MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 27, 1999

Adoption of “Same-Sex Partner” Bill Cause for Celebration

“The Ontario legislature’s adoption this evening of legislation granting legal recognition of same-sex relationships in 67 Ontario statutes is cause for celebration,” says Tom Warner, spokesperson for the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO). “It’s a joyous occasion. Persons who are in same-sex relationships finally have all of the legal rights and responsibilities as common-law opposite-sex couples,” he added.

With the adoption of the legislation, the equality the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms intended is now reflected in Ontario’s laws dealing with spousal relationships. Among the rights and responsibilities established under the legislation are:

• paying of support payments under the Family Law Act if a relationship ends,
• recognizing same-sex partners in life and other insurance policies,
• granting survivor benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, and
• requiring the disclosure of same-sex partners for conflict of interest purposes under a number of laws.

“We have waited a long time for this day, and worked hard over the last 10 years to win both public and political support for this important issue,” Mr. Warner noted. “We are delighted that the Progressive Conservative government decided to amend all of the laws dealing with relationships recognition following the Supreme Court decision in M v. H, and that the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party supported this historic legislation.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Warner, Christine Donald or Nick Mulé at (416) 405-8253

Ontario’s “Same-Sex Partner” Law:
Not What We Asked For, But As Good As We Can Get

October 26, 1999

The bill now before the Ontario legislature to amend 67 provincial laws containing “spouse” or similar terms is not what the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO) has sought. For the last 10 years, we have called for the amendment of “spouse” in all applicable provincial laws so that same-sex relationships would be legally recognized. We repeated this call in a meeting with the Attorney General on October 18th. Instead, the legislation introduced by the Harris government creates a new category, “same sex partner”, that grants all of the legal rights and responsibilities to persons in same-sex relationships in the same way as for common-law heterosexual couples.

The term “spouse” has been reserved to heterosexuals, and the Harris government has made clear that it has attempted to preserve “the traditional family”. They also have not changed the definition of either “marital status” or “family”. They have said they are bringing in the legislation only because the Supreme Court made them do it.

The government’s rhetoric and reasoning are offensive, and the legislation is not perfect by any means. But it goes much further than we might have expected from a government led by a party that has strongly opposed rights for lesbians, gays and bisexuals, and which openly appeals to a “family values” constituency. They had several options in respect of responding to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in M v. H, including:

1. Do nothing;
2. Invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution;
3. Amend only the Family Law Act (the particular statute challenged in the M v. H case);
4. Amend only some laws, while leaving others unchanged.

That they chose to introduce an omnibus bill that grants legal recognition to same-relationships in 67 Ontario laws, in the circumstances, is a victory.

CLGRO has decided to support the legislation. We also have called for quick passage of the bill and have urged the Liberals and NDP to vote in favour of it.

PROVINCIAL ELECTION 1999 REPORT CARD

Performance

*Note: This summary covers issues that reflect some of the major concerns of the lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) communities in Ontario and it is not meant to be exhaustive. It is based on the performance of the three major provincial parties to date. It does not necessarily reflect platforms being put forward for provincial election ’99. Individual MPPs and candidates may disagree with their party’s position on certain issues.

HEALTHCARE

None of the three major parties has given a significant amount of attention to the general healthcare concerns of the LGB communities, apart from HIV and AIDS issues.

CLGRO’s 1997 report, Systems Failure, used the experiences of LGBs with the healthcare system to generate 78 recommendations for urgently needed improvement.

• the PCs failed entirely to respond to the report
• the Liberals failed entirely to respond to the report
• the NDP raised a question in the legislature but did not follow up.

HIV/AIDS

While in government

• since elected in 1995, the PCs have limited access to nutritional supplements, even when prescribed by a healthcare professional, unless proven to be the patient’s sole source of nutrition; in the early 80s, the PCs provided the first provincial funding for AIDS education and services
• the Liberals significantly increased provincial funding for community-based AIDS/HIV organizations and public education regarding HIV and AIDS issues
• the NDP introduced the Trillium Drug Program allowing people affected by HIV/AIDS to access expensive drugs

EDUCATION

To date sexual orientation issues have been largely ignored by the education system, receiving little if any encouragement by the three major parties.

• the PCs brought in Bill 160, which radically changed the education system, leading to concerns of minorities being marginalized and threatening the equity policies and programs that have been established
• the Liberals took no action on sexual orientation issues in the education system
• the NDP encouraged equity and anti-violence policies in the school system, the latter of which included sexual orientation issues

RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITION

In 1994, towards the end of their term in power, the NDP introduced Bill 167 to recognize same-sex spousal relationships. Homophobic comments were made by members of all three parties during the debate.

