Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld and Lisbeth Andersen.
Contact to Euro-Letter:
In this issue:
Next issue: 50
The Action Plan and other documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found
at ILGA-Europe's
homepage.
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in
Europe and guides to the structure of the European Union, the Council of
Europe and The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe can
be found on the home
page of the Gay and Lesbian International Lobby.
Since EuroLetter 48 the development of the
possible antidiscrimination clause in a new EU treaty has changed twice.
DUTCH PRESIDENCY DELETES NON-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON AGE,
DISABILITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Press release, Dutch Groenlinks
Nel van Dijk, MEP for Dutch Groenlinks, has published new confidential documents of the Dutch Presidency on the internet.
The new documents deal with the fundamental rights of the European citizens and the equal treatment of women and men.
The Dutch Presidency wants to restrict the non-discrimination clause to gender, race and religion. Thus the Dutch government is substantially narrowing down the more comprehensive non-discrimination clause as proposed by the Irish Presidency, which included also social origin, age, disability and sexual orientation.
The proposals in relation to equal treatment are harmful for democracy, as the proposed qualified majority voting cannot be controlled by any parliament. In the mean time it is completely unclear what will happen to the Social Protocol, that under certain conditions, gave more controlling competencies to the European parliament, then today's Dutch proposals.
The Dutch Presidency argumentation to restrict the categories of discrimination reads: "The Conference could rather consider whether those concerns wouldn't be better addressed in the context of the existing substantive policy provisions (e.g. social policy, education, vocational training and youth, public health)."
Nel van Dijk (GroenLinks) considers it a nonsense argument: "The European Commission over the last years repeatedly complained that there is no European legal basis e.g. to tackle discrimination of gays and lesbians in Europe. They even cannot charge a Commissioner for coordination of these policies as there is no provision in the Treaties.
The Dutch government just is trying to block any future European policy in this area. The Irish, Austrian and Italian governments in earlier stages of the IGC have submitted more far reaching proposals and one could not say that these governments are the vanguard of gay and lesbian liberation.
Deleting age and handicap from the list reminds me of a kind of
fear of flying. The Dutch obviously suffer from "the Law of
Brakes of Progress"(*). It is all about provisions that should
have no direct effect and only could work properly if the
Commission takes initiatives, on which European Parliament only
has to be consulted and moreover that has to be adopted by
unanimity by the Council. Well I don't think this will quickly
lead to expensive legislation. Anti-discrimnation policy is not
a matter of subsidiarity, flexibility or dough but just of
decency."
UP DATE ON THE EU NON DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE
By Hein Verkerk
European parliament - In March 13 European Parliament discussed the development of the negotiations in the IGC. Vraious speakers raised the question of the deletion of sexual orientation from the proposed non-discrimination clause.
Greens raised it and also the Dutch Christian Democrat speaker Mrs. Maij-Weggen referred to it. The Dutch government, holding the Presidency of the EU was severely critisised.
On March 14 th, European Parliament adopted a resolution on the development in the Intergovernmental Conference(IGC) on the revision of the Treaties of the European Union.
On the proposal of Nel van Dijk (Dutch Green) European Parliament stated the following on the deletion by the Dutch presidency, of age, disability and sexual orientation from the non-discrimination clause:
9. Strongly opposes and refuses the proposal by the Dutch Presidency to delete sexual orientation, age and disability from the anti-discrimination Article as put forward by the Irish Presidency;
10. Strongly opposes the Dutch Presidency proposal concerning equality between women and men and calls for the introduction of the co-decision procedure in this matter;
Dutch Parliament - On March 7th, following written questions to Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, the have been raised in Dutch parliament by Boris Dittrich (D66, left liberal), Mieke van der Burg (PVDA, social democrat) and Leonie Sipkes (GreenLeft).
1. Is the Dutch presidency willing to do efforts to include in the non-discrimination paragraph of the new treaty of the European Union (The Treaty of Amsterdam) a provision that discrimination based on sexual orientation explicitly will be forbidden ? If not, why not?
2. How do you estimate the chances that such a provision explicitly will be included in the final text of the treaty ?
3. Which member states do favour an anti-discrimination paragraph with direct effect ? Why, contrary to those countries, the Dutch government refuses such a direct effect ?
