APPENDIX 28
Memorandum submitted by Stonewall
INTRODUCTION
Stonewall is a national organisation that has
campaigned for social justice and legal equality for lesbian,
gay and bisexual people since 1989. We welcome the Home Affairs
Select Committee's scrutiny of the Sexual Offences Bill (hereafter
"the Bill"). This Bill introduces long-overdue reform
of law governing gay sex, much of which is Victorian in origin.
While we understand that the Committee wishes
to receive views on the wider content of this Bill, we have restricted
our input to the elements of the Bill relating to the reform of
gay sex law.
The need for reform
The Committee may not be aware that much of
the legislation that governs many aspects of gay sex in the UK
is still Victorian in origin and that amendments to this legislation
over the last three decades has so far only happened in a piece-meal
fashion. As a result, many old and inappropriate laws relating
to gay sex are still on the statute book. We support the Sexual
Offences Bill reforms that will deal with the areas in which gay
men are still criminalised, as well as introduce new protections
for the public that should apply equally to heterosexual as well
as homosexual sex. We hope that the Committee will publicly support
these reforms.
Repeal of the offence of buggery and repeal of
the prohibition of gay sex in private with more than one person
— Most people do not realise that the
offence of buggery is still on the statute book (Sexual Offences
Act 1956, Section 23).
— This law was amended in the Sexual
Offences Act 1967, which brought in a number of areas of limited
legalisation of gay sex. However, the basic laws governing gay
and straight sex remained, and still remain, different.
— The Bill would ensure that protection
is in place for all individuals against any non-consensual sexual
acts. Beyond that, we believe that there is no place in the law
for prohibitions specifically targetting gay acts and that do
not deal equally with heterosexual and homosexual sex.
— Section 1 of the Sexual Offences
Act 1967 prohibits any sex acts between more than two men, even
if those involved are consenting adults in a private location.
There are no similar prohibitions for straight sex.
— Stonewall successfully challenged
this prohibition in the European Court of Human Rights (ADT vs.
UK, 2000). We therefore support the Bill's proposals for both
heterosexual and homosexual sex acts to have the same legal status
and requirements for consent from parties involved.
We therefore strongly support Schedule Five
of the Bill, proposing the repeal of Section 12 of the Sexual
Offences Act 1956 and Sections One-10 of the Sexual Offences Act
1967, which detail a number of related gay-specific offences).
Repeal of the current law of gross indecency and
its replacement with necessary protections from the public that
do not specify sexuality
— It surprises many to realise that
an offence of gross indecency, relating only to sex between men,
is still on the statute book in the form of Section 13 of the
Sexual Offences Act 1956.
Schedule Five of the Bill proposes the repeal
of this law. We believe that this is necessary because:
— Legislation should, where necessary,
offer protection to the public equally from heterosexual and homosexual
sex. The current law contains an offence that only relates to
gay sex.
— There has only been piece-meal reform
of this law to date, ie allowing some acts in private places,
but still treating gay and straight sex differently in the eyes
of the law.
— The current law is based on Victorian
content, which is out of touch with modern society. Section 13
of the 1956 Act is a development of the Labouchere amendment of
1885 which labelled sex acts between men as "gross indecency"
and outlawed all such acts.
— The current law contravenes the human
rights of gay people by dealing with homosexual acts alone.
The Bill proposes the introduction of a new
offence prohibiting sexual activity in public (Part One, Clause
74) that would apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual acts.
Following Second Reading debate in the House of Lords, the Government
had said that it wants to re-examine the exact content of this
clause. We have made clear to the Government that this re-examination
should not weaken this repeal. We believe that any change to this
clause that seeks to maintain different treatment between heterosexual
and homosexual acts would contravene the Human Rights Act.
Gay men remaining on the sex offenders register—an
omission from the Bill
We regret that the Bill does not deal with the
issue of gay men who will remain on the sex offenders register,
despite the repeal of the offences for which they were convicted.
Gay men have been placed on the sex offenders
register for completely consensual acts with both parties aged
over 16. The Government have made clear that the sex offenders
register exists not as a punishment, but as an administrative
tool to help authorities manage possible re-offenders. As it is
impossible to re-offend against something that has been repealed,
we believe that these innocent gay men should be removed from
registration.
Stonewall believes that a small number of simple
amendments to the Bill would solve this problem. We are happy
to discuss these in more detail with the Committee.
CONCLUSION
We call on the Committee to support the reforms
of out-of-date and prejudicial gay sex laws that are contained
in this Bill.
February 2003
| 