• all PCs voted against
• the Liberals, who in government had opposed changing the definition of “spouse” in provincial laws, at first supported the bill, then flip-flopped and said provisions dealing with the definition of “spouse” and the right to adopt should be dropped; most Liberal members voted against
• the NDP introduced the bill only after much stalling, insisted on a free vote, and (though most NDP voted for the bill) failed to get the legislation passed; against the wishes of the LGB communities, they agreed to the Liberalinsistence against changing “spouse” and against LGB adoption

Since it was elected, the current PC government has opposed or appealed every court or tribunal ruling favourable to same-sex relationship rights.

HOUSING AND SHELTER

LGB youth and seniors, LGBs abused in their relationships, unemployed and low-income LGBs, and LGBs with addictions and mental health problems are at high risk for homelessness. They are particularly affected by housing and shelter issues.

• the PCs (like the federal Liberals) have abandoned any responsibility for social housing, downloading it onto cash-strapped municipalities with years-long waiting lists; they opposed co-operative housing, have scrapped rent control, and have cut funding to shelters
• the NDP and the Liberals were supportive of co-operative housing, rent controls and tenants’ rights, which assisted many displaced LGBs

SOCIAL-SERVICE ISSUES

CLGRO’s 1997 report Systems Failure documents a massive distrust felt by members of the LGB communities for the social-service system. The report was ignored by the PCs and Liberals and not followed up by the NDP.

With the exception of some HIV/AIDS service-provision, little, if anything, has been done by past or current governments on specific LGB issues.

• the PCs discontinued funding for the Lesbian/Gay/Bi Youth Line; the government does not provide – or give funding to LGB organizations to provide – social services and guidelines for training social-service professionals in LGB issues
• the Liberals in government took no action
• the NDP government, late in its mandate, provided funding for the Lesbian/Gay/Bi Youth Line.

HUMAN RIGHTS

The Ontario Human Rights Code was amended in December 1986, by Bill 7, to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of “sexual orientation” in the areas of employment, housing, and access to services.

• the PCs repeatedly refused to add “sexual orientation” to the Code in the ’70s and ’80s; all but four PCs voted against Bill 7
• the Liberals did not initially include “sexual orientation” in Bill 7; in a free vote, most Liberals voted for Bill 7 with its inclusion
• the NDP was the first party to support the inclusion of “sexual orientation” in the Code and introduced the amendment to Bill 7

All three major parties have failed to provide adequate resources (including funding) to enable the Ontario Human Rights Commission to deal with human rights complaints and to conduct adequate internal and public education on sexual orientation issues.

All three parties have refused to amend the harassment section of the Code to include “sexual orientation” or change theCode‘s definition of “spouse” to include same-sex relationships.

All three major parties have ignored repeated requests to make training on sexual orientation issues mandatory for those serving on government tribunals and adjudicative bodies dealing with employment law, labour relations, and workers’ compensation.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Employment-equity legislation provided an opportunity for government to make employers responsible for providing workplaces free of systemic discrimination.

• the PCs have repealed the Employment Equity Act; they opposed legislative measures to remedy systemic discrimination; they discontinued research associated with employment-equity outcomes
• the Liberals did not support the introduction of the Employment Equity Act, calling it reverse discrimination; they opposed legislative measures to remedy systemic discrimination
• the NDP passed the Employment Equity Act, but excluded LGBs from it, despite LGB communities’ recommendations that they be included in the qualitative provisions

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

All three parties have ignored requests to have judges, crown attorneys, and others in adjudicative, or policy-making capacities within the provincial justice system receive mandatory training on sexual-orientation issues.

• the PCs brought in the Police Services Act, which reduced civilian oversight of police services and gave more discretionary powers to chiefs of police
• the Liberals strengthened civilian oversight of police and processes for dealing with complaints against the police
• the NDP requested crown attorneys to pursue cases of gay bashing, strengthened civilian oversight of the police, and introduced the Special Investigations Unit

Written and published by:

Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO)
May 1999

Published in hard copy with the help of:

The Lesbian and Gay Community Appeal and the John Damien Educational Trust

Graphic design of hard copy:
Dale Barrett

1 – Comment Sent To CLGRO About Our “Report Card“

I agree 100% with giving the Tories a mark of F on practically everything. BUT, I think the report card is far too harsh on both NDP and to a lesser extent the Liberals. The fact is that both of these parties have very expressly stated that it is their policy to extend the definition of spouse to include same sex couples and they have policies on most other issues that are about a million times more gay positive than anything coming from the Tories.

My concern is that when a brutally homophobic governing party is given all Fs, but the opposition parties are given all Cs and Ds, a very confusing message is sent out. Many gays and lesbians who may like getting their tax cut etc… but don’t like the Tories homophobia, may conclude that all three parties are equally bad and therefore they can feel free to vote on other issues.

