Gay rights vote splits bourgeois parties benefits, such as rights to leave, though not pension benefits. Public support for laws against discrimination has also grown steadily, with majority support for many years.
Even formerly unpopular issues such as partnership benefits for people in same-sex relationships won 55 per cent support in a recent poll (with 49 per cent support for the right to legal marriage and 42 per cent support for the right to adoption).*
* Canada Canada's federal government recently changed the Human Rights Act to end discrimination against lesbians and gay men. The debate discredited both the Liberal government and the conservative Reform party. By Richard Banner
Over ten years of political activism has forced the Canadian state this year to legislate protection for lesbians and gay men from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. The legal change brings Canada into line with a small number other liberal countries - the so-called "like-minded" countries - that grant a measure of protection to their lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens: the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand and, significantly, South Africa, the only one to ensure the protection in its constitution.
This latest change, introduced by the federal Liberal government in Ottawa, affects only the relatively small area of federal jurisdiction. It has a mainly symbolic value. In practice, federal courts had already ruled that they would read Canada's Human Rights Act as if it already included the protection. Eight of ten Canadian provinces and one of three territories already have similar laws covering their jurisdiction.
Canada's social democratic New Democratic Party has adopted policies supporting laws to prevent discrimination against lesbians and gays, and has changed human rights laws in several provinces. In Ontario, however, the recently defeated NDP government fumbled badly when it let members representing more conservative ridings (electoral districts) divide over a bill to extend rights to same-sex couples.
For more than ten years, ministers of justice in the successive Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments have Liberal Canada?
promised to place homosexuality within the Human Rights Act, but mostly avoided taking any concrete steps. Former Conservative Party Prime Minister Kim Campbell, who represented an electoral riding that includes an urban "gay ghetto", did present human rights amendments to Parliament in 1993, but never took the bill to a vote. She faced strong opposition from a "Family Caucus:" socially conservative rural and religious MPs within her own party, reacting against a perceived threat to "traditional values." Ironically, equally strong opposition came from lesbian and gay lobbyists who objected to qualifications built into the bill as a form of compromise with the conservatives.
The Liberal Party defeated Campbell's Conservative Party in 1993 with a campaign that included a pledge to protect lesbians and the so die with, gay men from discrimination. Once in power, of course, the Liberals seemed willing to let the issue die without action. But queer activists mounted a political lobbying campaign to pressure the government to keep its promise, including petitions and a mail-in postcard campaign. Liberal caucus members representing queer ridings faced intense local pressure. Even the government's independent numan rights commissioner publicly criticized the government's inaction, and liberal media questioned the government's credibility over the issue. The government finally introduced a bill just days before parliament's summer break, and used procedural rules to limit debate. To avoid a public split in the Liberal caucus, MPs were allowed to vote according to their conscience. Forty of 176 Liberal MPs voted against the bill, out of a Parliament of 195.
The government was saved from an embarrassing media spectacle only by the antics of the right-wing Reform Party, which is strongest in western Canada. One Reformer quoted discredited medical studies that blamed AIDS on homosexuals and another said that businesses should have the right to fire "gays or blacks" or send them to the back room if customers in the front did not like to deal with them. But even the Reform Party felt obliged to present a more acceptable public face. Two Alberta MPs were temporarily suspended for their anti-gay comments. All but one of the 52 Reform Party MPs voted against the human rights amendments. But party leaders insisted that this was only because Reform did not support "special protection" for any group, and that the Human Rights Act already offered homosexuals sufficient protection against discrimination. Shortly after the vote, there was an unsuccessful move at the Reform Party's national convention to de-emphasize "family values" and focus on economic measures. Instead. the convention. which was intended to build party unity and position Reform as a potential new government, adopted resolutions specifically placing the party against equal rights for lesbians and gay men. Queer rights: the bourgeois dilemma
The Canadian public has now seen its bourgeois government and the main conservative opposition party forced to publicly acknowledge that queers should be protected from discrimination. The splits that emerged in both parties point to the inability of the bourgeois political parties to come to grips with the social changes that have become
Canada accepts lesbians and gay men as refugees when there is evidence that they would be persecuted in their home country for their sexuality. Immigration officials can, and sometimes do, recognize same-sex partnerships for the purposes of immigration. The Armed Forces accept lesbians and gay men into their ranks without official discrimination. The government gives same-sex partners some employment 18 International Viewpoint widely accepted in Canada — and to a lesser extent in the United States. (See p. 19)
In Canada and other countries, lesbians and gay men, bisexuals and transsexuals, have been working for over 20 years for recognition of their human rights. Initially the fight focused on the right to be free from violence and police attacks. It gradually took on the right to be free of civil discrimination, to adequate health care, to employment
* BP 85, Paris cedex 11, 75522 France O +33 1/43792961
Fax: +33 1/43792961 E-mail: 100666.1443@compuserve.com
• Australia $33 • Britain £25 • Canada $80 • Denmark 380 DKK • Ireland £25 •
• South Africa R100 • Sweden 400 SEK • New Zealand $35 • USA $70 • rights. More recently, it has focused on the right to recognition of relationships as couples and families, the right to raise and to adopt children.