4. Do you know the resolution of the European parliament of
January, 16 , 1997 (nr B-0040/97), according to which the
non-discrimination clause should have direct effect for European
citizens and that reads that the role of the European
Parliament, in this area that is so important for the civil
rights , should be enhanced by means of the co-decision
procedure ? What is your reaction to this resolution ?
DUTCH GOVERNMENT RULES OUT EUROPEAN EQUALITY FOR OLDER PEOPLE,
LESBIANS AND GAY MEN AND DISABLED PEOPLE
Press release from ILGA-Europe
Secret documents of the EU Intergovernmental Conference, published on the Internet by Dutch MEP Nel van Dijk, reveal that the Dutch EU Presidency is trying to kill widely supported proposals which would have guaranteed equal treatment in European law for older people, lesbians and gays and disabled people.
The highly secretive intergovernmental conference (IGC) which is preparing the revision of the European Union's Treaties has recently been opened up to wider public scrutiny by the publication on the Internet of working documents (so-called "non-papers") prepared by the Dutch Presidency of the EU. Dutch Green MEP Nel van Dijk has defended her decision to make these documents available to the European public saying, "I think interested citizens are entitled to know where we are heading."
Amongst the papers published is one on "Fundamental Rights and non-discrimination" in which the Dutch drastically cut down the scope of an earlier proposal of their Irish predecessors in the EU chair, to enable the EU to fight against discrimination.
The Irish proposal, which was based on the demands of the Austrian and Italian governments and the European Parliament and European Commission, aimed to give the EU the ability to adopt measures to combat discrimination against European citizens on the grounds of sex, race, ethnic or social origin, religious belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. This was already a much slimmed-down version of an earlier more ambitious proposal, but the Dutch have chipped away even more of the initiative. They insist on removing the terms "social origin", "disability", "age" and "sexual orientation" from the list. And through subtle changes in the language in the draft, they make it more or less impossible for the EU to adopt any new measures which would benefit even the categories that remain in the list.
Ironically, the document was published just days after the European Parliament had voted by a majority of 114 to demand that the EU put an end to any discrimination against its own employees on the grounds of race, political, philosophical or religious beliefs, sex or sexual orientation, and to remove age-limits for recruitment. The actions of the Dutch therefore seem to be flying in the face of the wishes of the EU's only democratically elected body.
"This is a set back to anyone who cares about human rights in the European Union," said Steffen Jensen, spokesman for ILGA-Europe, a organisation representing hundreds of gay and lesbian groups throughout Europe, "and it is a real slap in the face for disabled people, lesbians and gays and older people."
"Governments have been constantly assuring everyone of the importance of making the EU more relevant to individual citizens. Some governments, the European Parliament and the European Commission seem prepared to put these good intentions into practice by trying to eliminate discrimination from European legislation. But, astonishingly, it now seems that the Dutch - who traditionally are amongst the champions in defending gay and lesbian rights - want to prevent the EU from guaranteeing fundamental rights for European citizens."
The Dutch Presidency attempts to justify its position by saying that "...the Conference could consider whether these concerns [discrimination on grounds of disability, age, social origin and sexual orientation] wouldn't be better addressed in the context of the existing substantive policy provisions."
"This is nonsense," replies Steffen Jensen. "The European Commission has often claimed that the reason that it can't do more to fight discrimination against lesbians and gays, for example, is because there are no `existing substantive policy provisions' for doing so. The Dutch proposal is shockingly cynical. It gives the impression of progress in human rights, whereas in fact, it will change nothing at all."
"Our governments, and the Dutch government in particular, are
now under the spotlight. We urge everyone who is concerned with
human rights, and especially groups which represent older
people, disabled people and lesbians and gays, to join together
to reverse this trend in the negotiations. Does the Dutch
government really believe that it is unacceptable to
discriminate against a woman, but acceptable to discriminate
against a woman in a wheelchair? Do they believe that it should
be illegal to discriminate against a man who is black, but legal
to discriminate against a black man who is also gay?"
FURTHER UPDATE ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION ARTICLE IN THE NEW EU
TREATY
By Hein Verkerk
Today, Thursday, 20 th March, the Dutch Foreign Minister Hans van Mierlo, in the Committee on European Affairs of Dutch Parliament in The Hague, announced that the Dutch presidency will present a revised proposal on the non-discrimination article for the Treaty of Amsterdam.