Neither the NDP nor the Liberals are perfect, BUT there is an ocean between their policies (especially in the case of the NDP) [versus the Tories]. I do not feel that the report card brings this out.

What exactly does a party have to do to get an A on any of these issues?? Run their entire campaign on gay issues? Make pink their official colour?? It seems that stating explicitly that your party supports CLGRO’s positions is not enough to get more than a C!

1 – Response From CLGRO

The gradings on the report card are based on what the parties have or have not done, not on what their platforms say they will do. We feel this is appropriate because of the number of times in the past that promises have been made during campaigns and then not delivered. In addition, the object of the exercise was not, in fact, to tell people how they should vote. We wanted to give them information that would assist in deciding how to vote.

The message that we wanted to give, and which we have succeeded in doing, is that none of the parties has done very much on the issues that we have identified. To have given the NDP and Liberals higher marks would have distorted their records on those issues.

We would be interested to consider how the Ontario NDP and Ontario Liberals could have been given higher grades if precise examples of what they have done to warrant that outcome were to be provided.

We appreciate the interest and feedback and anticipated that not everyone would agree with the gradings we gave the parties. In fact, some people have commented that we were too generous with the marks given to the NDP.

2 – Comment Sent To CLGRO About Our Response #1 Above

I agree with the general tenor of [the last] comment, and am not convinced by [CLGRO’s] reply. To base ratings only on past record implies that parties and party leaders don’t change. And to give the assessments that you did implies only modest differences between the parties. That in effect helps convince many g/l/b/t voters that it doesn’t really make much difference who you vote for in this election, something I think is simply not true. I’m glad CLGRO has done the party ratings, but I don’t think the scoring spread reflects the real party differences.

2 – Response From CLGRO

With respect, I don’t think it’s helpful to state in a vague and very general way that the gradings do not differentiate enough between the parties. It would be helpful if you could give some examples of policies (e.g. healthcare, education, housing and shelter) where more marks could have been given in respect of where a party stands or what it has done on issues of concern to LGB communities. While the party histories and current positions on a same-sex relationships bill are well known, we’re not aware of very much else that any of the parties have done or said they will do in the other areas. We thought we had fully and accurately reflected in the report card their past positions and actions.

As for the promises being made in the provincial election, they are just that, and we wait to see if the parties will honour them. We believe each voter will need to assess the strength of the faith they can put in any promises being made by the parties. Frankly, we think it remains to be seen whether any of them have changed. (This is not a suggestion that people should not vote.)

In any case, other than the commitments of the Liberal and NDP party leaders to introduce another same-sex relationships recognition bill, and the “we’ll take a look at the court decision” response of Harris, have any other positions been taken by the parties on issues specifically of concern to LGB communities? Our reference on this point would be the issues we presented in our leaflet setting out questions for candidates.

Thanks for taking the time to contact us with your views. We did want to generate some discussion and we’re please that that seems to be occurring. There is nothing worse than apathy.

Please contact us with your comments or questions. And please vote so that your voice is heard.

Questions for Candidates

The government of Ontario has called a provincial election. Here are some questions that, as a lesbian, gay man, or bisexual man or woman living in Ontario, you may wish to ask candidates in your riding.

HEALTHCARE

In CLGRO’s 1997 report Systems Failure, 96% of respondents said healthcare professionals needed to improve their awareness of the needs and circumstances of lesbians, gays and bisexuals, and to provide services based on that awareness.

Will you and your party:

• ensure that government ministries produce and enforce antihomophobia guidelines for healthcare professionals so that we receive treatment that respects our dignity and does not endanger our health?
• ensure that the Ministry of Education and Training insists that colleges and universities incorporate education about the specific needs of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals in the curriculums for training healthcare professionals?
• commit to withdrawing the requirement that nutritional supplements be covered by the Ontario Drug Benefits Program only if they are the patient’s sole source of nutrition, and ensure that all Ontarians will have access to nutritional supplements as prescribed by their healthcare professionals?
• commit to providing additional funding so that all chronically ill and disabled persons will have access to the home-care services they require as prescribed by their healthcare professionals?
• reverse the damage done to the quality of healthcare received by people living with HIV and AIDS as a result of government cuts to the heathcare system?

EDUCATION

Joseph Stellpflug was fired in 1997 from his position as a teacher with York Region Separate School Board after it became known that he was in a same-sex relationship. Even though the board admitted he was a skilled and respected teacher, they determined his “continued presence might lead students to conclude the board condoned his behaviour.”

Will you and your party:

• include lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues in the school curriculum?
• require schools to provide a safe and positive environment for lesbian, gay and bisexual teachers and students?
• include lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents, students, and teachers in parents’ councils and consultative bodies?
• mandate provision of resources for creation of programs producing training and information materials for guidance counsellors?
• proactively deal with homophobia and antigay violence in the schools, through education and antiharassment/violence policies?

RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITION

Robin Black was killed in 1993 in a traffic accident. Her spouse, Kelly Kane, was denied survivor benefits by an insurance company. When the Ontario Court General Division ruled this discriminatory (Oct. 1997), the Ontario government appealed. In fact, since 1995, the Ontario government has opposed every court or tribunal challenge involving same-sex relationship rights and has appealed every positive court case and tribunal decision.

Will you and your party:

• introduce, or support the introduction of, a bill that gives legal recognition to same-sex relationships?
• ensure such a bill passes, and that there is no free vote this time?
• if you form the government, support legal challenges to provide protection for our relationships until a bill is passed and guarantee that you will not to intervene against such challenges?

HOUSING AND SHELTER

The elimination of provincial government support for social housing, in combination with cuts to welfare payments and the elimination of rent control, have severely reduced the housing options for youth, seniors, people with disabilities and single parents, including those who are gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Will you and your party:

• restore provincial funding to co-operative, low-income and social housing?
• ensure that recipients of provincial funding for co-operative, low-income and social housing provide such housing to lesbians, gays and bisexuals on a non-discriminatory basis, including the recognition for subsidy eligibility of those in same-sex relationships, with or without children?
• establish a mandate for, and provide financial assistance to, housing for seniors and people with disabilities that includes providing housing for gays, lesbians and bisexuals and recognizes their particular needs?
• mandate provincially funded shelters for homeless youth to provide a welcoming atmosphere for lesbians, gays and bisexuals?

SOCIAL SERVICES

In CLGRO’s 1997 report Systems Failure, over 90% of respondents said social-service providers needed to improve their awareness of the needs and circumstances of lesbians, gays and bisexuals and to provide services based on that awareness.

Will you and your party:

• ensure government funding of community counselling and support services for lesbians, gays and bisexuals, especially those who are youth, seniors or disabled, or have no or low incomes?
• provide increased resources for programs producing training and information materials for service-providers, such as counsellors and those providing attendant- or home-care, who work with lesbians, gays and bisexuals?
• establish government policies requiring colleges and universities to incorporate education about the specific needs of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals in the curriculums for training social-service professionals?

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EMPLOYMENT

Mary Ross was harassed at work, then fired from her position as an accountant in a Sudbury supermarket in 1994. In CLGRO’s 1997 report Systems Failure, one respondent stated: “Three co-workers came to my place of residence and threatened to cause harm to me. One of these workers then shoved me at work and said, ‘[You] won’t live long.’ ”

Will you and your party:

• ensure the Ontario Human Rights Commission has adequate resources (including funding) to deal with complaints and carry out both internal and public education on issues involving sexual orientation?
• ensure lesbians, gays and bisexuals are protected under the harassment section of the Code, which does not currently include sexual orientation?
• amend the Code’s definition of “spouse” is amended to include same-sex relationships?
• launch a government-funded public education program to eliminate workplace homophobia and actively includes lesbian, gay and bisexual community groups in developing and conducting it?
• ensure all who serve on government tribunals and adjudicative bodies dealing with employment law, labour relations or workers’ compensation receive mandatory training on issues of sexual orientation?
• re-introduce an employment equity act that includes in the provisions dealing with education, recruitment and promotion, and employment environment, proactive measures to remove barriers faced by lesbians, gays and bisexuals (but does not include lesbians, gays and bisexuals in numerical goals or quotas)?

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

In CLGRO’s 1997 report Systems Failure, 22% of respondents reported being physically assaulted, but only 26% of those reported the assaults to police. Those who did report such incidents generally did not have good experiences.

Will you and your party ensure:

• that Crown prosecutors and others involved with law enforcement and the administration of justice are instructed to take seriously, and vigorously prosecute, acts of homophobic violence against gays, lesbians and bisexuals?
• that all provincially appointed judges, Crown prosecutors and others in adjudicative or policy-making capacities within the provincial justice system receive mandatory training on issues of sexual orientation?

Written and published by:

Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO)
May 1999

Published in hard copy with the help of:

The Lesbian and Gay Community Appeal and the John Damien Educational Trust

Graphic design of hard copy:

Dale Barrett

The Complete Teachings Of Jesus Christ On Homosexuality, As Recorded In The 4 Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke & John

The fact is that Jesus was totally silent on the matter of homosexuality. Jesus continually spoke out on matters of morality, such as greed, adultery, and lust (heterosexual or homosexual). But He evidently did not consider homosexuality in the same light as many of today’s preachers.

Most Christians are unaware of the fact that NOT ONE of the Gospels records any statement or teaching from the lips of our Lord Jesus Christ condemning homosexuality and/or homosexuals.

