Commission for Racial Equality launches new Housing Code of Practice
The CRE published the new Statutory Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Housing in October 2006. The code explains how to implement the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 that are relevant to the provision of housing in England, Scotland and Wales.
To accompany the code, Diversity Solutions has also launched an online course that helps housing professionals to understand why the code has been introduced, and how to apply it.
The Statutory Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Housing aims to achieve the following:
1. Set standards for achieving racial equality.
2. Provide practical guidance that will help organisations and individuals involved in all areas of housing to:
- avoid unlawful racial discrimination and harassment
- promote equal opportunities for all, and
- encourage good race relations.
3. Help make sure that anyone who is considering taking a legal case, or who has concerns about the way decisions on housing matters have been made, understands:
- the legislation
- their rights, and
- what constitutes good practice in the field of housing.
The Statutory Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Housing replaces the statutory codes of practice in rented and non-rented housing issued by the CRE between 1990 and 1991.
Introducing sexual orientation and gender identity monitoring
By Caroline Jones
The introduction of equality monitoring is never without resistance, from ethnic monitoring in the early 1980s to sexual orientation and gender identity monitoring today.
Since 1998, Diversity Solutions’ company directors, Caroline Jones and Linda Bellos, have been actively involved in promoting sexual orientation monitoring alongside other equality monitoring. Pioneered by the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where Caroline worked as an Equalities Manager, sexual orientation monitoring is now mainstreamed and promoted by many LGBT organisations.
Caroline and Linda have consulted extensively with the LGBT community on the sexual orientation and gender identity monitoring questions that are used in the ‘Information About You’ staff survey pages. These questions are integrated with the company’s online equality and diversity courses. They also recommend that employers should read the guidance on LGBT monitoring issued by the Trades Union Congress. This is available on the LGBT equality section of their website at
www.tuc.org.ukThe most important answer to the sexual orientation monitoring questions is whether or not an LGBT person feels safe enough to be out at work. The responses to this question should enable employers to consider if any action is needed to make the workplace safer for lesbians, gay men or bisexual people who do not feel comfortable about being out at work.
For trans people, the legal landscape has changed significantly in the last few years, both in respect of improved employment protection under amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and rights acquired under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which gives trans people the legal right to live in their acquired gender. The word ‘trans’ is used here to include people who identify as either transgender or transsexual.
The great majority of people live without any problems in the gender they were assigned at birth. Some do not, and may live for part of their daily lives in the opposite gender. Some trans people seek full re-assignment, which involves surgery and ongoing medical support.
In designing our course material, we include references to gender identity together with all other strands. It would have seemed strange if, having included this diversity strand, we then proceeded to ignore it in the staff survey pages that are integrated with our online courses.
When organisations conduct gender identity monitoring, and few currently do so, they generally ask a question that can offend and alienate many trans people. It also confuses non-trans people. The question usually asked is about whether or not someone identifies as transgender - male to female, or transgender - female to male. We had also previously asked in our course material.
Our consultation with Press for Change in June 2006 told us that this question would only be answered by a relatively small part of the trans community. The majority of trans people would ignore it.
Since everyone has a gender identity, the questions below, recommended by Press for Change, ask people about their gender identity in a more inclusive way.
How do you describe your gender?
1. Is your gender the same as the gender you were assigned at birth? Yes/No
2. Do you live full time in the gender role opposite to that assigned at birth? Yes/No
3. Do you feel able to discuss your gender identity with colleagues at work? Yes/No
4. With some people, but not all? Yes/No
The answers to the first two monitoring questions agreed with Press for Change are designed to assess the numbers of trans people in an employers workforce.
The answers to the third and fourth questions will enable employers to assess whether or not a trans person feels safe enough to be out at work. The responses to these questions should enable employers to consider if any action is needed to make the workplace safer for all LGBT people, including trans people, who do not feel comfortable about being out at work.
A very important part of the Gender Recognition Act is about the right to privacy and confidentiality. The Gender Recognition Act safeguards the privacy of trans people by defining information relating to gender recognition as ‘protected information’. Under the Act, it is a criminal offence to disclose this protected information if it has been acquired in an official capacity. There are some limited exceptions to this rule.
Diversity Solutions’ system of encrypted data collection satisfies the requirement to protect information related to gender recognition. Our company policy is to allow such monitoring only where organisations have a license for more then 500 learning participants. Smaller numbers may risk identification of the very small group of trans people who will initially respond to gender identity monitoring questions.