He informed the Committee that the Dutch Presidency will re-introduce age, disability and sexual orientation in the categories of discrimination that can become subject of European legislation. From a so-called non-paper it had become clear that the Dutch EU Presidency had deleted these categories from the proposal as put forward by the Irish Presidency last December.
After the publication of the highly confidential document two weeks ago on the internet by Dutch GreenLeft member of European Parliament, Mrs. Nel van Dijk, (on https://www.xs4all.nl/~nelvdijk) the Dutch government met with heavy criticism of ILGA-Europe, the International Lesbian and Gay Association. The European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning the Dutch EU presidency asking to take up age, disability and sexual orientation again.
It was announced today that a document will be presented on short notice to the IGC, the Intergovernmental Conference, that is preparing the revision of the EU treaties, to be finalized next June at the Amsterdam European Summit Meeting.
(revised version)
In 1950, the Council of Europe, created to safeguard and promote the principles of democracy and the human rights, published its "European Convention for the Protection Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", to which 40 states have now signed up.
In 1957 the Treaty of Rome began the great adventure that became the Common Market; from the E.E.C. (European Economic Community) of 6 countries to the European Union of 15, now engaged by the Maastricht Treaty. These treaties and institutions imply new rights and new duties: the promising result would be a common citizenship for Europeans.
The signatory countries of these treaties have undertaken to respect the principles of the founding texts, notably human rights and in particular freedom of thought, of expression, the right to respect for private life and the freedom of association.
However, it appears that certain citizens are "less equal" than others, notably homosexals and bisexuals.
There are countries in Europe where homosexuality is still a criminal offence: Romania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia severely punish homosexuality. To a lesser degree, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Greece, Poland and Bulgaria, amongst others, have discriminatory legislation.
The age of consent for homosexuals remains, in certain countries, different from the age of consent for heterosexuals (the United Kingdom, Finland, Austria, Liechtenstein, Albania, Croatia). Liechtenstein bans all positive representations of homosexuality, and the United Kingdom prohibits local government authorities from allowing such representations.
Moreover, the legal recognition of the couple has been gained in only a very few countries: only Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Hungary have enacted laws - even if they are not perfect - allowing two people of the same sex to be "united" legally and to enjoy rights comparable to those of heterosexual couples.
In all that concerns parenting for homosexuals or bisexuals, even if certain encouraging advances have been made here and there (Belgium, Iceland, The Netherlands, the town of Valencia), discrimination remains the norm around subjects such as adoption, custody or artificial insemination.
Europeans are not equal either in all that concerns people who are H.I.V. positive or sick: in certain countries real discrimination exists against these people, and access to health care is not always respected.
Such an inequality of rights in Europe is unacceptable.
We, Europeans, refuse to recognise these discriminations and demand an equality of rights for all citizens, no matter what their sexual preference.
We ask that all European states enact in their countries:
We think that the Intergovernmental Conference represents an opportunity to introduce, in a future treaty, a clause stipulating equal treatment and non-discrimination, notably in all that concerns sexual orientation.
Parallel to such anti-discrimination legislation the notion of citizenship should be exercised in all aspects of daily life. The very idea of citizenship involves a real and daily effort in everything (in education, at work, in health-care, in the arts and culture, in sports and hobbies, etc) to enable a real awakening of harmony between individuals.
This is why we particularly ask for more objective information for the young about sexuality. We protest the idea of censorship against people who try and present a positive image of homosexuality in the world of education or culture; we ask all concerned (the State local authorities, the educational and cultural world) to ensure that this censorship ceases to exist.
Also, Europe shares a tragic history: that of the Second World War and the concentration camps, where people were sent because of their sexual orientation. It is time for the concerned countries to recognise this specific deportation and respect the memory of those who were lost.
Finally, we, Europeans, wish to show our active solidarity with those foreign nationals who cannot live their own sexuality because of the impossibility or even danger, or with those who have aids-related illnesses and cannot get treatment. People should be granted asylum in the name of our common ideals.
Europe cannot only be a commercial, financial or military Europe;
Europe is peopled by women and men who wish to share the same rights
and the same duties.
