Rights talks move online

Rights talks move online

Equal treatment for gay and lesbian people and better treatment of gender diverse people were early pleas to the National Human Rights Consultation’s move online.

An online forum was established to encourage free interaction and debate on the issues raised during the consultation hearings across the country. Sydney’s three hearings on 17 March were fully booked and those who missed out won’t have another opportunity except online or via a written submission.

Just four weeks remain in what Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes called a once-in-a-generation opportunity to highlight gay and lesbian issues that should be part of a new human rights law.

One participant, Bayne MacGregor, wrote that inequality was at the heart of any human rights violation and Australia had plenty of inequality.

When couples are treated differently under the law based on their sexual orientation. Where [t]ranssexuals must be sterilised and lose any reproductive rights in order to be treated as equal citizens without constant discrimination, and who often have great trouble getting ordinary medical treatment.

An advisory charter of rights would help protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, he wrote, and called for a parliamentary committee to help scrutinise inequalities that breach the charter.

But there was also opposition to a charter of rights, claims that it was just another level of bureaucracy.
More than 13,000 written submissions have already been made to the consultation, many opposing GLBT rights as breaching religious freedoms.

Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes -” who is not part of the consultation committee -” has been touring the country to promote participation.

Gay and lesbian and transgender people are still telling me of unacceptable treatment in Australia. Not to the level of other countries, pleasingly, but certainly to the level of being harassed and bullied in school or the workplace, he told Sydney Star Observer.

One group talked to me about transgender people being run out of Northbridge in Western Australia by homophobic gangs.

Education of young people was important in combating homophobia, but other measures were also needed.

Australia needs [sexuality] discrimination law at a federal level so people can lodge complaints, and we probably need to look at how we recognise same-sex relationships.

info: The National Human Rights Consultation’s online forum will run until 26 June at openforum.com.au/NHROC.

You May Also Like

4 responses to “Rights talks move online”

  1. Hi Mike & Earth Angel
    My name is Sally and I’m working on the National Human Rights Online Consultation. You both make important points here, and I would love to see them included in the report the National Human Rights Committee presents to the government with their recommendations next month. Please log in to http://www.openforum.com.au/NHROC to lodge your ideas as part of the consultation process so this can happen.
    Cheers
    Sally Rose
    [email protected]

  2. Hi.
    Cool to be quoted :)
    Thanks!

    EarthAngel, you raise a good point regarding Intersex issues and you’ll see I have already mentioned some of them in the online forum this article refers to.

    I don’t mention HBS however for several reasons. While I respect your and others right to any form of self-identification and I agree that scientific evidence does show that there are biological components found with transsexuals the HBS doctrine that Transgender doesn’t cover Transsexuals ignores all the Transsexuals who do embrace the term Transgender in it’s current meaning and usage and the argument that they have different causation is based on a lack of neccessary comparative biological studies and flawed assumptions as this points out http://caveofrationality.blogspot.com/2009/05/crossdressing-and-biological-causation.html

    The Identity politics arguments are reasonably immaterial to a human rights argument anyway as the same principles of human rights cover all sex and gender diversity. As i point out in the forum regarding infant circumcision, infant Intersex surgery and denying hormone blockers to transgender children entering puberty who need them all involves the same rights.

    The same human rights belong to all sex and gender diverse people and need to be protected from abuse regardless of ideological model or choice of terminology. We all can and should work for everyones equal human rights.

  3. I found this the other day regarding the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 in section 4 (under “Interpretation”), 12th word down in alphbetical order.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/

    – which urgently needs to be amended from “de facto spouse” to “de facto partner”. The current law currently says and I quote “”de facto spouse , in relation to a person, means a person of the opposite sex to the first-mentioned person who lives with the first-mentioned person as the husband or wife of that person on a bona fide” domestic basis although not legally married to that person.” – unquote. That bit should be repealed and replaced with “de facto partner means under s22A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1900”. Also there urgently needs to be the words “sexuality” and “gender idenity” added into the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 as well.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s22a.html?query=de%20facto%20partner

  4. SSO and Commissioner Innes, may I point out yet again that you have left intersex people out of your statements and this article, as well as transsexual people and those with HBS – Harry Benjamin Syndrome.

    Lest it is assumed otherwise, I also wish to remind you both that the term “transgender” does not somehow also include transsexualism, HBS, and for that matter intersex. To assume that it does so is logically absurd.

    Please give intersex, transsexualism and HBS equal coverage from now onwards.