How many Christians, including preachers, have stated – and continue to state – something to the effect that Jesus condemned homosexuality, therefore it is sinful and always wrong? You have undoubtedly heard people make such unfounded statements… maybe you have even thought they were true.

It is interesting to note that it was late in the Christian era that homosexuality was coupled with “the sin of Sodom” – in fact, not until the rise of unscriptural hierarchy in the Church. Then homosexual women and men became scapegoats for the censure, anger and attacks of the leaders of the Church.

It was – and still is – humans, and not God, who condemn homosexual people and all aspects of homosexuality. God is concerned with our spirituality, not our sexuality! (Galatians 3:28)

Written by:

Metropolitan Community Church – MCC
115 Simpson Avenue
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M4K 1A1
(416) 406-6228

Relationships Recognition
(Pamphlet prepared by CLGRO, August 2000)

Statement from CLGRO’s On Our Own Terms conference, 1989:

All people, regardless of sexual orientation, have the right to determine for themselves their primary personal relationships and to have these relationships supported and recognized in law and by social institutions.

CLGRO statement of principle, 1990:

CLGRO believes that, while our preference would be that benefits be made available on an individual basis (with allowances for the dependence of children, the aged, and the disabled), whenever benefits are made available to heterosexuals living in couples, these same benefits must also be made available to same-sex couples on the same footing.

CLGRO’s Involvement in Relationships Recognition

CLGRO was founded in January 1975 and our first major campaign – lasting 12 years – was to get “sexual orientation” included in the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Code was amended in December 1986 so that lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals have basic human rights protection in Ontario and discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is prohibited.

The next major issue to emerge was the protection of our relationships, so in 1989 we held a provincial conference, “On Our Own Terms,” to determine what recognition of our relationship we would like and on what terms.

Positions varied from “let’s abolish marriage” all the way through to “let’s live in traditional couples.” Some wanted to be seen as family; some saw the word family as an insult. But the consensus of the conference was simple: that our relationships should be protected in all their diversity. See the final conference statement above.

The need for accurate information was clearly great, and in 1991 the CLGRO working group on relationships recognition, struck at the conference, published the book On Our Own Terms to let those in same-sex relationships know their legal position and what measures they could take to protect their relationships and families. In 1992 the group producedHappy Families, a brief to the Ontario government, which details the discriminatory legislation and calls for a consistent, across-the-board change. CLGRO now maintains constantly updated The Spousal Collection, which details changes in the human rights situation.

In 1992, CLGRO circulated 7,000 pink postcards demanding the immediate amendment of all necessary provincial laws to recognize same-sex spousal relationships; we met with cabinet ministers, Liberal and NDP MLAs.

In 1994, when the (NDP) Ontario government introduced a bill that would have given same-sex relationships most of the rights and duties of common-law heterosexual relationships, CLGRO participated in the founding of, and then worked with, the Campaign for Equal Families to try to get the bill passed. However, the government failed to pass the bill.

The subsequent (PC) government appealed all court decisions favouring equal rights for same- sex relationships. In May 1999 the Canadian supreme court decision in M v H found the Ontario Family Law Act in contravention of the Canadian Charter. In October 1999, the Ontario government changed the law by creating a category “same-sex partner,” parallel to “spouse” (a term reserved for heterosexuals only) or common-law partner.

In April 2000, the federal (Liberal) government passed a bill giving same-sex partners the same status as heterosexual common-law partners, though they had previously passed an act maintaining that marriage is for heterosexuals only.

These changes are based on the equality model, the notion that equal means same, that what is good for heterosexuals is also good for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.

In this political climate, what can be done? Most of the legal changes that have been made have been the result of court decisions, not of a grassroots movement exercising its impact on the legislative process.

CLGRO continues to advocate for change in relationships recognition, for instance as it relates to immigration laws and employment conditions. In our 1997 report, Systems Failure, which looked at the experience of sexual minorities in the healthcare and social services systems of Ontario, the failure of government and the professions to treat our relationships with respect or human dignity is well documented.

How do lesbians, gays, and bisexuals really live?

Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals have never lived in the sheltered environment that society provides for heterosexuals. As a result, we have a history of making environments for ourselves while legislation and social customs have provided for the “traditional” nuclear family unit of one man in the workforce, one woman at home, and optional children.

But this “traditional” unit (actually, a comparatively recent tradition) is no longer the norm, even for heterosexual society, where the divorce rate is nearing 50% of all marriages, and has itself regularly been criticised for not being flexible enough to accommodate the way people actually live. In addition, the multicultural society that is Canada needs to take into account the more extended family units of different cultures.

There are no reliable statistics about how lesbians, gays, and bisexuals live. As long as we face discrimination, we will be reluctant to identify ourselves in numbers accurately depicting our representation in Canada’s population.

But it seems clear that we have created a range of lifestyles.

Some live in couples like the heterosexual married couple, with or without children.