We want a true Europe of citizens.
We want a true European citizenship.
SPANISH PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON PARTNERSHIP BILL HAS PUT THE
GOVERNMENT IN A DIFFICULT POSITION
By Cesar Leston
As you may recall, the Spanish Socialist Party-PSOE and the Izquierda Unida-IU (former communist party plus a coalition of green and other left-winged parties) had submitted last october two bills providing a legal framework on the partnership issue.
The Fundaci¢n Triangulo, as well as other groups, had launched a campaign aimed at convincing the christian-based Partido Popular, now in office, to vote in favor of the law.
The first debate on the issue took place at the end of March. Its aim was to decide wether the bill was recevable and thus continue the parliamentary proceedings or wether the issue was to be downright discarded.
Such debate took place on March 18th and certainly was everything but quiet...
The Government in office is in a minority position at the Lower House of Parliament (The Congress) and holds some 157 seats. The absolute majority is 175 seats.
The ruling Partido Popular (hereinafter PP for short) was relying on the support of its traditional allies: the catalan, basque and canary islands parties.
Before the voting, an angry debate took place... the speaksperson for the PP said such laws were irrecevible for they granted also the right of adoption (actually only one of the bills did), something which, he said, only to be found among the "australian aborigenes" (quoted!).
The voting was: 161 pro to 161 against! and twice!
It was the first time ever such a score was recorded in a Parliament voting.
The 161 votes against were issued by the PP MP's and those of the Catalan Party. All the other MP's voted in favor, including the basques, traditional allies of the PP in office ... excepted the two Canarian Party MP's, who for some "unexplainable" reason did not attend the vote.
Actually, the chairman of the debate did the only thing he could do: decreeing a 15-minute pause. During such pause, the PP Group Leader started to look for all his MP's (actually all the MP's who were in Madrid that day had turned out and voted) and the two missing Canarian Party MP's.
When the session resumed and a third vote took place, the actual result was 161 pro and 163 against, the two extra votes coming from the canary islands MP's.
The ruling Party, PP, actually voted a last-minute bill in favor of creating a sub-parliamentary commission specifically commited to studying the issue, something which all the parties and the press have viewed as a mere way to put an end to the issue... for this commission has been given a term to produce a report: June the 30th, just at the very beginning of the Parliament "closed-for-summer-holidays-period".
Those chaps are so unaware of gay issues they did not realized that by trying to have the thing delayed they would have to produce a report just some days after June 28th, the Gay Pride Day.
PSOE and IU reacted quickly. The very day after, March 19th, they submitted AGAIN the same bills to which only some minor changes were made. "The voting was too narrow" a PSOE official said; "The chances to win the vote are too narrow to miss it". And, there we go again, a new voting on the issue should take place within a few months.
And, at that, two of the three parties usually backing the government made a bitter criticism on the issue. While regretting the vote of the PP, the Basque Party complained on the current government majority of two votes is too narrow for a sustainable coalition. Meanwhile, the Canary Islands MP's nuanced a bit their vote: they said they were in favor of having such a law passed after a period of reflection. So, should the government not rule a law within a reasonable period, they would be submitting their own law themselves!
Also, one of the missing MP's of the ruling party, Ms Celia Villalobos, who is also the major of Malaga (one of Spain's largest cities) said to the press in what seemed a "calculated leaking" that she had failed to attend the voting because she would have vote according to her conscience... a nice way to say she would have loved to vote for but did not have the guts to vote against her party's discipline.
Meanwhile, the MP's of the parties in coalition who voted again, when back to their hometowns got their ears boxed (metaphorically speaking) by the militants of their parties who could not understand why their MP's had voted against a measure their election manifesto had specifically supported.
But the party in office has not remained quiet. They have made public that their intention is to create a legal text which would cover a much wider type of unions.. it does sound progressive but the truth they hide behind the curtain is something else... They are actually considering as a framework for their own Bill some versions of the French-made Contrat d'Union Sociale (CUS for short) which includes all types of relationships between two persons, be their nature sexual or merely supportive, such as uncle-nephew, grandfather-grandson, two friends of either sex living together... that is, what they actually want is having unmarried couples, wether gays or straight ones, dilluted among all that kind of different type unions; their approach is almost machiavelic: if our homes are not really family units, why should gays be granted a status similar to that of family units? Let's grant them a lower one among with so many others who will "never" be considered as real families, that will weaken their demands...
