PFC Newsletter Number 7 (April 1997)

by Alex Whinnom and Stephen Whittle

This newsletter is prepared and produced for Press For Change by Alex Whinnom and Stephen Whittle. Every effort is undertaken to ensure its accuracy but no guarantees are given, except we do our best: Dyb, Dyb, Dyb - Dob, Dob, Dob - i.e. don’t hold us liable !!

In this edition

Alex Carlile to stand down

Alex Carlile QC MP, who brought forward the Private Member’s Bill in 1996, has announced that he will be standing down at the next election.

This is sad news for us, although many other MPs have now taken up the campaign.

If anyone wishes to thank him, you should write to him at:

House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

Photos needed

Although we are very grateful to those who took the trouble to send in photos for publicity, we haven’t yet managed to print the posters we wanted. This is because we didn’t get a wide enough range of pictures to represent the whole community.

If you are black, male, very young, or elderly, WE NEED YOUR PHOTO !

We also need photos that show a transgendered person in a group.

Please help ! We’ve had numerous requests for posters and could make quite a splash with a big poster campaign.

Photos need not be professional, and can be prints or negatives, colour or b & w. You can be anonymous if you wish. Please ensure you confirm in writing that everyone in the photo has given their permission for us to use it.

Employment News

The effects of P v S and Cornwall County Council

Two recent cases, that of the teacher Toni Bradley and the GP Joanna Browne, who are undergoing gender reassignment, recently received huge publicity. We were glad to note that most national media gave fair and decent coverage, and PFC was given several opportunities to comment.

Before P v S, both these individuals would have been sacked or "retired" on announcing their intentions. Because of the decision in the European Court of Justice their employers couldn’t dismiss them; they were forced to find other ways of handling the situation and appear to have done so very sensitively and successfully. It is interesting that the parents, patients and tutors involved were tolerant and supportive. An indication that the law is lagging behind social attitudes as the public becomes generally better informed.

Nursing

The Nursing Profession is officially open to transsexual people

PFC has just received a report from a transsexual woman who has successfully applied as a student nurse. It was necessary for her to be open about her transsexual status from the start, as the usual rule is that birth certificates must be shown at interview. However when she explained her situation she was permitted to produce her (new) passport instead. She experienced no discrimination from interviewers, and has been offered TWO places. The ethics officer at UKCCNMHV states that transsexual status is no bar to nursing.

We are aware of a number of transsexual people who are already training or working in the nursing profession, and they do not appear to be having any problems.

Vocational training

We also have a report from a transsexual woman training as a counsellor. After announcing her intention to undergo gender reassignment she was told she would have to repeat much of her counselling practice in her new role. In the light of P v S she challenged this, and an Industrial Tribunal has found that there is a case to answer. This could be an important case as it refers to vocational training. We are aware of other cases where transsexual people are being disciminated against in vocational training, and we believe that the spirit of the decision in P v S would be to make this illegal also.

However, Sheffield College have refused a transexual woman a place on a "Women Only" Mechanics Course on the grounds that they are not obliged to permit her a place. They have also refused her a place on a men’s course on the grounds that they cannot guarantee her safety. This has opened up a major problem of the current situation. The decision in P v S only guarantees rights for those prople employed in an "emanation of the state". The next question must be:

Does the Sex Discrimination Act, as the enabling legislation of the Equal Treatment Directive, cover discrimination against transsexuals as it stands — or does it have to be amended to cover our situation?

There have been two contradictory decisions in recent Industrial Tribunals: both decided on the same day.

In the first it was held that sexual harrassment of a transsexual leading to Constructive Dismissal, which is embodied in the Sex Discrimination Act, would be illegal.

But the next case held that transsexuals were not covered by the Act.

The Police

In the case of M v West Midlands Police, M a transsexual woman made a genuine application to serve as a police officer. Her application was turned down. The tribunal held that as she presented as a ’respectable’ woman (their words) she would not be able to perform the full range of duties as an officer, in that she would not be able to search men or women. Searches are governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and men are entitled to be searched by men, and vice versa. It would be inappropriate for her to search men and illegal for her to search women, as she is still legally male.

They held that her situation was not covered by the SDA, and as such she could be refused employment.

Both these cases are being appealed, and it will be some time before we know the outcome. We will keep you informed - but the situation is somewhat, ludicrous and very inadequate.