A couple living in a fairly traditional relationship but not in the same house will find that they are not eligible for spousal benefits because of residence qualifications.

A couple may live together in an open relationship, or a person may live singly with a variety of partners.

What does the law have to say about this?

In Ontario, Bill 5 (Oct. 1999) nearly gives same-sex couples the same standing as heterosexual common-law couples. (See CLGRO’s leaflet on bill 5.)

Federally, bill C-23 (April 2000) gives same-sex couples the same standing as heterosexual common-law couples.

June 1999, the federal government voted in a heterosexual definition of marriage, excluding “all others.” Marriage is principally covered under federal laws.

Although it is legal (and always was) for same-sex couples to get married in a church, have holy unions, commitment ceremonies, etc – neither the federal nor the provincial government will yet recognize these relationships as existing in law.

If your relationship does not follow the model prescribed by the government, you will have no standing. If you and your lover don’t live under the same roof – no spousal health benefits for you.

If you have more than one significant other, the government will not recognize them.

If you are supporting or living with a dear friend, and have no “spouse,” your friend will not be recognized as a legally significant relationship.

Further, equality in common-law standing has unequal repercussions. Only married (that is, heterosexual) partners automatically inherit each other’s property. Because of homophobia, families are much more likely to contest a will made in a same-sex relationship.

One partner could be cut off welfare because the assessing officer decides that their lover is helping support them. Yet, because of homophobia, the couple may well experience in finding housing or housing assistance.

In the recent M v H decision, a woman was held liable for support payments after a relationship break-up, though she had not been able to claim any benefits during the duration of the relationship.

What Does CLGRO Really Think?

CLGRO, according to its mission statement, is “an organization… committed to working towards feminism and lesbian and gay liberation by engaging in public struggle for full human rights.”

That is to say, we believe that equality is the least that can reasonably be offered to us. But we think that an examination of the ways in which we live may yield alternatives that are more appropriate to us.

Some lesbians, gays, and bisexuals simply want equality. They want to be considered couples on exactly the same terms as heterosexuals. But many of us do not.

This difference could be accommodated by the introduction of a system of registered domestic partnerships, such as those already in place in a number of European countries. Those couples who want to be assessed as couples would then register; those couples who did not register, would not be assessed as couples. People would be given the choice to define for themselves where they stand in the system. Government officials would not be put in the invidious position of deciding for people what the relationships are.

THE CHALLENGE IS WITH US NOW.

We must work out what is best for us and campaign to achieve it. Help CLGRO do this. Work with us in this campaign or support CLGRO so we can go ahead.

January 23, 2001

Ontario Human Rights Commission
Age Consultation
Policy and Education Branch
180 Dundas Street West 8th floor
Toronto M7A 2R9
ageconsultation@ohrc.on.ca

We have been thinking seriously about the human rights issues facing older people.

The most pressing issue facing the OHRC, we feel – and have felt since “sexual orientation” was added to the Ontario Human Rights Code after repeated pressure in 1986 – is to educate the public in general and employers and service providers in particular about lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, about homophobia, about our right to exist in a society without prejudice. We appreciate that the commission’s resources are severely stretched. We feel that more funds should be allocated to the commission by the government.

One of the most obvious and least commented on stereotypes about lesbians, gays, and bisexuals is that we are all young. You will often hear people saying, “Oh, my parents’ generation couldn’t cope with that.” Yet we have no reason to suppose that there were fewer lesbians, gays and bisexuals in our parents’ generation and before. We have lesbian great-grandmothers, gay uncles, bisexual cousins. Principally what has changed is the number of people prepared to come out and be publicly identified.

One result of this is a twofold problem – there are older lesbians, gays, and bisexuals moving through the system now – in residential homes, using the healthcare and social services available, living in our neighbourhoods. Many of these will not come out and the willful ignoring of their needs as well as the homophobia they witness can convince them that they were right not to. On the other hand, there is a generation moving toward old age who have always been out and who think they have a right to access services free of homophobia.

The only way to eliminate homophobia is a from-the-top-down statement by governing bodies to healthcare and social-services workers that homophobia will not be tolerated and this must be made reality by anti-homophobia training. Otherwise homophobia will continue to manifest itself as it does now, on a continuum from a belief that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals do not or should not exist, through sneers and bad treatment, to physical harm.

This problem is particularly hard to deal with where community-based care initiatives involve the use of volunteers who are harder to regulate and do not always see themselves subject to the same regulations as paid staff.

Relationships recognition is a main factor for seniors in residential homes or living independently. We can still have a struggle to get doctors, caregivers, and other professionals to accept our partners as our spouses. Ontario’s bill 5 (October 1999) officially gives us the same status as common-law heterosexuals, but same-sex marriage is not yet recognized and no mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that we receive the rights the bill gives us. Something as simple as placing a photo of a spouse on the bedside table can bring about repercussions.

