Joel Simpson
For the first concurrent session of the day, we went to the issue track on “Combating Stigma, Preventing HIV, and MSM Populations”. The presentation from Italy on “HIV and the Workplace: New Challenges for Trade Unions” was quite interesting as it highlighted a comprehensive approach in protecting workers from discrimination, harassment and prejudice based on sexual orientation, gender identity and HIV status. There were two other substantive presentations from Australia and Nigeria.
In the next set of concurrent sessions, after the break, we went to the global track on “The Law of Small Change in the New World”. This was a panel that combined the disciplines of law and economics to determine whether there is a formula for change. According to the abstract, “the idea is that a series of incremental advances in the treatment of homosexual behaviour, LGBT persons and same-sex relationships paves the way for further legal recognition to appear as just a ‘small change’.” One presenter was very upfront in saying that the concept was developed by a European based on European experiences. As may be expected, presentations were filled with graphs and charts attempting to measure ‘determinants’ of legal/policy change on LGBT issues in countries. One presenter concluded from his analysis that we sometimes have to make concessions so that we achieve ‘small change’ which is gradual and incremental, as opposed to shooting for monumental wins, I guess. In his words, “any change in the law with respect to homosexuality will only happen if accompanied by some exception, something else, amounting to ‘small change’.” This may seem like a reasonable assertion on the face of it but I for one am not sure that all the graphs and charts taught us anything that we could not learn without them.
After lunch now, it was time for the plenary of the day but before we delved into the “California Marriage” situation, outgoing President of the then International Lesbian and Gay Law Association (ILGLaw), Prof. David Cruz from USC, announced the outcomes of the ILGLaw board’s early morning meeting and elections. He was re-elected, now with the Prof. Tamara Adrian Hernandez from Venezuela as Co-Presidents, and Justice Kirby serving as Honourary President. The board also decided to re-name to the International Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex Law Association (ILGBTILaw is the new acronym I guess?), as well as appointed new sub-regional representatives.
As for “California Marriage” plenary, I did not realize that Prop. 8 left such a dismal mood until this panel. In previous panels, California presenters had said that they were hoping this conference would re-inspire and re-energize them, especially all the recent progress in Latin America. And that the California judiciary was going through a “crisis of courage”. It was all starting to add up now. The first two presenters were from the state’s leading LGBT litigation NGOs working on the marriage equality cases. They talked about their case in court to overturn Prop. 8. There seminal argument was that it is unethical to allow minority rights recognised by the judiciary to be eroded by a simple majority vote at the hands of the electorate. They make a strong case of what they call the “tyranny of the majority” by saying that what prevents it is that whatever restrictions the majority imposes, they must be able to accept for themselves. One presenter described this as the “salvation of our [US] democracy.” Two professors from the UCLA law school Critical Race Studies Programme deconstructed the Prop. 8 aftermath of blaming ethnic/racial, religious and other minorities. These presentations were very frank and unapologetic on confronting issues like racism in LGBT communities (where examples were quoted from adam4adam like, “no Blacks, no Asians please. I’m not racial; it’s just my preference.”), failure to sufficiently involve Black LGBT communities and engage Black, Asian, faith, immigrant and other communities in the state, etc. A leading member of the Asian community in California also presented on the community organizing and education work Asian organizations which are not LGBT focused have been doing in their communities post- Prop. 8. We also heard a sober analysis of how different demographics and groups voted on Prop. 8. After all these extensive presentations, there was very little time left for Q&A but it was still a very rich panel. After this, we called it a day and end of the conference.
The entiring 4 days, though tiring, was very thought-provoking. It was an invaluable opportunity to participate in movement-building
No comments:
Post a Comment