In another police case a transsexual woman with 7 years service with the Transport Police is facing extraordinary harassment after informing her employer of her decision to undergo gender reassignment. She has been told to come to work as a man or not at all, and on refusing to do this, has been threatened with disciplinary action and suspended on full pay. She is however determined to fight the case; again, the outcome will be of interest to us all.

Posters and Adverts now available

Well we finally got enough good photos to be able to print the new adverts and posters. Thank you very much to everyone who sent photos in.

We have A4 posters available free, and A3 at a minimal cost of 3.50 for a set of 5. They are printed red, black and grey on white and include different photos and captions with the slogans "Transsexual and Transgender Awareness in All Walks of Life" and "Transsexuals are members of your society, we are entitled to equal treatment before the law". They also give details of how to contact PFC, The Gender Trust, and The FTM Network.

Please help to disperse these posters: we’d like to see them in libraries, CABx and other public places nationally.

If you have previously requested posters or adverts and have not recently received them, please write in again.

More photos wanted

We still want more photos. We’re still short of people who are black or elderly. Also does anyone have a photo of themself as a child which we could use as part of a block of faces? the idea being to make the point that gender problems start in childhood.

A message from the Hon. Treasurer

Many thanks once again to everyone who has made a donation, large or small. The most useful contribution of all is a regular donation by Standing Order - even a small donation each month helps and we are able to plan the campaign much more effectively if we know money is coming in.

The General Election

What do we want?

We want Parliament to legislate to give transsexual people equal citizenship, with the same civil rights and liberties as other people. This means:

equal status for couples where one or both partners is transsexual
equal status for transsexual parents
equal protection from discrimination
equality under criminal law
equal rights to privacy

What are the major parties offering?

The only party which has made a commitment to legislate in favour of transsexual people is the Liberal Democrats. But the next government is likely to be Consevative or Labour. Despite personal support for legislation from many MPs, neither party has been prepared to commit itself.

The record of the Conservative party in office has been poor: it has fought tooth and nail against test cases brought by transsexual people in the British and European Courts, and, as far as we can see, reneged on its promise to review our situation following Alex Carlile’s Private Member’s Bill.

Whilst there is no guarantee, there are some indications that we might be treated more sympathetically by a Labour government: the Labour Party conference has voted fairly consistently in support of lesbian and gay rights, opposed Section 28, and voted (on a free vote) by 97 to 8 to lift the ban on gays in the military. The vast majority of signatories to Lynn Jones’ Early Day Motion no.302 are Labour MPs. The draft Labour manifesto includes a commitment "to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".

What can we do?

We need to ensure that parliamentary candidates are aware of the issues and the level of public concern about transgendered people’s civil rights. VISIT YOUR MP, AND ASK YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILIES AND SUPPORTERS TO VISIT TOO.

If your MP is standing down, contact the local party office and question them about the new candidate. If the seat is likely to change hands, especially if it is marginal, target each potential winning candidate and ensure they realise that the vote of the transgendered lobby is important. (In reality, unlike the gay vote, it is likely to be far too small to make a difference even in a very marginal seat, but don’t tell the candidates !)

Press all candidates to clarify the position of their party and to write on your behalf to the appropriate ministers or shadow ministers seeking a clarification of their policy would be in office.

Press for Change will be lobbying all newly elected MPs shortly after the election, and will set a date in May or June to present the Petition to the incoming government.

The PFC Local and Media Networks

The Local Network is now officially in existence ! We have a comprehensive Local Campaigning Pack available. A number of people are already signed up and we have recruited Local Contacts for many areas. If you think you might be interested in local campaigning please send for the Introduction to the PFC Local & Media Networksm, or look at the on-line version.

ALEX HAS SENT OUT PACKS TO EVERYONE WHO PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED AN INTEREST - IF I’VE MISSED ANYONE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

Members of the European Parliament

from Frank Hannah & Julia Greenwood

During the last few weeks I have written to 81 MEPs in order to complain about the reluctance of the British Government to implement the measures set out in recommendations 1117 and to ask them to write to the Home Secretary asking for this recommendation to be implemented.

I am very pleased to be able to tell you that many of the replies I have received so far have been most supportive and several MEPs have done just what I have asked. He may not have received enough yet to paper the room with but I think the broom cupboard is probably looking quite smart.

The one difficulty that I have experienced is the protocol that many MEPs, quite rightly, feel that they must abide by, that is, that they should only take up matters brought to them by their own constituents. I would, therefore, like to make an appeal to our readers.

PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR MEP. Most of them are very understanding and compassionate people. They are ready and waiting to help you. They don’t need to know your life history or your innermost thoughts, just that you, or someone close to you, is transsexual. That you feel discriminated against, and that you want equal rights, and you feel this would be achieve by the implementation of Recommendation 1117 as it has been implemented by the rest of Europe except Britain and The Republic of Ireland.

In my letter to MEPs I have pointed out that there must be at least one transsexual in every constituency in Britain (European Constituency that is). Please help me to prove that to be true. I can tell you that there is not one MEP in Britain who is unaware of this problem because they have all had a letter and a copy of Recommendation 1117 !

This document is reported fully in PFC newsletter No. 6

Trans-X-u-all, the Naked Difference

by Tracie O’Keefe and Katrina Fox, ISBN 0-9529482-0-6, published by Extraordinary People Press at £12.95 incl. p&p

Tracie and Katrina are themselves transsexual women, and have been working on the book for two or three years. It is a compendium of all kinds of information, written very much for the man or woman in the street: theories about the causes of transsexualism, a comprehensive discussion of the types of treatment available, an overview of the current political, legal and social situation of British transsexuals, a listing of support groups existing internationally, and a bibliography which includes films, magazines and internet sites as well as books.

Perhaps best of all is the selection of personal stories of transsexual people and their families and friends, together with lots of photos, showing transsexual people to be overwhelmingly positive and interesting people despite (or maybe because of?) the battles they have had to fight to become their real selves.

An excellent book for anyone "changing over", or thinking of it, and for families, friends, colleagues and professionals working with transsexual clients - it dispels a lot of myths.

Who’s who in Press For Change

September 1996

VICE PRESIDENTS(Founders): Richard Bavin, David McDermott, Mark Rees, Mjka Scott, Alex Whinnom, Stephen Whittle, Letitia Winter
KEY ACTIVISTS: (People who have agreed to take responsibility for co-ordinating one or more aspects of the campaign)
Christine Biggs, Andrea Bloomfield, Christine Burns, Jil Dickens, Stephanie Foster, Paula George, Helen Gilroy, Julia Greenwood, Frank Hannah, Diane Jones, Ros Kaveney, Liz Kolkin, Stephanie Longden, Kate Moore, Janeen Newham, Dr. Jane Playdon, Bernard Reed, Cller. Mark Rees, Stephanie Robinson, Sarah Rutherford (Hon. Treasurer), Jim Sealy, Mjka Scott, Dee Stuart, Rachel Trickett, Leia Vogelle, David Willis, Alex Whinnom, Dr. Stephen Whittle, Yvonne Wingfield, Michael Woodward
PATRONS: Lord Beaumont, Nicholas Blake QC, Alex Carlile QC MP, Edwina Currie MP, The Ven. Dr. Mark Dalby, Prof. Louis Gooren, The Rev. Dr. Leslie Griffiths, Dr. Lynne Jones MP, Lord Lester QC, Ken Livingstone MP, Rabbi Julia Neuberger, Claire Rayner OBE, Mel Read MEP

Press for Change has no paid staff.

Freshers Fairs

PFC activists Christine, Andrea and Diane have been having an impact at Freshers’ Fairs nationally, with support from the NUS. They expect to tackle another round next autumn, and would welcome offers of help.

Transsexual birth parents

	Male-to-female transsexuals who have been married and had children prior to gender reassignment have very varied experiences with regard to their continuing relationships with their children. If their partner remains friendly everything may go well, but where there is an acrimonious divorce, and the case goes to court, there is tremendous variation in how the courts treat the transsexual parent. In the worst cases, people have been told they have no further rights as parents; or told they may only see their children if they dress as males. In other cases, transsexual women who had been fathers have been granted residence orders. Female-to-male transsexuals on the other hand seem on the whole to obtain residence orders for their children, though this may not always be so (and it is relatively rare for them to have been mothers prior to reassignment).
	PFC has a volunteer, herself a transsexual birth father, who has offered to co-ordinate the publication of a "good advice booklet" for transsexual parents and for the courts dealing with the issue, to promote good practice and anti-discrimination, and to help parents know what judgements to cite in their support.
	If you are a birth parent, either someone who has had or is having problems over access to your children, or alternatively someone who has had a good experience in the courts, we would appreciate your writing in with more information. In return we may be able to help you.