On many of these issues, queer activists have won significant victories, even while losing some important battles. Opinion polls identify majority support for protection against discrimination, and growing support on other issues. As the historical functions of the family are dissolving, marriage is seen as less important for many and divorce rates are high. A growing number of people now accept that a voluntary relationship should be as valid and socially meaningful as one sanctioned by state or church.
This change in public sentiment threatens conservative social values, notably among the right-wing religious organizations, and among rural and agrarian communities whose traditional economic base continues to change rapidly. The political parties representing these groups — in Canada especially the Reform Party — offer simple answers and easy targets to blame: the lesbians and gay men who most visibly challenge traditional values. In urban areas, they target other challengers of the "good old days", such as women, immigrants and rebellious young people.
Bourgeois political parties do not want to be perceived as lagging behind public opinion. They need electoral support to achieve their main policies: reducing the role of the state and facilitating the internationalization of capital. With their reactionary economic policies, they tend to attract the most socially conservative sectors of society and do not want to lose those allies.
Nowadays, however, those allies can threaten the main bourgeois parties access to electoral power by giving them the appearance of socially conservative extremists. George Bush was unable to shake off such a label in the 1992 US presidential elections. (See "South of the border.") Conservative ideologists face a more challenging dilemma. In dismantling the liberal state, with its social supports for the poor and unemployed, they are explicitly calling on the family, churches and community organizations to take over the state's role. But social evolution, including the queer rights movement, is changing the nature of the tamily. Their "traditional values" strategy is an empty, fictitious solution. *
Canada South of the border
While Canada is coming to a relatively liberal position on the rights of lesbians and gay men, sexual orientation is the subject of major political battles in the United States. State and local electors have been tacing numerous plebiscites designed to prohibit governments
Analysis with Attitude from extending human rights protection to lesbians or gay men. The tirst — Amendment
Two to Colorado's state constitution — was recently ruled unconstitutional by the US
There is only one magazine in the English language where
• the leaders of France's trade union left debate how best to articulate the new mood of resistance to public sector cuts and unemployment.
• Tahiti's NGO activists explain why they feel Greenpeace marginalised them during the campaign against French nuclear tests.
• Indian activists argue that we shouldn't ban imports on countries with deficient environmental and labour legislation.
Founded by Ernest Mandel,
International Viewpoint is the world's largest international Marxist news and analysıs magazıne.
Correspondents in over 50 countries report on popular struggles, and the debates which are shaping the left of tomorrow. Direct from the front line in the fight against neo-liberalism.
VIEVPOIEY
Supreme Court. Both presidential candidates have been opportunistically trying to appease religious right-wing voters without placing themselves too far from the mainstream.
After sucessfully courting the gay vote in his 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton has backed away trom election promises to prohibit discrimination in the military, and now faces harsh criticism from the lesbian and gay community, as well as some mainstream media, for his comments that same-sex partnerships do not need formal recognition. Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole was ridiculed in the press for first accepting a $1000 campaign donation from gay Republicans, then sending it back. The Christian fundamentalist right wing — with the support of Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists — has mounted a virulent attack on what it calls "the Gay Agenda", accusing gay men not only of
This magazine is a window to radical alternatives worldwide. For a free trial subscription (three issues), call us now, or mention this advert to our local sales agent! Australia: International Viewpoint, PO Box 1638, Collingwood 3065, Victoria Britain: Outlook International, PO Box 1009 London N4 2UU © (081) 800 7460 Canada: Socialist Challenge, PO Box 4955, Main P.O, Vancouver V6B 4A6 USA: International Viewpoint, PO Box 1824, New York, NY 10009 sexual depravity, but of abusing children, spreading disease and undermining the cultural values of respect for god, country, hard work and the family. These conservative religious elements, which seek and generally find a political home in the Republican Party, contributed to the election of Bill Clinton by dividing the Republicans between warring factions of social conservatives and moderates Former President G. Bush refused to side with the moderates in 1992, and many voters said that they could not support the extremists in the Republican Party. *
July 1996 #279 19
----- photo credits and running heads -----
*