Press for Change is a political lobbying and educational organisation, which campaigns to achieve equal civil rights and liberties for all transgender people in the United Kingdom, through legislation and social change. For more information about Press for Change, see
www.pfc.org.uk
The Deficit Model: Or how not to tackle racial discrimination
I have been struggling for the last 4 years to understand how, in the face of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 so little progress has been made to tackle racial discrimination in Britain. When I saw the draft statutory guidance from the Commission for racial Equality I was relieved, at last we had a mechanism for tackling racial discrimination. The Act moved from requesting politely that people stopped discriminating against other people because of their colour, racial, national or ethnic origin to demanding that Public authorities demonstrated how they were going to stop discrimination.
In essence the Act moved from what people should do, to what they were required to do. What was most important about the Amended Act was that it placed greater emphasis on the last part of the general duty- the provision to promote good relations between people of different racial groups. The provision had been in the old Act but it was somewhat hidden and it only applied to Local Government. Finally the amended Race Relations Act gave us all tools to tackle racial discrimination.
In the period immediately after the publication of the Macpherson report into the way the police handled the murder of Stephen Lawrence there were high hopes for change and a flurry of activity by Central and Local Government.
It has been what has followed that has disappointed and now that I have looked at so many so-called Race Equality Schemes I think I know why so little has happened, and why it is that most public authorities are failing in the duty to implement racial equality.
Anyone familiar with the demand for equal rights amongst disabled people will recognise the critique of the medical model of disability. It is one that sees disabled people in terms of curable or potentially curable conditions, more worrying it sees disabled people in terms of what they cannot do, not what they can do and what they might need to deal with their impairment. It has finally occurred to me that a similar regressive model of racism is being applied by well meaning people, some of them I regret to say are also Black who see racism through the lens of what I call the ‘deficit model’. This is the idea that Black people, and Black here is being defined as people of African and Asian heritage, are suffering from a lack or deficit which must be met by applying special measures. These measures usually start with mentoring, they may include special programmes aimed only at Black people, like the one I saw recently which is targeted at Black parent to help them understand the education system.
You may wonder what is wrong with this well meaning example, it is exactly the kind of thing that is assumed to be wanted by Black people- a leg up and helping hand so why do I object? Firstly because the proposal fails to recognise that many white working class people have the same difficulty understanding and advocating on behalf of their children within the education system. As consequence it does not meet the third part of the general duty to ’promote good relations between people of different racial groups’. If you are White and your son or daughter attend the same school as a Black child you might justifiably be resentful if you discover that you are not eligible for support to understand the education system but your Black neighbour is. This approach assumes that it is not necessary to look critically at the ways that schools inform and involve parents, and the barriers it erects to put working class (Black and White) parents down. Schools and other institutions make assumptions and act upon stereotypes but rather than examining those assumptions and stereotypes they pathologies.
Black people, who, by the way are rarely assumed to occupy a class or economic position. White working class people are described as ‘working class’ whilst Black people are black without a class; defined solely on colour, ethnic or nation origin.
Lets looks at the example taken from so-called Race Equality Schemes published by Government departments or Inspection bodies who advice public authorities.
Example 1
Taken from Ofsted Draft Race Equality Scheme 2006.
“Inspection has an important part to play in promoting good race relations, by pointing out where providers need to take action to meet their statutory duties in eliminating unlawful racial discrimination, promoting equal opportunities and encouraging good race relations, and by disseminating examples of good practice. Inspectors evaluate the impact of race equality work and report their findings in the leadership and management section of inspection reports and through evaluation of the achievement of various groups of learners from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds.” (My emphasis).
Commentary on example 1:
Ofsted clearly think that all it has to do is look at the achievement records of Black and minority ethnic learners, but don’t they, in the process need to look at the achievement of White learners?
Presumably if the sample examined is doing well according to the criteria no further action is needed.
But if all attention were focused upon BME children at the expense of White children this might be overlooked. I have no way of knowing whether the latter situation is probable or likely to arise, but I would hope that the Inspection of a School would be looking at all the achievements of all children at see whether patterns of discrimination were present. More significantly the Inspection of schools should be looking a range of factors recommended by the CRE for example schools exclusions, membership of governing bodies, curriculum teaching and learning etc.