Our partner(s) and friends are often particularly important to us, given that we cannot depend on support from our families. Many families reject their lesbian, gay, and bisexual members or seek to impose antigay views or practices on their dependent relatives – lesbians, gays, and bisexuals must be protected from this.

When we create family structure of our own, these must be recognized in the terms in which we recognize them.

In the workplace, older lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are particularly prone to pressure to take early regiment schemes where employers do not want them in the workforce. Pressure from coworkers and daily encounters with homophobia can make us accept the offers which are not always in our financial favour. If the conservative government had not repealed the employment equity act, there would have been a clear way to implement anti-prejudice measures in the workplace and the onus would have been on employers to provide a prejudice-free workplace rather than on the individual worker, already suffering from the prejudice, to right the wrong.

For older lesbians and bisexual women, economic problems are often caused by having earned a “woman’s wage” all their working life. They cannot access the benefits of a husband earning a “man’s wage.” The average for women is still about 70 to the male dollar and it has been worse – this has an obvious impact on savings, pensions, etc. If women have left a heterosexual relationship, taking a child with them, problems can have been compounded by lack of support and maintenance from the father.

It is appalling that the commission is able to identify women as one of the two groups most likely to experience severe disadvantage – women live longer than men and form a statistical majority of the elderly.

For homo- and bi-sexual women and men, there can be the economic impact of lack of advancement in – or firing from – a homophobic workplace.

Of course the issue of multiple discrimination arises – for the double whammy already experienced by older lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, you have only to add racism, sexism, anti-semitism, discrimination against people with disabilities, etc, to produce an extremely unfortunate situation.

From 1993-97, CLGRO ran Project Affirmation, a survey project funded by Health Canada to assess the experiences of sexual minorities in Ontario’s healthcare and social services systems. It shows pervasive homophobia on all levels resulting in situations from mild neglect to faulty medical treatment. It also contains a section on the needs and experiences of older lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals – those over 54, born before 1941. Almost all (94%) of the older lesbians, gay, and bisexuals – and of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual population generally – agreed that healthcare systems must improve to better meet their needs.

Yours sincerely,

Christine Donald
CLGRO spokesperson

May 21, 2001

Joint Statement on the LGBT Community – Police Liason Committee

The June 13 Committee, Maggie’s Toronto Prostitutes’ Community Service Project, and the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario join together to state our deep concern about the undemocratic process by which the community has been summoned to a meeting on May 30 to choose members of a Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered/ Transsexual Community — Police Liaison Committee. There is no consensus in our community that such a committee can be a useful way to communicate with the police. We urge community members to be wary of participating in this deeply flawed process.

Our community has a long history of harassment by the police. This harassment continues now. Last September the police raided the Pussy Palace Women’s Bathhouse. Prostitutes are constantly subjected to police harassment. Gay bars are constantly harassed by police anxious to limit and control what happens there.

In such an atmosphere, it is crucial that any new mechanism for communication between our community and the police be completely under our control and accountable to us. It is crucial that any liaison committee be developed through a democratic, open community process, unimpeded by police pressure. It is crucial that all members of our community, particularly those who face harassment, be brought into any communication process.

Unfortunately, the current process of creating an LGBT Community – Police Liaison Committee has none of these crucial characteristics. Here is why:

It is undemocratic. The May 30 meeting has been organized by a group of people who promised last September that they would develop a detailed proposal for a Community – Police Liaison Committee. They would then present this proposal to the community for discussion and possible change at a public meeting. No such proposal was ever developed or presented to the community.

Instead, the liaison group decided to ask the community to elect new members who would continue to work on a proposal, including negotiating the details with the police. It is this committee, NOT a properly constituted liaison committee, which is to be chosen on May 30.

The new committee’s structure, which was developed in private discussions, is a travesty of democracy. Only individuals who are sponsored by a community organization may seek election on May 30. No one may be nominated at the meeting. Six people will be elected. They will then choose a further four members by themselves.

It is exclusionary. The police have insisted that they will not permit anyone who has not passed a police background check to sit on the new committee. Sex trade workers, the women charged in connection with the Women’s Bathhouse, people charged with offenses related to the medical use of marijuana, bathhouse found-ins, and political activists could all face exclusion. While the liaison group claims to oppose this restriction, and to have encouraged prostitutes to seek election, it has NOT resolved this issue BEFORE having an election, exposing community members to public embarrassment if they are blocked from joining the committee.

The community’s right to choose its representatives on a liaison committee is not negotiable. Without representatives from groups that are subject to police harassment, a liaison committee can have no legitimacy.