Once again, given the situation, the Fundacion Triangulo wants
to make public that the Spanish government is in a too difficult
position not to be sensible to public pressure, either national
or international. Thence, once we have set up a strategy towards
the issue, should we deem it suitable, we hope to rely on your
co-operation.
IGC-MINISTERIAL MEETING: PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS EU CITIZENS' RIGHT
TO SEEK ASYLUM
Amesty International Press release of 22 March 1997
Brussels -- The Spanish proposal to include a provision in the European Union Treaty denying the right to seek asylum to citizens of EU Member States in the other EU countries contravenes international human rights standards, and is a dangerous precedent that could lead to the implementation of similar measures in other regions of the world, Amnesty International said today.
On the eve of the Ministerial Meeting during the Intergovernmental Conference on the revision of the Maastricht Treaty (IGC) on 24 February, the human rights organization strongly calTs upon EU member States to respect their international obligations and not to deny the right to seek asylum to nationals of EU Member States.
The Spanish government's proposal was retained by the European Council on 13 and 14 December 1996 in Dublin, which asked the Conference "to develop the important proposal to amend the Treaties to establish it as a clear principle that no citizen of a Member State of the Union may apply for asylum in another Member State, taking into account international treaties".
Amnesty International points to the fact that the Spanish proposal would clearly contravene obligations undertaken by EU member states under international human rights treaties. Therefore, if international treaties were indeed to be "taken into account", the entire proposal would be negated.
All EU Member States should respect the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which states that " everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution". Also, as signatories of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, they are obligated to respect its provisions, including the fundamental principle of non-discriminatory application, set out in Article 3.
"It is a core principle of international refugee law that all asylum seekers, irrespective of their country of origin, should have access to a fair and satisfactory individual asylum determination procedure," Amnesty International said.
The organization stresses also that international obligations resulting from the Geneva Convention should be individually respected by each Member State. "It is the States who are party to the Convention and not the EU as such. Affiliation to a supranational body such as the EU cannot be used by Member States to evade their obligations under international human rights law".
In spite of the UNHCR's firm position against this proposal -- considered by that body as incompatible with the 1951 Geneva Convention -- the EU Presidency's representative, Mr. Michiel Patijn, declared at the end of the meeting of personal representatives of the Foreign Ministers within the IGC on 10 and 11 February that the Spanish proposal was "politically accepted".
"Not only does the proposal contravene the 1951 Geneva Convention, but also it ignores the fact that no one can guarantee that EU citizens will never have to flee human rights violations in the current or an enlarged European Union," Amnesty International said.
It is the understanding of Amnesty International that the Spanish government has put forward this proposal with a view to combatting terrorism. While the organization understands the need for governments to prevent terrorism, it believes measures taken by governments to do so must be in conformity with their obligations under human rights standards.
Amnesty International views the IGC proposal with grave concern,
and urges the governments of the EU not to confuse the fight
against terrorism with the obligation to ensure all individuals'
right to seek asylum.
DUTCH GAYS WILL HAVE TWO WAYS TO GET HITCHED
by Rex Wockner
Come Jan. 1, 1998, Dutch gay, lesbian and straight couples will be able to register their partnership and gain every right of marriage except access to adoption.
Then around the year 2,000, Dutch gays and lesbians likely will be able to get married -- under the regular marriage laws.
The registration measure passed Holland's Second Chamber of Parliament in December with 104 of 150 possible votes. It now must pass the First Chamber but that is only a formality. The First Chamber only looks for procedural errors.
The Second Chamber, meanwhile, has begun debate on gay co-parenting in an attempt to void the adoption exclusion via a separate piece of legislation.
Should that measure pass also, there would be no differences between partnerships and marriages except when it comes to divorce. Married people have to go to divorce court whereas partnered couples would only have to go to court if one of the parties contested the breakup. Otherwise they would just unregister at City Hall.
Ordinary marriage is coming for Dutch homosexuals at the turn of the century, gay activists say. Parliament has instructed the government to prepare preliminary legislation by this August and a special committee is scurrying to determine what being the world's first gay-marriage country would mean for Holland's international agreements and relationships.
