Introduction

Report on the CoSO Presentation to the Equality Commission

CoSO was invited by the Equality Commission to give a presentation on language, issues and concerns surrounding sexual orientation, in relation to the Section 75 equality duty. The presentation was prepared by Barbary Cook and given by both Barbary and Graínne.

It was one part of a five-part introductory meeting for the new Commissioners. It became apparent that the morning was only their second official meeting.

The other presentations were on race, sectarianism, disability and gender, making our presentation the only one from a new equality duty constituency. We spoke last and benefited from the exercises that the other groups had carried out, around the notion of breaking down stereotypes. It also meant that the Commissioners had begun to adjust to the language of de-stereotyping, as it were.

We did not do the exercise provided by Adrian and Gary at The Rainbow Project because, time had shortened considerably by the time we got to our slot and the other exercises had covered similar ground. See recommendations.

I have included my notes from the presentation and ohp’s for archive purposes rather than to suggest them as a necessary template. These notes were not distributed but I used them as my prompt.

I gave a brief overview of what CoSO was and why we had been set up emphasising its umbrella structure; that it had been established to deal with the Equality Duty and the Bill of Rights primarily; that it did not seek to replace the existing organisations and the crucial role they carry out.

Grainne and I felt it was important to explain the words CoSO is using in its responses and general documentation. Hence the explanation of LBGT as our interpretation of sexual orientation. I mentioned that technically transvestism was also included. I was endeavouring to get them to recognise how even those Commissioners who felt themselves to be familiar with the language of our community would recognise that there were new things to be learnt. Overall we felt that the Commissioners were receptive to these points.

I mentioned the debate surrounding the term queer as an example on ongoing debates around self-definition. This triggered a relatively lengthy debate from commissioners on reclamation of language, use of the word queer, reclaiming the word gay on behalf of the straight community, the beneficial power of reclamation, the many racial analogies all carried out with general enthusiasm.

Issues

These were examples of issues we raised in our response document.

· Not enough specific examples of SO issues have been given to PAs e.g. street lighting. We tried to get across the following point - how will PAs know to contact us about certain policies if they haven’t been through an awareness raising process.

· I made the points on employment much as in the notes. A senior representative of the Equality Commission later said to Graínne and I at lunch that they were presuming that employment policy was automatically covered by the duty – they hadn’t planned on asking about it.

· I made the point about policy-creating situations involved in individualised decision-making.

· Issues around confidentiality/collection of data for impact assessment. I rather forcefully stated that it was crucial for them to recognise and then persuade PAs that they had to be flexible about collecting data and validity of representation.

· Multiple identity. This section of the presentation ended up being a series of questions to Commissioners and staff alike, had they policies in place to deal with multiple identity, will staff and PAs be trained to deal with this, how will those policies and training change if part of the multiple identity is sexual orientation and the staff member is unfamiliar with the issues.

· Issues around training. The Commissioners were in general agreement, both during the presentation and later during lunch, that issues surrounding sexual orientation covered such new ground that extensive training was crucial.

We finished by covering some of CoSO’s concerns (see notes attached). We also put up the ohps defining heterosexism and homophobia. We wanted to draw the presentation together by reaffirming that these are very real problems for our community and that the new Equality Duty is of fundamental importance as it brings institutionalised change and readjustment of attitudes.

One of the Commissioners asked did we feel that the term sexual orientation in the legislation might also cover paedophiles. I said that as far as CoSO was concerned areas such as these are covered by existing legislation, none of which the equality duty is entitled to override.

In general there were lots of questions. Everyone seemed to have a pay attention face on. Only the reclaim-the-word-gay-for-the-straight-community guy seemed less than enchanted.

We didn’t have any CoSO cards but we did lots of networking.

Generally we felt there was incredibly positive feedback

Harry McConnell (a member of the Equality Commission working party) said that it was an excellent presentation. Furthermore CoSO were to be congratulated on the way in which they had put themselves together in such a coherent, organised manner, and that CoSO was an example to other organisations on how to conduct themselves. Everyone in the room seemed to agree.

· Mail shot to all PAs and other consultative bodies saying who we are, that we will carry out training, and consultation on Equality Duty, enclosing a paper on typical issues taken mainly from our response – e.g. what about training, what about street lighting. We know that some PAs have already begun developing (e.g. North West Health Board) a consultation process so this needs to go out as soon as possible

· We need to hold an internal seminar on our own training – to bring together our expertise so that we can offer training for different organisation that reflects the complexity of our community. Our own organisations can benefit from the cross-pollination of ideas and we can train more of our own people. The training envisaged will be wide-ranging and there’ll be lots of it.

· Likewise on consulting – maybe bring in members of community who are working in specific areas.

· We need to get funded and get an administrative worker.