Last week’s observance of International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT) focused specifically on the threat that a lack of action on discrimination against members of the LGBT+ community can produce the awful impact of leaving some of our citizens behind.
“No One to be left Behind” was the adopted slogan against a
backdrop of “Freedom and Justice for All.”
Those of us who subscribe to the view that observance of
human rights requires recognition of their universal nature – meaning that all
human rights are for everyone – find easy resonance between such a conviction
and last week’s themes and sub-themes.
There is also the question of rights being indivisible, and
inalienable, meaning that they cannot be sub-divided for convenience, and no
one or no circumstance should ever be capable of taking them away.
The alternative, among other things, is the reality of officially-sanctioned
prejudice and discrimination, and the hatred that either fuels much of it or
emerges from it.
On another battlefront, for example, we have noted the
degree to which reducing new migrant populations to caricature, linguistic
mockery, and negative stereotyping has stimulated pervasive prejudice,
contempt, and ensuing hate.
The “close de borders” crowd remonstrating angrily as Venezuelan
men, women, and children lined up for “processing” in June 2019 in the rain
were acting based on feelings of ill-will with the intention of seeing the
animosity grow. I am yet to be convinced otherwise.
Since then, we have had to digest the fact that babies and
children were kept behind bars, school age children have been denied the right
to an education, and breaches of our country’s labour legislation have been
routinised when it comes to migrants. These are not acts that proceed out of
love.
Meanwhile, an alliance has also been established to address
issues associated with age and health condition/status when it comes to our
Equality Opportunity Act.
The Add All Three campaign, led by the Coalition Advocating
for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation (CAISO), focuses on these two omissions together
with the legislated depravity of our EOC when it comes to the LGBT+ community.
However polite the resistance to change on the latter
subject, in the main rooted in supposedly benevolent intentions, harm is an
inevitable outcome once employment, housing, education and other opportunities
are decidedly rendered out of the reach of some without offence to a law
designed to guard against discrimination.
I am aware of the legal work once done to correct the LGBT+ anomaly
reflected in the explicit exclusion of “sexual orientation” (not that this is
even a correct formulation) as a basis for challenging deprivation of employment,
educational, and other socio-economic opportunity.
Such reform was actually initiated from within the Equal
Opportunity Commission by people who are no longer there. The current occupants
of office need to resume the struggle.
It is nevertheless true that international conventions, to
which we are willingly and boastfully subscribed, already point in recommended
directions in all areas mentioned here, but the force of domestic
law/protections is clearly necessary under current circumstances.
Why has this not been placed on the parliamentary agenda? Why
is there not a stronger groundswell of political pressure to rectify this? Are
we going to witness the appearance of these issues in forthcoming political
manifestoes?
Last week, while speaking about this on IDAHOBIT at a
British High Commission function, I also wondered aloud why a greater number of
us in T&T are not embarrassed by the specific travesty regarding “sexual
orientation” in our EOA.
Put in plain language, we have a law that promises to
address the issue of equality of economic and other opportunity to the
citizenry, but very pointedly excludes some. The framers of the law did not
even care to engage in passive omission as has been the case with age and
discrimination based on health status.
While that is being corrected, and as we pay attention to
Add All Three and rectify our clumsiness over the rights of new migrants, we
must acknowledge that we are offering equal opportunity to some, and not to
all.
Is this how we wish to proceed? Should we fear the answer to
this question?