Example 2
In the section called Current position and priorities Ofsted writes: “Employment and training”.
Ofsted’s staff consists of Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI), Child Care Inspectors (CCI), managers and administrative staff. The profile of the organisation shows that 82.6% of employees are from white ethnic groups (March 2005 data), with 14% from other ethnic groups and 3.4% of unknown background. The most recent (2001) census for England shows 89.9% of the population are from white ethnic groups. Analysis shows that 8.3% of inspectors employed by Ofsted are from minority ethnic groups (5% of HMI and 9.3% of CCI). Minority ethnic groups are most clearly under-represented in Senior Civil Service grades (directors and senior managers). New data will be available shortly and used for the published scheme.
Very few additional inspectors from minority ethnic groups were deployed by contracted inspection providers in new inspections taking place in autumn 2005.
For our administrative staff, the proportion from backgrounds other than white is highest at the lowest grades. Some 22% of administrative staff is of non-white background, with a further 7% of unknown ethnic heritage. Ofsted is developing an action plan to increase the proportion of BME staff in higher level posts. This includes training, recruitment, promotion and induction processes to meet our obligations under the RR(A)A.”
Commentary on example 2:
Ofsted seem to be under the impression that they are required to play a numbers game. The issue surely is what training exists for all inspectors so that they know how to recognise compliance or failure to meet the duties of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 as they apply to schools. It may help if a higher percentage of inspectors are from ethnic minority communities, but it would not automatically guarantee better compliance with the Act to have say 20% of Inspectors from BME communities.
This is a classic mistake about race equality, that numbers of employees will in and of itself make a difference to racial equality. With luck it may, but in the case of education it may be just as important that a White inspector inspecting a school with only a handful of Black pupils has as important a job to do inspecting for racial equality than a Black inspector inspecting an Inner City School. I would suggest that all inspectors of schools, Black or White should be equipped to inspect schools and have due regard to the duties on racial equality and the forthcoming duties on disability.
Example 3
Taken from The Department of Culture Media and Sport Race Equality Scheme 2002- 2005, no new scheme is available in their website, and despite repeated request via their enquiry page I have not yet seen the new Race Equality Scheme if it exists.
It is the responsibility of us all, not just managers, to contribute to and promote an environment free from unfair discrimination and bullying. Line managers have additional responsibilities and will need to:
- make staff aware of the Department's equal opportunities policies and procedures;
- ensure new staff attend awareness training within six months of joining;
- be alert to any signs of harassment or unfair discrimination, taking prompt action to resolve such matters at an early stage; and
- identify any special training and development needs for staff from under-represented groups, such as ethnic minority groups, women and people with disabilities. (My emphasis)
We value the benefits of a diverse and varied workforce and are committed to providing the support and encouragement needed to ensure that everyone is given the opportunity to reach their full potential and make an effective contribution to the work of the Department.
Commentary on example 3:
The Annual report of the departments performance indicates that 28 of the most senior post holders bar one is white out of a total staff of 527. 13% have identified as ethnic minority and 96% of them occupy the lower grades. I make no comment on the merit or competency of post holders. But the data seems to show that most managers are White men, and yet it is ethnic minority groups, women and people with disabilities who are to be identified for special training. This is a perfect illustration of the deficit model. According to this value statement in the Race Equality Scheme, managers are to identify training that other people should have so that bullying and discrimination do not occur. I would suggest that if there is bullying and discrimination in the workplace it might be useful if managers, most of whom are White men, should receive training on how to recognise and deal with it.
Example 4
From ODPM Beacon Council Status; Promoting racial equality August 2001
Positive Action to Meet Special Needs
Where particular black or minority ethnic communities have needs which are different to the majority, or have needs which are felt particularly acutely in their community, service providers will want to consider how best to meet these needs. The law permits measures to meet special needs of particular racial groups. One example has been the provision of sheltered housing and residential care for older people from minority ethnic communities.
Commentary on example 4:
This is a classic example of the Deficit Model, it assumes that black and ethnic minority people need special measures. Although this example is taken from 2001 it is still on the DCLG website in June 2006. We might assume therefore that the sentiments fo the guide to good practcie are still endorced by the Department. Are servcies which are delivered to White people called specail measures?
