a briefing with the Solicitor General tomorrow on the future of the Equality Bill - when we can expect it in the House of Lords, what changes might yet be made, what changes have already been made, etc.

If you have any suggestions on anything to bring up, then please leave a comment here, post on our facebook page, or send an @reply on twitter to @equalitybill.com

I’ll update on how the meeting goes.

Challenging the conventional thinking on transgender provision in the Equality Bill

There are two main objections from those who believe that the Equality Bill does not do enough to cover transgender rights.

First, the case is put forward that harassment provisions require ‘outing’ and ‘categorization’: something which is obviously undesirable for anyone whose very identity is all about rejecting ‘being outed’ or ‘categorizing yourself’.

Second, it is argued that you are simply ‘not covered’ by the Equality Duty, the discrimination provisions, and others, unless you are either undergoing medical supervision, or “living” as a transsexual.

Point 1:

The first point is simply wrong. The law does indeed require identification - but it is identification of the nature of the harassment, not the identity of the victim. So for example if I am straight, but perceived to be gay, and thereby subjected to homophobic bullying, I can claim to have been the victim of homophobia without ever having to disclose whether or not I am in fact Gay. The law allows this by including ‘affiliation’ with various groups. This doesn’t mean that you yourself have to ‘affiliate’. It just means that the bigot who harasses you has to have done so for homophobic reasons - because in their mind, you were a suitable target for their harassment.

The same applies to the transgender community. If you are the victim of transphobia, then it does not matter whether or not you are transsexual (medically or otherwise): it only matters that in the mind of the perpetrator you were affiliated with the trans community. This means that a butch schoolgirl who is bullied does not need to identify as transsexual in order to benefit from the protection of the law. It is enough to argue that she was discriminated against for affiliation. Again, this affiliation is not something that will have to be verified - because it is the perpetrator who made the affiliation, not the victim.

Point 2:

This second point is more complex, and it seems that it is something that would need to be tested in court.  The bill gives an example: that if someone born physically female “successfully ‘passes’ as a man without the need for any medical intervention”, then for the purpose of the law, they will be considered to be undergoing gender reassignment, which would allow them all the benefits of the bill - coverage by the Equality Duty, Positive Action in employment, and so on.

What the law does not provide is a definition of ’success’. How do we decide if someone is a “successful” transsexual? Is there a time period which must have elapsed? Is there a legal document which must be signed? Do we conduct a public opinion poll? Obviously none of these are appropriate, and it seems that if a case ever came to court, the requirement for ’success’ would be seen as arbitrary. In the same way that we do not have a litmus test for the ’success’ of a marriage, we cannot apply a litmus test to the ’success’ of someone’s so-called gender reassignment.

So if, for example, I were born physically female and “woke up one morning”, and declared to myself: “I am a man”, there would be nothing a court could do to dispute my self-identification. Equally, there would be nothing they could do to dispute me if the following day, I decided that I was a woman again. Because by my own standard, I had successfully ‘passed’ as whichever gender I chose. And similarly, I could change my identification hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute - without a court ever being able to prove that I was not ’successfully passing’ as whatever gender identity I wanted.

Under these circumstances, it is hard to see how the Equality Bill would not provide for anyone, of any gender identification, to be covered by the legal phrase “undergoing gender reassignment”.

We will be beginning a liveblog of the debate in parliament, beginning at around 3pm on May 11th.

18:40 - Eleanor Laing is opposed to targets. Not sure that the bill really has anything to do with targets, so unsure why she’s bringing it up.  

18:37 - Eleanor Laing veers off-course, and says that the bill is just a rampant manifestation of Socialism. The Solicitor General laughs, and Laing gets feisty, telling her to make her point properly, “not from a sedentary postion…”. The SG stands, tells Laing to calm down, and sits.

18:33 - Eleanor Laing - contradiction in her argument. She says she wants to hold the government to account, she wants to dissect every bit of the law… and yet her party is voting against it outright, rather than debating it in committee.

18:32 - Eleanor Laing (Con) - supports ’simplification and consolidation’ of the law. She also welcomes the positive Equality Duty, saying it will go a long to to changing the cultural attitudes to Equality in all walks of life. She also says that Equality of Opportunity is a basic moral imperative.

18:31 - Desmond Turner (Lab) is still going! He talks about equality of goods and services, and how the bill ends discrimination on the grounds of sexuality on insurance.

18:15 - Desmond Turner (Lab) - Takes the floor. Says that given that the opposition had finally come around to the right view on sexuality, he is surprised by the heavy handed approach by the Conservatives (IE voting against outright).

18:10 - Tim Boswell (Con) - makes the first sensible point about the economic situation all day. In a time of difficulty, people are more prone to social unease. That’s the real question when it comes to making sure the law treats everyone equally.

18:09 - Tim Boswell (Con) - doesn’t sound like a man who will vote against the bill.

17:54 - Vera Baird (Solicitor General) points out that the bill does apply to the under-18s in every other respect, just not ‘age’.

