When it comes to recognising lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
lntersex (LG8T|) human rlghts, much of the debate seems to concentrate
on the lssue of marrlage equallty. whlle a slgnlcant lssue, we must recognlse that Australla's haphazard approach to recognltlon has stlned more than just the relationships of such diverse communities. Despite ratifying numerous international human rights treaties, sexual and gender minorities continue have limited legal recognition and little access to policy infrastructure to challenge ongoing discrimination. So why do we shy away as a natlon when lt comes to commlttlng to the broader question human rights? Currently, each Australlan state and terrltory has antl-dlscrlmlnatlon laws that to some extent protect sexual and gender minorities. However, these protections remain highly disparate, characterised by inconsistent termlnology and wlde-ranglng exemptlons. The recent Unlted Natlons (UN) Unlversal Perlodlc Pevlew relterated the lmportance for Australla to protect the human rlghts of lts LG8T| cltlzens. Australla's response to thls was mlxed. whlle the Government rejected the recommendation for marriage equality, it endorsed the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the consolldatlon of antl-dlscrlmlnatlon laws and the Natlonal Human Plghts Actlon Plan. While a commendable endeavour, this proposed harmonisation process must commit to the international human rights law articulated by the ogyakarta Prlnclples. whlle these prlnclples provlde a useful foundation for addressing human rights in terms of sexual orientation and "gender ldentlty, antl-dlscrlmlnatlon laws must be carefully drafted in order to include intersex people and individuals with diverse gender expressions. Current equality legislation also remains limited in insistence about thlnklng of dlscrlmlnatlon ln slngle ldentltles or characterlstlcs. As the ogyakarta Prlnclples allude to, thls klnd of dlscrete approach tends to obscure the intersections between individual identities. Por example, as one partlclpant noted ln the Australlan Human Plghts Commlsslon (AHPC) consultatlon on sexual orlentatlon and sex and/ or gender identity discrimination, how would you respond to someone who says to you, "why don't you poofters drop dead of A|DSI Such a vilifying statement not only relates to a particular sexual orientation, but also connects it to an HIV status, which is characterised separately as a disability. Public policy responses to litigating such prejudice, therefore, must acknowledge the indivisible intersections of discrimination. Peforms must further address how dlscretlonary exemptlons ln legislation undermine substantive equality for LGBTI people. For example, ln NSw, many rellglous organlsatlons play a vltal role ln the provision of public services. However, should a faith based organisation wlsh to do so, the Act provldes an exemptlon to allow the excluslon of a LGBTI person from providing foster care, or the expulsion of a student at a rellglous school on the sole basls that thelr 'homosexuallty' or 'transgender status' was percelved to compromlse thelr rellglous sensibilities. While freedom of religion must be balanced against other human rights obligations, an important distinction must be drawn between what is an inherently religious function, and what is eectively public administration. |n the veln of the UK Human Plghts Act, exemptlons should not exist where an organisation is in receipt of public funds to provide outsourced government services. The rationale underpinning equal opportunity legislation is to redress a history of social inequity. It is counterintuitive then to permit permanent and automatic exemptions to discriminate against those it is designed to protect. A stronger statutory framework alone, however, wlll not ensure soclal justice for sex, sexuality and gender diverse people. Policy initiatives must elaborate on legal reform by providing education campaigns to challenge prejudice, adequate funding for a national peak body, and clear public accountability for LGBTI rights protection. Lynne Hllller et al. observes ln wrltlng Themselves |n 3 (20l0) that approxlmately 60 percent of same-sex attracted and gender questlonlng young people experlence verbal or physlcal abuse, 80 percent of whlch occurs ln school-based settlngs. |n addltlon, the report indicates homophobic victimisation has increased over the past decade, slgnallng the need for comprehenslve, LG8T|-speclc, dlverslty education to challenge prejudice in schools. Thls ls not unlque to young people. Llderly LG8T| couples have had to live most, if not all, of their lives with the threat of criminal sanctions, or, at the very least, social stigmas regarding their intimate relationships. Now these couples are coerced lnto remalnlng sllent over thelr sexuallty. Prejudice, or even simple ignorance in school or in aged care services, results in the denial of appropriate care because legal and policy reform remains somewhat blind to the vulnerable position of many elderly sexual and gender minorities. While the Federal Government has made broad rhetorical claims to improve our human rights culture, these political gestures are of llttle slgnlcance unless comprehenslve, lncluslve, and approprlately resourced rlghts protectlon ls avallable for all LG8T| people ln Australla. Senthorun Raj is the Policy and Development Coordinator at the Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby and a regular contributor to the Pride in Diversity newsletter 4FOT$PSOFSConsolidating human rights PRIDE IN DIVERSITY NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2012 l9