Formed in 1979 to give a voice to the many non-religious in the lesbian and gay community in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, GALHA promotes a rational humanist approach to homosexuality and lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights as human rights.
GALHA is a national and democratically run membership organisation, and in responding to the present consultation, we draw upon the experience of our members of discrimination they have faced.
We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Interim Report of the Equalities Review, as we have great concerns at the content of that initial report.
We feel very strongly that our original submission has not been taken into proper account in the Interim Report of the Equalities Review. Although homophobic bullying has been recognised as of vital importance in determining the future life chances of young people, as a “trigger” episode, we do not feel that this alone can give a fair picture of the discrimination and inequality suffered by LGB people. Discrimination against the non-religious is totally absent from the report, and yet we presented clear evidence of areas where this exists, and we know of other organisations that did likewise. We hope that the Review panel and the final report of the Equalities Review will give further attention to our original submission as well as to the few observations below that we make on the Interim Report.
We recognise that there is a great dearth of research within the strands of sexual orientation and religion or belief, and we agree with the Interim Report that much more work is needed. It seems to us, however, that although the Interim Report notes the lack of research on certain strands, it then proceeds to make its recommendations based only on those areas where a large amount of research exists. We do not believe that a lack of research means that no inequalities can be identified, or that work should therefore proceed (as it seems to in the Interim Report) only in those areas where research exists.
Many inequalities that exist both on grounds of sexual orientation and on grounds of religion or belief are in fact clear and identifiable, and no quantitative research is needed to justify official attention being paid to them. We mentioned many of them in our original submission and we remain of the view that they merit inclusion in the work of the Review. Those that relate to education are of particular prominence, as being most easily identifiable, and we take this opportunity to restate them:
In education law and policy, both humanists and LGB young people face considerable inequality and discrimination. The non-religious (and those from non-Christian religious minorities) are discriminated against by law that requires a daily act of broadly Christian worship in community schools and by the fact that Religious Education is woefully narrow in its scope (which only recently, in the QCA’s non-statutory national framework, included secular philosophies and even then as an optional added extra); they suffer too from the default Christianity that prevails in the school system. The current proliferation of religious schools also works to discriminate against the non-religious – both the parents who are increasingly denied the choice of non-religious schools for, and the children who are denied their entitlement to, a broad-based and diverse curriculum.
Religious schools, of course, also discriminate against LGB young people, by denying the validity of their sexual orientation. LGB young people are also discriminated against in community schools. Although the inexcusable Section 28 has now been repealed, the full consequences of that repeal have not been enjoyed. Too many teachers are still hesitant to explore issues of sexuality with their pupils in a way that would improve the experiences of the many children of every orientation who need reassurance at that age. The general anti-discrimination provisions of the National Curriculum include requirements to respect difference and promote equality in gender and religion, but not in sexual orientation. Sex and Relationships Education, and PSHE do not address issues of sexual orientation.
We have serious concerns about the way in which it is proposed to define equality. A “capabilities” approach downplays the continuing usefulness of the strand approach. By reducing the importance of equality of process, it also threatens to overlook those groups that have yet to achieve equality of process. We do not believe, either, that an indicator based on equality of outcome should be rejected – within a human rights framework that recognises that equal treatment doesn’t always mean the same treatment, we believe that this concept still has validity and may be useful as an indicator.
The recommendation of a “capabilities” approach is especially of concern in the strands of sexual orientation and religion or belief, where LGB people and the non-religious have yet to achieve even equality of process. Even if equality of process is not to be the Equalities Review’s indicator of choice, surely the Review’s final report should at least recommend that, in those areas where such equality has not yet been achieved, priority should be given to the achievement of such equality.
While we see some validity, therefore, in the problem areas identified by the Interim Report for priority attention, we believe that the areas of the law in which some groups continue to be denied even equality of process should be addressed with no less alacrity. For LGB people and for the non-religious, some of these are quite clear, either because they are predominantly to do with social attitudes, or because they are as a result of excessive exceptions or privileges from the general law made for religious groups:
There is no law against the incitement of hatred against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation as there is for race, or that proposed for religion. Religious teachings and groups loom large in the inspiration of such social attitudes through their homophobic rhetoric and actions. When the Government announced its intention to introduce civil partnerships, religious groups fell over themselves to declare that, as far as they were concerned, marriage was between a man and a woman. The Catholic Church continues to proclaim homosexuality a moral disorientation and a sin.
So, the inequalities that exist at meeting of sexual orientation and religion persist still – even in law. Religious groups can claim exemption from the general law against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment. At a community level, the influence of religion can result in terrible oppression and persecution of LGB people, if they happen to have been born into a religious family.
Inequalities also exist as a result of the failure of Government to accept that “religion or belief” constitutes a strand in which the two constituent parts are inseparable. There continues to be a privileging of religion in official policy – for example, in broadcasting by the BBC and in the provision of services such as chaplaincy in prisons or hospitals.
We note that religion is mentioned as a “theme” that has emerged from the Review panel’s work so far, and would like to take this opportunity to restate some of our views on this issue.
We remain convinced that the twentieth-century decline of religion as the arbiter of morality and the increasing freeing of society from the restrictions imposed by religion were undoubtedly of ultimate importance in the liberalising of attitudes towards both humanists and LGB people. Discrimination against the non-religious and men and women without an exclusively heterosexual orientation has always been inspired by religious teaching.
Since our original submission to the Equalities Review, this theme has become even more apparent, as representatives of religious groups such as the Association of Christian Teachers, the Evangelical Alliance, the Christian Institute, and the Church of England have (both in their official responses to Government and in the media) evinced bitter opposition to the proposed Sexual Orientation Regulations on goods, facilities and services.
We believe that religious attitudes continue to constrain the progressive tendency of the law in a way that denies real equality to many groups and individuals.