17:51 - Julie Morgan (Lab) expresses her hope that the bill will be changed so that young people are included in the law. She says that young people feel slighted.

17:41 - Julie Morgan (Lab) Stands to support the bill. Mark Harper (Con) stands to argue that voting against the bill is the best way of showing their support for the bill……..

17:39 - Lynne Featherstone finishes by saying that equality legislation is the vanguard of change.

17:34 - Lynne Featherstone is the first person to bring up Trans rights. What about people who need protection, but who don’t fit into neat boxes, she asks? She also opposes the continuation of the blood ban.

17:33 - Lynne Featherstone thinks that re-working the NDRA

17:23 - Lynne Featherstone, LibDem: Wants pay audits to be brought in sooner, not later.

17:15 - Lynne Featherstone, LibDem: Argues that equality is the fire in the belly of the Liberal Democrat party.

17:11 - Patricia Hewitt (Lab) Makes a very strong defence of the SINGLE Equality Duty, arguing that some groups often feel left out of the ‘equality’ debate as a whole, citing working class white men and boys, and the example of white boys underachieving at school. Having a single, synoptic view of equality helps everyone be a part of the law.

17:05 - Patricia Hewitt (Lab) Supports the Equality Duty, and the simplification of law that it will bring.

17:00 - Patricia Hewitt expresses her shock that Conservatives are voting outright against the bill, rather than just ammending it in committee.

16:53 - Theresa May supports the age discrimination measures, but presses to ensure that ‘age-specific services’ are not included.

16:52 - Theresa May states her opposition to widespread positive discrimination.

16:46 - Theresa May argues that all-women shortlists aren’t acceptable.

16:45 - Parmjit Dhanda (Lab) Makes a strong argument against the Conservative proposals on equal pay and equality.

16:40 - Theresa May (Con) - Exposing the pay gay will set back the campaign for equal pay. Hang on, what?

16:38 - Evan Harris (LD) Argues that taxation policies are the best means of tackling wealth inequality. Does Theresa May have any tax policies other than abolishing IHT? Yes, says Theresa May. Marriage Incentives.

16:37 - Theresa May argues that you “can’t make any moves” unless the census data is accurate.

16:36 - Theresa May says that the bill is ill-thought out and last-minute. It doesn’t tackle root causes of inequality, like ‘family breakdown’, etc.

16:30 - Theresa May, Shadow Minister for Women, begins her speech.

16:29 - Harman finishes her speech and commends the bill to the house.

16:28 - Harman: This bill replaces a thicket of legislation (pointing at a huge pile of paper) with ‘This Act Here’ (holding up the bill, which is still pretty massive…). It is a simplification, which doesn’t require a highly-paid lawyer to understand.

16:24 - Evan Harris, LD - It’s controversial to extend the duty to religion, because of councils being forced to supply different religious groupings with different services. Harriet Harman - if Evan Harris is on the committee, then he will have the opportunity to change the law and add ammendments. But Harman doesn’t think that it will be necessary.

16:22 - Harriet Harman discusses homophobia and Gay Rights.

16:21 - David Taylor, Lab: How will this legislation specifically help the number of people with disabilities in public life? Harman: the speakers’ conference will be crucial to this.

16:20 - Jeremy Corbyn - Lab: Discrimination by Caste and Descent, from India in particular. Will this be covered? Harriet says it already is.

16:18 - Employment recruitment process, on health and disability grounds. It’s a hidden form of discrimination. Mental health problems are discriminated against too.

16:15 - Simon Hughes, can the elderly be assured that employment discrimination will also apply to them? Harriet Harman: YES.

16:14 - Harman: talks about discrimination against those who care for relatives.

16:13 - Harman: in 2012 we will review the NDRA.

16:13 - David Winnick, Lab: What about the injustice of the National Default Retirement Age at 65?

16:12 - Harriet Harman confirms that some exemptions will apply in the cases of the elderly, like free bus passes.

16:11 - Philip Davies, Con: Will there be unintended consequences for the Age Equality laws? Cheaper car insurance for the elderly, groups who provide for the elderly? No, says Harriet Harman. Nothing justifyable will be banned.

16:06 - Harriet Harman - Talks about employment tribunals, and introducing class-action lawsuits.

16:03 - Harriet Harman: Positive Action - we WILL allow employers to use Positive Action in the cases of two equally qualified candidates.

16:01 - Requiring something to be consulted on in the summer, when the legislation will go through before the summer? Does this mean we will be passing a law we don’t fully understand? No, says Harriet - because pay gap reporting will begin voluntarily.

16:00 - Lyn Brown, Lab: Concerned about so-called ‘gag-clauses’, preventing people from discussing their wages. Yes, says Harriet, the bill will change this. Information empowers people.

15:59 - Diane Abbott, Lab: The public would be surprised to see the Conservatives so agitated about the possiblity for Equality laws to be enacted. Especially since Equality will make us more competitive.