European Cases update

Sheffield and Horsham v UK
(violation of Articles 8. 12 and 14 of European Declaration of Human Rights)

The Commission has referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights on all three grounds.

P v S and Cornwall County Council
(employment rights case won last year at the European Court of Justice)

P has opted for a low-price out of court settlement to avoid a delay of a further two years and the possibility of compromising her anonymity. However the legal arguments and reports of expert witnesses which were developed for this case may be of use in others.

X, Y and Z v UK
(right of a child to have a transsexual father named on the birth certificate)

The case has been heard and a decision is expected in May this year.

Gays in the Military

A case brought by a gay man dismissed from the military has also been referred to the Court to decide whether this constitutes sex discrimination, it having been decided that the case of P v S throws new light on this issue. The case could, in turn, have implications for transsexual people in the military.

Joella Farmer

The case of the little girl who is stuck with a male birth certificate having undergone reassignment at the age of one is likely to be referred to the European Court of Human Rights as it is proving impossible to obtain legal aid to take it to the High Court. Joella, as a minor, will automatically be granted legal aid to go to Europe.

Transsexual Women can be Raped

This may sound like bad news, but actually it’s very good indeed.

The Criminal High Court has held that a transsexual woman can now be a rape victim if her ‘wholly artificial vagina’ is penetrated. This is an improvement on the previous state of affairs, where a transsexual woman who was raped could only bring a charge of sexual assault against her assailant.

Media coverage

We continue to enjoy comprehensive coverage in the national and local media, with newspapers, TV and radio programmes contacting PFC direct for comment. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the media to run "controversial" stories about transsexualism, as the "opposition" view is looking more and more unreasonable. Recently one presenter ditched a programme because the only person who could be found to speak against us (kindly suggested by PFC) was Dr. Adrian Rogers, and it was felt his views are too extreme to be taken seriously…

PFC is still collecting relevant press cuttings and would be most grateful if people would send in any they come across. If you would like the original back again please say so. Thanks to everyone who has sent cuttings in. A selection of about 40 recent cuttings on a variety of topics is available (see Resource List).

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995

We believe that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Parts I and II of which came into force in December 1996, could be used to challenge discrimination against transgendered people. The part of the Act relating to employment, which is the only part as yet in force, is relatively unlikely to be significant now that transsexual people are covered by Sex Discrimination legislation.

But other parts of the Act, referring to the supply of goods and services, including housing, transport, education etc. may be of much greater significance and use. These will come into force over a period of time beginning some time in 1997.

There is little guidance about implementation contained in the Act itself, and it is expected that case law will supply the firm definitions. Whether the Act does us any good will depend on whether we can force an interpretation allowing that transgendered people count as having been disabled in the past, on the grounds that they have suffered mental illness prior to reassignment which significantly impaired their ability to function as normal.

PFC will probably look to support test cases as the remaining parts of the Act come into force. As disabled people have pointed out, the Act is toothless compared with legislation on Sex and Race, but we may as well use it if we can.

Watch this space.

Rights in Britain

Adapted from a pice by Alexander Hill-Smith, "Rights in Britain"

In view of the decision by the European Commission on Human Rights to forward the cases of Kristina Sheffield and Rachel Horsham to the European Court of Human Rights, the following piece may help PFC activists to explain the workings of the European Convention on Human Rights

Britain was the first country to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in March 1951. By 1953, the necessary total of ten states had ratified the Convention. In 1955, the European Commission of Human Rights started work and received its first petitions. The European Court of Human Rights was set up in 1959 when the necessary nine states accepted the authority of the Court as interpreters of the Convention. In 1966, the United Kingdom permitted its citizens a right to petition the Commission directly in connection with any alleged human rights abuse.

The first case was not heard by the Court until 1961. By 1977, only 17 cases had come before the Court. From the mid 1980s onwards, the number of complaints made to the Commission and the number of cases before the Court has been steadily increasing. There is now a considerable backlog so that it can take as long as 6 years between the time that an individual lodges a complaint with the commission and that complaint being resolved before the Court.

The reason for this rise in the work of the Commission and the Court is partly attributable to the increasing number of states which have signed the Convention. Thirty two European nations have now adopted the Convention, among the most recent being Turkey, Romania, Estonia and Lithuania, and more are set to do so. But there has also been a greater public awareness of the Convention and its consequences which has led to a steady and persistent rise in the number of petitions addressed to the Commission and of cases coming before the Court.

