Almost two years ago, Georgina Beyer introduced her Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill, with the aim of preventing discrimination against transgendered people and transvestites. Since then, its been parked at the bottom of the Order Paper, Labour being too afraid to pursue it for fear of being labelled "PC". The latest deferral expired today, meaning the bill would come up for a first reading next Member's Day, but it has now been deferred again, this time until the end of the month. Something could be read into the fact that this was a short postponement rather than a long one, but given the way things have gone, its looking likely that the bill will simply be deferred again, and again, and again, until either Labour grows a spine, or National a sense of decency. unfortunately, I don't really regard either as likely.
In the meantime, the deferral means there will be another ballot tomorrow. As usual, I'll post the results when I receive them.
5 comments:
I'm not an expert, legal or otherwise, but I'm not particularly impressed by this bill. I daresay its aims are worthy, but I'm unimpressed by the proposed wording.
"gender identity, which refers to the identification by a person with
a gender that is different from the birth gender of that person, or the gender assigned to that person at birth, and may include persons who call themselves transsexual, transvestite, transgender, cross-dresser, or other description."
i.e., gender identity is something that only transgendered et al people actually have.
And that seems contrary to the usage of the words in ordinary English, where everyone would have some form of gender identity. And that seems unfortunate.
But I suppose fixing the wording is one of the steps along the road to becoming an Act. Seems a shame to propose a bill that will need to be completely rewritten though.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 06:56:00 AM
john - just about every members' bill needs to be completely re-written.
Posted by Graeme Edgeler : 8/02/2006 10:01:00 AM
John: it can always be tweaked at select committee. But its also worth noting that other sections of the HRA are also "one-sided" in this way - for example, s21(1)(h) covers disability or illness, but not its absence, while s21(1)(k) bars discrimination against those unemployed or on ACC, but not against those with jobs.
The question the committee would have to ask (if this bill ever gets to one) is whether there is a problem with discrimination against people for not being transgendered that needs to be put into law. OTOH, the sexual orientation clause is double sided, barring discrimination against gays or straights, and I don't see any problem with tweaking the gender identity definition to be the same.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/02/2006 12:34:00 PM
I hear that she is away at the moment
Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 12:58:00 PM
Graeme: Yeah, I suppose that's not such a big surprise. Sigh...
Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 03:58:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).