"The majority in Parliament is for gay marriage," said Henk Krol, editor of Holland's largest gay publication, De Gay Krant. "The minority in parliament says people in other European countries and in America won't understand us. We are already such a strange place for all the people around the world. What will be the rights of [gay] people married in the Netherlands when they go abroad? It will give us a lot of problems around the world.
What about foreigners coming to the Netherlands just to marry? So, we have to investigate how people around the world will react when we are the first to open up marriage for gay people -- that's what the minority says, and that's what is taking place now."
The research is being conducted by the Justice Ministry's Commission on Opening Legal Marriage, composed mostly of university folks and former politicians.
"The group is coming around to be very much in favor of saying someone has to be first [on gay marriage] and why not Holland?" Krol said.
The commission will report to Vice Justice Minister Elizabeth Schmitz, an open lesbian who, although worried about the international consequences, is also leaning toward supporting gay marriage.
The Second Chamber has said it wants to begin debate on the commission's report and the draft legislation by December of this year.
Scandinavia, Hungary and Hawaii At present, four countries offer marriage-like gay partnerships: Denmark (and Greenland), Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The laws grant all rights of matrimony except access to adoption, artificial-conception technology and church weddings. In Iceland, though, partners can obtain joint custody of each other's biological children.
Hungary last year legalized common-law gay marriage after the Constitutional Court mandated the move. All matrimonial rights are included except, again, access to adoption.
Denmark's law took effect Oct, 1, 1989, following a 71-47 vote by the Folketing (parliament). Greenland, a Danish dependency, hesitated then adopted the Danish law in 1994.
Norway's law came into effect Aug. 1, 1993, following parliamentary votes of 58-40 (Odelsting chamber) and 18-16 (Lagting chamber). Sweden joined the club Jan. 1, 1995, following a vote of 171-141 with 5 abstentions and 32 absences.
"We accept homosexual love as equivalent to heterosexual," said Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt.
Gay partnerships became legal in Iceland last June 27, gay-pride day there. The Althing, the parliament, voted for the law 44-1 with 1 abstention and 17 MPs missing from the chamber. Public opposition was minimal and Icelandic President Vigdis Finnbogadottir was guest of honor at the nation's first gay wedding reception.
Foreign couples may not travel to Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, Norway or Sweden for a gay wedding. At least half of a couple must be a citizen of the nation in question and must be living there when the wedding occurs.
Two thousand eighty-three homosexual couples had tied the knot in Denmark at last count -- 1,449 male couples and 634 female couples. Seventeen percent of the couples (357) later divorced and 219 marriages ended when a partner died. Danish lesbians have a higher divorce rate -- 23 percent vs. 14 percent for gay men. (Source for figures: Danish gay newspaper Pan-Bladet).
Despite all the action in Europe, many observers of the gay-marriage craze are focused on Hawaii where a trial court ruled Dec. 3 that there is no compelling reason for prohibiting gays from marrying.
The ruling was placed on hold while it is appealed to the state Supreme Court -- but the Supreme Court previously has ruled that the government cannot discriminate based on gender in the issuance of marriage licenses without a "compelling" reason for doing so.
As such, gays are expected to win the appeal and same-sex marriage should be legal in Hawaii by early 1998. The matter cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court since it is solely a matter of interpretation of Hawaii's state constitution.
The "$64,000 Question" is whether Hawaiian gay weddings be recognized by other U.S. states. Congress already has passed the Defense of Marriage Act stipulating that the rest of the country does not have to honor Hawaiian gay marriages, but many legal scholars say DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause under which states must respect each other's public acts.
Several states also have passed laws stating they will not be
recognizing queer marriages from elsewhere. Those laws also may
not pass Constitutional muster.
BRITISH MILITARY CASE GOES TO EURO COURT
By Rex Wockner
A gay man who was sacked from the British Navy saw his case referred to the European Court of Justice March 13. Terry Perkins was dismissed on grounds of his sexuality in November 1995.
The European Court likely will decide whether discrimination based on sexual orientation breaches the European Union's Equal Treatment Directive and, if so, whether the law applies to the military, Britain's High Court said in referring the case.
A hearing is likely this year with a decision within 18 months.