Example 5
Key Features of an Organisation Promoting Race Equality, taken from the Beacon Status Research report
- Monitors its workforce, taking steps to ensure that ethnic minorities are treated fairly;
Assesses how it policies and programmes could affect ethnic minorities, identifies any potential for adverse differential impact, and takes remedial action if necessary;
- Monitors the implementation of its policies and programmes to ensure that they meet the needs of ethnic minorities;
- Has a publicly stated policy on race equality
Commentary on example 5:
This example demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of what the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 requires. It specifically does not say that the focus should only be upon ethnic minority people, it says that the duty of the Local Authority( and other public Authorities) make sure that they are not discriminating against any racial group where it cannot be justified.
There are many further examples which could be selected from documents produced by Government in the name of racial equality but the above examples provide a reasonable flavour .
They are by no means untypical and looking at all of the Race Equality Schemes of Central Government and the Inspectorates which advise on many of the major public services, the picture is no better.
The fundamental flaw is that few people seem to have understood what they are required to do, but just as worrying is that it is now over 4 years since they have been required to understand and implement the racial equality laws. It is no wonder that there has been so little progress on racial equality when senior Civil servants think that it is about being seen to take a few high profile but token measure which have a race equality ’flavour’.
The Model is racist
There is something fundamentally racist about the deficit model. It is based upon stereotypes - for example all Asian women cannot speak English and are oppressed by their husbands/fathers/sons. All Caribbean families are dysfunctional/matriarchal/without fathers. But the model does not set out to be racist, in fact those that advocate it will be horrified to read this critique of their common( and well-meaning) practice. They may say that they are responding to the demands made by Black people for special treatment and measures. And indeed they might be, but here we are not considering the genesis of the Deficit Model or who is to blame. We are considering whether, in the light of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 the model itself is consistent with the general duty of the Act.
Where is the action to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, or to promote equal opportunity ( to all) the Act does not define or propose that an equal opportunity should only be provided to Black people. And more significantly where is the duty to promote good relations between people of different racial groups? These three component parts are called the general duty of the Act. They must all be done, you cannot pick or choose which part you meet. The duty applies to all 43,000 public Authorities, from Schools, Hospitals, local and central Government, Museums, and so on. And from th examples above it is clear that they have not understood what they should be doing.
Gesture Politics?
It is noticeable over the last few years how strongly the politics of gestures has crept in and taken over from strategic action. There is nothing wrong, per se with mentoring schemes, role models, assertiveness training etc, but on their own they reinforce the Deficit Model. Some people will benefit through increased confidence and advice from these programmes that might otherwise not have done. But on their own, which they frequently are, these gestures give the impression of action whilst the institution remains unchanged. So a mentoring scheme for ethnic minority staff is boasted in the Annual report but nothing done to address the over representation of Black employees receiving lower average bonuses or who leave the organisation because of racial discrimination.
The existence of these schemes may be quite beneficial for those who take advantage of them but they can cause legitimate resentment if class is ignored. What is the point of encouraging a public school educated Black man to be a mentee, if the organisation ignores the under utilisation of working class White men and women working alongside the him? Role models are now universally referred to but again they assume that what many of us need to is the simple encouragement of someone who has made it, to encourage us to overcome the barriers we face. It does not necessarily assist me that Margaret Thatcher as a women became leader of a Political Party and became the Prime Minister. Even if I admired her politics, I could not say that by virtue of being a ‘first’ she has in some way made it easier for me or for any other women becoming an MP.
And even on the smaller quieter initiatives of assertiveness training or self-defence classes the assumption is that the recipient lacks something which can be provided externally. If women are being drowned out by loud men, perhaps some men might need to be quieter. A cultural change is needed so that assertive and demanding(bullying?) conduct is not encouraged or rewarded.
These examples of gestures are often cited as examples of equal opportunity polices, in fact there seem to be a whole industry out there whose purpose is to nurture well-being in the workplace by encouraging gullible employers to be seen to be ‘do something’. Even if the something is only a nod towards tackling discrimination, whilst beneath their noses, unequal pay, bullying and harassment are rife.
Diversity
Diversity is the new word on the Block, its use seems not to mean all of us, but is used by some organisations to mean that we can now move on from looking at race and instead address all equality considerations. This would be acceptable if racial discrimination had been tackled, or even if we were well on the way to tackling it, but instead the deficit model with its stereotypes about Black people are now being extended to cover all other groups; so we get a new set of stereotypes about women, disabled people, young people, old people, faiths and religions. And whilst we jockey for position in the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights we seem to have lost sight of the fact that there is currently no real understanding of what equality diversity or human rights for all mean. If the Interim Report on the Equalities Review is anything to do go by we are likely to be more confused and see less progress towards equality, respect and freedom from discrimination for all people if this patronising and individualistic muddle continues.
