Humfrey Malins

Conservative Party | Woking

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity

2010 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(First part)
REPORT
Fifth sitting
Wednesday 27 January 2010 at 10 a.m.
________________________________________
2. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Kaikkonen. I call Mr Malins.

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – The main theme of the report is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong. We should all agree with that general proposition and do what we can to stamp out such discrimination, but, as is so often the case with well-intentioned reports of this kind, the report goes too far in my opinion. It displays some muddled and illogical thinking.

Let me give some examples. Paragraph 14.2 talks of legal remedies for victims, but victims of what? If the paragraph refers to victims of crime, perhaps an assault, all well and good – I agree completely – but could it mean victims of so-called hatespeech? If so, we are in difficult territory. What is hatespeech? Is a complainant to be afforded a remedy against, for example, the priest who, from the pulpit, simply condemns homosexuality without inciting anyone to violence? If so, what remedy? Can we not agree that freedom of speech includes the right to be critical, unpleasant, offensive and insulting?

Next, the report calls for measures to ensure that when one partner in a same-sex relationship is foreign, he or she is accorded the same residence rights that would apply if he or she were in a heterosexual relationship. Nowhere is the word "relationship" defined. It is utterly vague. Is the rapporteur aware that, at least in the United Kingdom, a foreign partner in a heterosexual relationship has no residence rights whatsoever? Such rights are acquired only when the parties are married or – and this is significant – in a legally binding civil partnership between two people of the same sex. Civil partnerships are an excellent concept, and other countries should consider them carefully.

The report also calls for access to gender reassignment treatment. Should that not be subject to confirmation from the medical authorities first that such treatment is appropriate and secondly that it is affordable? There may be other more pressing priorities.

Finally, the report calls for persecution of LGBT persons to be a ground for the granting of asylum. Under the Geneva Convention, asylum is granted to those who are persecuted on grounds of religious or political beliefs. To widen that now would be unwise in my judgment, and I do not think that any government would take such a proposition seriously.

Those are just four examples from a well-intentioned report that is slightly spoilt by either being vague or going too far. If it is to be taken seriously by governments across Europe, it may need to be amended.