If Perkins wins, it would become illegal for any employer in the 15-nation European Union to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gays who have been kicked out of the military could demand compensation.
Last year the European Court held that the Equal Treatment Directive was breached when a transsexual was fired after undergoing a sex-change operation.
In referring the military case, the British court said: "After the decision in the [transsexual] case, it is scarcely possible to limit the application of the Directive to gender discrimination. There must be a real prospect that the European Court will take the further courageous step to extend protection to those of homosexual orientation."
Angela Mason, head of the British lobby group Stonewall, responded with a call for the Ministry of Defence to suspend the ban pending the European ruling.
"The days of this iniquitous ban are now almost certainly numbered," Mason said. "The MoD should suspend the ban immediately, to limit the taxpayers' liability to compensation claims and to give themselves time to prepare for the day when the ban is lifted -- which could now be little more than a year away."
SWEDEN:
INCITEMENT TO HATRED AGAINST GAYS REMAINS LEGAL
By Björn Skolander
Incitement to Hatred against Homosexuals Remains Legal. On March 12th, the Swedish Parliament rejected the proposal to ban incitement to hatred against homosexuals. This proposal was supported by the Centre Party, the Liberal Party, the Leftist Party and the Green Party plus several Social Democratic MPs. Neo-Nazi agitation against lesbians and gay men is therefore still legal.
Parliament also rejected the proposal to introduce a
constitutional ban against legislation which discriminates
against homosexuals. This proposal was supported by the
Leftists and the Greens. The ruling Social Democratic Party
received heavy criticism in the parliamentary debate for its
reluctance to support a ban against incitement to hate against
homosexuals.
POLAND BANS GAY MARRIAGE
By Rex Wockner
Poland's new constitution, which passed Parliament 461-31 March 22, bans gay marriage, the Associated Press reported. As recently as last September, a draft of the constitution also banned discrimination based on sexual orientation - something only South Africa has done constitutionally.
AP did not say what became of the anti-discrimination clause.
The constitution must be reviewed by President Aleksander
Kwasneiwski and then faces a public vote May 25.
ILGA-EUROPE LAUNCHES A PROPOSAL FOR AN EU ACTION PLAN
By Steffen Jensen
At the European conference in Madrid December 1996 the idea of an Action Plan to promote equal opportunities for lesbians and gays under European Union programmes was launched.
Thanks to a considerable input from Egalité (the association for gay/lesbian employees in the European institutions) the board of ILGA-Europe has approved the enclosed proposal for an Action Plan for the European Union. The Action Plan is a list of possible initiatives which ILGA wishes to be financed and implemented by the European Commission.
The Action Plan is a policy document. It can be successful and effective only if ILGA member associations and any other organisation, company or institution which wish to promote equality for lesbians and gays submit proposals for projects to the Commission, using the Action plan as an official reference and guideline.
The Ation Plan has been sent to all members of the European Commission, Chairpersons of the Committees and selected members of the European Parliament, and to the permanent representatives to the European Union of all European and Mediterranean states.
At its meeting in Bruxelles on 5-6 April 1997 the board has decided to specifically encourage some of the European member groups to present proposals for projects, together with other European groups and organizations, for some specific parts of the Action Plan:
| Action | Possible interested member group |
|---|---|
| 2 | Egalité |
| 3 | Research institutes |
| 4 | SETA |
| 5 | Stonewall |
| 6 | CG-L, Arci Gay, Arci Lesbia, COGAM |
| 7 | SOHO, HOSI-Wien |
| 8 | CG-L |
| 9 | Filmfestival groups |
| 10 | Tupilak, filmfestival groups |
| 11 | Research institutes |
| 12 | IGLYO |
| 13 | ILGA's AIDS WP |
| 14 | European Pride Organisers Associations |
| 15 | SVD |
| 16 | LBL |
| 17 | Arci Gay, Arci Lesbia |
| 18 | COC, LBL |
| 19 | Stonewall |
| 20 | European Gay & Lesbian Sport Federation, Gay Games |
| 21 | HomoDok |
| 22 | UNISON |
| 23 | ABOP, UNISON |
| 24 | SNEG, Völklinger Kreis |
See the Action Plan
 France QRDILGA Euroletter
|
Copyright ILGA, Gais et Lesbiennes Branchés, © 1997 |