Conclusion
The deficit model is part of the problem, some might say a large part of the problem because if we wish to eliminate unlawful discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and promote good relations between people from different groups we have to start from a place of mutual respect and parity of esteem. But if I think that you are less able from me because you have a physical impairment this is not mutual respect. You may be able to do things that I cannot do and vice versa. Who is to say which of us is more useful or able than the other? We currently have a society in which our worth or merit is determined by our class, ethnicity, gender disability, age, sexuality , religion or beliefs. The fact that we may possess these differences does not make it inevitable that we should be treated less equality. We could build a society in which we place a different value on these and other differences. Let us instead be judged by the content of our characters not by what we lack or how much we fall short of the ideal. We currently have a society in which the rules are made by the rulers and the rulers reflect one small elite section of society. If the majority of us jettison the deficit model we might find that we have more in common than we have apart. Now that would be revolutionary.
Linda Bellos
Making the Race Relations Act Work
When I the Guardian carried my article in April about the failure of most Government departments to implement race equality laws, one of the first things that happened was that I received quite a bit of hate mail from racists. Nothing new there, but what surprised me was how little members of the BNP know about what the law on racial equality actually says. But they are not alone. It seems that a number of Race equality Units in Government Departments also don’t know what the law says and what they are required to do.
It is not only the racists who emailed me in April who assume I am advocating bias in favour of Black people and that the Race Relations Amendment Act supports this. What is far more worrying is that most Government Departments have produced Race Equality Schemes which show that this is what they to think the law says. However the advice from the Commission for Racial Equality states clearly that all three parts of the general duty are have to be applied.
The s71 of the Act which has now been extended beyond a duty for Local Authorities alone to all Public Authorities. They must all show that in carrying out their functions they have due regard to: Eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and to promote good relations between people of different racial groups. These are called the 3 parts of he general duty of the Act and it is clear that many people wrongly believe that this means that the law gives sanction to ‘special measurers for Black people’.
What we find is many of the schemes list of actions which have a direct impact, in their view, on Black and Ethnic Minority communities. Some of the schemes appear top boast the special measures, for example mentoring schemes for Black workers or in the case of DfES the Ethnic Minority Attainment Unit . But the scheme does not show much evidence of looking at the polices and procedures of the Department to see whether they have the effect of discriminating. Instead the focus is on BME people, consequently it mean that if the adverse impact of an existing policy or procedure discriminates against white working class people it will not be spotted.
The purpose of a Race Equality Scheme is not to list every action that might have some kind of ‘flavour’ of ethnicity as though if it contains a touch of garlic or chilli pepper it should be listed. A Race Equality Scheme should demonstrating how in carrying out all of its polices and procedures a public authority will show that it is eliminating unlawful racial discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity and promoting good relations between people of different racial groups.
My own frustration at the failure of Government to understand and implement the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 is precisely because I see that the potential to bring about fairness for everyone and to add to social cohesion but it is being ignored. Only days after my article in the Guardian, Margaret Hodge prophesied that large numbers of voters and would vote for the BNP, and of course they did. There is no point blaming Hodge for this but she and other members of the Government can be blamed for not apply the race equality laws which would and can undermine the basis for the BNP appeal.
I have no doubt that the Governments intentions in all aspect of it actions are not meant to be racist, indeed they are horrified at any inference that the outcomes of their actions have th effect of racial discrimination nonetheless this is the case. My own belief at what lies at the heart of this misunderstanding, aside from pure ignorance of the racial equality laws say, is that underlying philosophy of racial equality is essentially a pathological view of race and racism.
They sees the problems of racism not with the systems and assumptions that create barriers to full participation and equality but by focusing on those who experience racism by seeing what it is they ‘lack’, for example written English or knowledge of traditional values, alternatively the problems lie in the structure of the family, per haps absent fathers or the assumed ‘backward’ cultures. But in addition to problematising ethnic minority people per se, is the confusion that exists about class. As a matter of fact most ethnic minority people in the UK are working class, whatever class position they may have occupied ‘back home’. But according to Margaret Hodge all working class people are White, and they are seen as being seen hostile to Black people. We only see reference to white working class people in relations to alleged hostility to Black people, but rarely in their own right or in positive terms.