The Convention and How it Operates

The European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights are part of the Council of Europe to which 32 states belong. The Commission and the Court are funded directly by the various contracting states. Britain’s contribution last year was the relatively modest £#163;2.25 million.

The European Convention is not one of the treaties that go to make up the European Union; the European Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Court are not institutions of the EU. This point is frequently not understood; part of the reason for the confusion is that the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Court are based in Strasbourg as is the European Parliament. Also, there is both a Human Rights Commission and a European Commission and many do not adequately distinguish between the two. In fact the European Union is not a party to the Convention in its own right. The European of Justice has recently held that it is not possible for the EU to accede to the Convention without an amending treaty. The Council of Europe and thus the European Convention are separate and independent from the EU.

This not to say that the European Convention is irrelevant to the EU. The European Court of Justice has frequently held that the European Commission must comply with the requirements of the European Convention in its dealings with citizens of the EU. Article F2 of the Treaty of Maastricht says specifically: "The Union shall protect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States as general principles of Community Law."

The mistake is to think that the European Convention is the same as the EU. For one thing there are very many states who are parties to the European Convention who are not members of the EU.

How then (briefly) does the European Convention operate in practice?

It has already been noted that the unique feature of the European Convention is that it allows nationals and others a direct right to petition the Human Rights Commission, or Commission for short, if they consider that their human rights have been infringed. It is the task of the Commission to examine these complaints to see if they are admissible. A very large percentage are not admissible in practice.

In order to be admissible the complaint must be directed at a contracting state; complaints against private organisations fall outside the European Convention. Also it is a requirement that the complainant must have exhausted all domestic remedies before petitioning the Commission and must complain within 6 months of the final decision. Also the complaint must fall it least prima facie within the ambit of the European Convention. One noted commentator has suggested that it would be a good thing if people at least read the Convention before submitting their complaint.

Once the Commission have decided that a complaint is admissible the Commission then proceed to investigate the complaint by finding the facts. The Commission has the right to take evidence. In one instance they sent delegates to interview detainees at Greek detention centres in order to investigate allegations of torture. In another instance witnesses were interviewed at a Norwegian military air field. Having established the facts the Commission then prepares a report in which the Commission sets out their findings of fact and their conclusions as to whether or not an infringement has occurred.

If the Commission finds that a complaint is admissible, the Commission then attempts what is referred to in the European Convention as a "friendly settlement" between the individual and the relevant state. In practice this may involve the state paying compensation to the individual. About 15% of admissible petitions are resolved in this manner.

If a friendly settlement is not possible, then the Commission can refer the matter to the European Court of Human Rights for a ruling on the interpretation or application of the European Convention within 3 months of preparing its report. All matters involving an issue of principle will in practice be referred by the Commission to the Court. If the Commission does not refer the matter to the Court, it must instead be referred to the Committee of Ministers who will rule on whether a breach of the Convention has occurred. Both the Court and the Committee of Ministers have the power under the Convention to order payment of compensation and the reimbursement of legal costs to a successful petitioner in an appropriate case.

Every contracting state nominates one Judge to sit in the Court. Judges sit in chambers of 9 to hear cases and are chosen by lot for each individual case. Important cases can be heard by a plenary court consisting of a larger number of Judges (the Gibraltar Rock case was heard by a total of 19 Judges.). The Court gives reasons for its decisions. Dissenting opinions are also allowed.

Of late the Commission and the Court have become victims of their own success. A backlog of cases and six year delays are occurring.

Rights Protected By The Convention

The rights protected by the Convention are for the most part defined in broad and general terms although often subject to qualifications.

To give some examples, article 2 starts off by saying that "everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law."

This is supplemented by article 1 of the Sixth Protocol which says that "the death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or be executed."

Article 8 says that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."

Article 10 says that "everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

In no case are these rights enjoyed absolutely without qualification. The type of limitation to which they are subject is often set in very broad terms. Typical is the qualification to Article 8, quoted above, which provides at 8.2 that:

"there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Press For Change will keep you informed as to the progress of the Sheffield and Horsham cases. In the meantime look for the decision on X, and Z v UK, which is expected some time in May 1997

» by Alex Whinnom | email this page | printer friendly version

Primary links

Secondary

Search

Related links

Navigation

Donations

PFC supported by

Syndicate