15:58 - Mark Pritchard, Con: He’s concerned that the Equality Bill is “a complete mockery”. Especially on Sharia Law.

15:57 - A lot of people on the Conservative Benches are jeering their way through the debate.

15:56 - Harman: There is still entrenched pay dsicrimination.

15:55 - Harman replies that the bill does contain positive action, and she will come back to the issue.

15:54 - Graham Brady, Con. - asks if, under the terms of the bill, an employer can choose a White Woman instead of a Black Man.

15:53 - That’s not a question for this bill. Language isn’t a type of discrimination covered. It’s about race, gender, sexuality, etc.

15:52 - Andrew Selous, Conservative, Bedfordshire South West - complains that some lower-paid jobs stipulate that applicants must be able to speak Polish.

15:51 - Fairness and Equality are essential to underpin a Meritocracy says Harman.

15:50 - Harriet Harman begins! Equality is essential for all, as a matter of principle and as a matter of practise.

15:46 - Speaker rejects the idea of using water canons agains the Tamil Protestors.

15:45 - Speaker takes points of order on the Tamil Protestors. He clearly feels that the “demonstrations” have gone on too long.

15:40 - Harriet Harman has just entered the Debate Chamber. Taking her seat right now for the Equality Bill debate.

15:37 - Speaker gives an impassioned defence of his decision to call the police. He tells Kate Hoey it’s all very well to talk to the press with soundbites, but a little harder to actually deal with the release of highly classified information.

15:32 - Speaker warns that someone capable of releasing expenses details may also have access to security details - home addresses, signatures, telephone numbers, passwords and so on. This is why they called in the police.

15:30 - Speaker Michael Martin is making a statement about the expenses row, arguing for ”the spirit of what is right” to be brought in. 

15:28 - As James Purnell’s ‘Work and Pensions Questions’ draws to a close, the debate chamber is beginning to fill up. Let’s hope they’re all here for the Equality Debate!

A good reason to support the Equality Duty

Over the last few days, members of a group called ‘Pride In Canterbury’ have come to us looking for help. Since 2002, they have been lobbying Canterbury City Council to help them in encouraging the local LGBT community, through simple means: promoting the city’s LGBT tourism potential or staging performances of interest to the Gay Community at the council-owned city theatre.

Despite their best efforts, the group has been ignored, shut out and fobbed off by the council-members.  After delivering an official complaint detailing their aims in November 2008, ‘Pride in Canterbury’ recieved no official acknowledgement. They followed up their complaint in December, and again in January, but to no avail.  It is now nearly May, 24 weeks after lodging their complaint (double the stated response time) and they have still recieved no answer: despite taking their case to the Local Government Ombudsman.

In direct correspondence with the director of culture and communications of Canterbury City Council, they have been told that it would be their responsibility, not the council’s, to encourage LGBT dance or drama at the council-run Marlowe Theatre.

The details go on. But the message is clear: the council are refusing point-blank to engage with the LGBT community They have no interest in the issues, and no desire to even consider the proposals.

It is unacceptable.

With an Equality Duty, this behaviour would be made quite literally illegal.

We will be investigating this story over the next few weeks.

Equality Bill launch: Our Reaction

The Equality Bill entered Parliament today. It was the first step in a long legislative process which will ultimately make Britain fairer and more equal.

But the voices of cynicism were out in force – with the Conservative Party calling it “class warfare”, and wealthy business representatives calling it “unnecessary red tape”.

Unfortunately, these messages got through in the media this morning – with all the major news outlets discussing Class War and Red Tape, sometimes without even giving a mention to the benefits the bill will bring to LGBT, Racial, Gender, Disability and Age Equality.

But we know what this bill is really about.

And we can change this.

We can shape tonight’s coverage of the Equality Bill, and perhaps even get a mention on the evening news shows.

If you have a twitter account, click here now to tell Channel 4 news to up their game!

If you’ve seen coverage that doesn’t properly reflect the facts, then report them on the comment thread to this post.

And if you haven’t already, use the function right here to send an email to your MP. They’re watching the same news that we are, and a direct email from a constituent will send a far stronger message than any news broadcast.

Let’s get to work.

Thanks.

PinkNews: Can Lord Alli Save The Equality Bill?

Via PinkNews.co.uk:

Can Lord Alli Save the Equality Bill?

Last week one of only three openly gay peers in the House of Lords launched a bold attempt to prevent history repeating itself.

Waheed Alli is collecting and marshalling public opinion in the hope of forcing the House of Lords, known as the place equality legislation goes to die, to pass the government’s upcoming Equality Bill.

However he may be in for a bigger battle than he expects. Opponents of the bill, organising themselves under the banner of economic competitiveness, are claiming that now is not the time to put further burdens on business. Troublingly, this argument could hold some sway, especially amongst those who know little of the issues, despite the fact it is glaringly false.

Sign-up problems

We are aware that the sign-up process isn’t working properly today.

We hope to resolve it as soon as possible, so please be sure to come back later.

UPDATE: Everything’s working properly again now.