The major problem that arises from this approach is that Government fails to recognise the extent to which White Working class people experience similar discrimination, for example under-achievement at schools etc but then largely ignores it. By focuses only on the impact of such outcomes of ethnic minority people the policies have the effect of alienating white working class people.
The irony of this failure is that the very law designed to tackle this discrimination is being used to reinforce it. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 is meant to be for all ethnic groups including English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish. The Act is not about protecting Black people from racial discrimination it is rightly about protecting all people from unlawful racial discrimination. But this is not how it is understood or implemented by Government departments or many Councils, Schools or NHS Trusts.
For months now I have been writing to Government Departments and to Inspection Bodies set up to see that laws are being upheld. What I have received by way of reply are a serious of arrogant and ignorant defensive statements that confirm that the writer do not know what the law says and consequently are not meeting their requirements. I don’t doubt the intention of these official, I am sure that their hearts are in the right place, and that they are genuinely committed to equality and fairness, but this is not about me verses them, it is about what does the laws on racial equality require and whether those laws are being implemented.
On a positive note the Housing Corporation have published and are promoting a proper understanding of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, they are the only public body aside from a small number councils including the GLA who are meeting their requirements, good on them.
If in applying the general duty of the Act, public servants had due regard to the need to promote good relations between people of different racial groups, instead of ignoring this duty, they would think about the effect of policies on all sections of communities not just their patronising assumptions that Black people, because they are Black require special protection.
Linda Bellos
Code of Practice on Race Equality in Employment
The Commission for Racial Equality have finally managed to get the Government to agree a new Code of Practice on Employment which replaces the previous one agreed over 20 years ago. The Code is Statutory and covers all employers. It makes it unlawful for any employer to discriminate against an employees or applicant for a job on grounds of race unless such discrimination can be justified.
What surprises those wanting to see the Code of Practice updated is why the CRE and the Government had not made much noise about it? It is important that all employers large and small make sure that they are acting within the law. But few businesses know about the Code let alone what it says.
Ethnic minority businesses need to know what the law says about racial discrimination just as much as White business need to know. The law protects everyone Black or White against unlawful racial discrimination. Diversity Solutions offers advice and training to small business so that you know what the law says and you can play you part in promoting racial equality in Southwark and in the UK.
We are disappointed that the Code of practice, which has to be followed by all employers, and which could affect the well being of thousands of people who are currently enduring racism at work should receive so little support and publicity. It is not just that my company makes a living (at present a very small one) by selling our services to promote race equality, it is that justice and equality would be served if people know about the protection that the law provides.
Linda Bellos
Lesbian Marriage
Two women are appealing to the High Court for the right of their marriage in Canada to be recognised in the UK as marriage as opposed to being recognised as a Civil Partnership. I fully support this claim as it seems to be that the UK is willing to recognise any number of ‘marriages’ between men and women who tie the knot in Las Vegas having known each other for minutes or hours. Japanese wedding ceremonies are different than those in the Uk but this does not stop them being recognised here. If a marriage is recognised in Canada it should have the same status and recognition here.
For my own part I am happy to call my Civil Partnership with Caroline a Civil partnership. We are to all intents and purposes married in that we have a legal commitment recognised and acknowledged by the State which we cannot dissolve without State sanction. Our civil partnership was what was available to us at the time, had we been in Canada we might have been eligible and even chosen to marry. But Sue and She did marry under Canadian law and now have the right to have that relationship honoured by the UK which recognises Canadian law.
It seems to be argued that this case will open the floodgates to same sex couple demanding marriage here. Many conservatives within the Christian denominations seem to object on the grounds that if we as lesbians or gay men live in committed and faithful relationship this will somehow damage or demean ‘their’ marriages. I am not quite sure how this is supposed to work, given that many heterosexual people have not outlawed marriages which are casual and lightly entered into between men and women, but condemn committed and loving and often life long relations between two women or two men.
What is at stake in this case is not a great deal of principle but a great deal of humbug. Either society welcomes and cherishes committed and loving relationships or it does not. In the case of the bigots a relations is OK as long as it is between a man and a woman, however transient, hateful or hurtful it may be.
Linda Bellos