It is police-driven. The police have threatened to set up their own handpicked liaison committee. This threat has been combined with an insistence that the process move forward quickly, regardless of community concerns. The liaison group has yielded to these threats and called an election without any assurance that the community’s choices will actually be allowed to sit on the committee.

The community liaison process has been deeply flawed since the September 2000 meeting. The May 30 meeting will only add to those flaws. We urge the community not to give unwarranted legitimacy to this public relations exercise by the police. Instead we urge community members to work together to develop an effective response to continuing police harassment.

Letter to LGBT Police Liaison Large Group

This is to inform you that the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO) has withdrawn from any further involvement with the LGBT Police Liaison Large Group, of which we have been part. We cannot support the formation of a liaison committee, as is proposed by the working group at the May 30 meeting, on what are essentially terms dictated by the police. Our reasons are as follows:
1. Developing formal relations with the police cannot proceed so long as conditions are imposed by the police that will require members of a liaison committee to undergo criminal background checks or will exclude from membership on a liaison committee persons having criminal charges and/or convictions, or who are sex trade workers. A liaison committee should not be established so long as this issue is left unresolved.

The Toronto Police Service is on record stating that police checks will be conducted on all community members on such a committee, and those with charges, convictions and or of ‘questionable character’ (i.e. sex trade workers) will be excluded. This is an unacceptable demand.

2. The LGBT Police Liaison Committee Working Group’s failure to hold a large group and/or public meeting to resolve the issue of criminal background checks and to have input to and approve the terms of reference for a liaison committee and the means by which the members of such a committee should be elected. Instead, the community is being presented with a structure that it is simply being asked to implement.

It was our understanding that proposals developed following the September 2000 public meeting were to have been presented to the Large Group and community for debate and, if found to be acceptable, approved. No Large Group meetings have been held since September despite repeated inquiries (save for May 16th, post the announcement of an election.) In addition, some groups have been excluded from the process leading up to the May 30 meeting simply because they were unable to attend the September meeting. As a member of the Large Group since its inception earlier in 2000, CLGRO was inexplicably dropped from the e-mail distribution list – the primary source of information about what was happening – after the September 2000 meeting, despite having participated in preceding meetings and having expressed an interest in continuing in the process when sending our regrets.

3. Any credible police liaison process must be focussed on the agenda of the community, not the agenda of the police.

The liaison process must not be driven by the agenda and timetable set by the police. The police must be accountable to us, the community, as citizens and taxpayers.

Unfortunately, this is not the way in which the process leading up to the May 30 meeting has unfolded. By leaving unresolved the unacceptable police demand that they dictate who will be permitted to be members of a liaison committee, and disregarding the importance of further Large Group and/or community consultation, the Working Group is acquiescing to the police agenda and timetable. There is no need to establish a flawed committee simply because the police have threatened to establish their own committee of members they will appoint. This, along with the other police demands, is an ultimatum that does not foster trust or confidence. By acquiescing, the community liaison committee will be signalling that it is accountable to the police, and that the police are calling the shots.

For the reasons set out above, CLGRO will not be nominating a representative for the committee nor will we vote during the planned election to be held on May 30th. We nevertheless intend to be present at this meeting to inform the community of our position.

Sincerely,

Nick Mule,
Spokesperson, CLGRO

June 15, 2001

The Honourable Janet Ecker, Minister for Education
Minister’s Office, Mowat Block, 22nd floor
900 Bay Street, Toronto Ont M7A 1L2
janet_eckerco@ontla.ola.org
Fax 416-325-2608

Dear Minister Ecker,

I am writing to you with regard to the lesbian, gay, and bisexual pride celebrations happening around the province. Most, as I’m sure you know, take place in June and July, though in some cities they are earlier or later.

Toronto and many other cities around the province issue municipal LGB pride declarations and support the events in a variety of ways.

But every year, after the pride celebrations are over, we hear from teachers who have been harassed at school as a result of being seen at pride celebrations.

I won’t go into case histories, but the usual story is that a photo of pride events has been published in a local paper or coverage has been seen on local TV. Someone – often another teacher – has spotted a colleague taking part. This information is then used to harass or discredit the teacher seen at the LGB event. Photos have been circulated to parents, campaigns undertaken to imply that students are now not safe, teachers have been made to feel they are not safe in their personal life. Jobs have been lost and the personal cost is high.

The effect of this on students questioning their sexuality or knowing that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual is also damaging. They see that it is not safe to say you are gay or that you will be punished for your affections.

I have covered much of this ground in the letter on private schools also sent to you today, so I won’t repeat it here.

I am writing to ask you what you can do to obviate this human-rights abuse. A press release, statement, or public memo from your office in support of pride would be an obvious help, preferably containing some explicit pronouncement to the effect that pride should not be used against teachers, staff, or students.

I look forward to your early response.

Yours sincerely,

Christine Donald
CLGRO spokesperson