1

POl315: November 1st 2010

Schooling?

- Change will be and will continue to be slow in schools

- Change in US has been faster on issues of bullying and harassment – still a
wedge issue
- Issue dominated by words “late” and “slow”
- Changes in Quebec may be happening
- Current period may be one of slow action but problems of implementation do
not go away – reluctance of teachers and unfamiliarity of issues and
terminology make it difficult

Europe

- Lots of variation across countries, hard to generalize on Europe

- Start by looking at European institutions

Multi-Level Governance

In Canada and US, local levels of government matter and they have been able to do
quite a bit more – more than European local governments.

Canada and US have 3 levels of government – federal, regional and local.

Europe has another level of government – multi-national

European Convention on HR (1949-1953)

- Basically includes all of Europe, including Russia and Turkey – much bigger
than EU
- Creates 2 bodies (not very strong though): (1) Council of Europe and (2)
European Court on Human Rights (ECHR)
- Recent court case that came out ECHR created by this convention
- HR language is very general – doesn’t include sexual diversity but establishes
mechanism for establishing interpretation of Convention on HR – allows the
court to look at nation’s actions in accordance with Convention. There is no
method for implementation but the court does have some moral standing.
- The Court has been very careful in its rulings because they know they have a
moral sway.
- 1981 – Dudgeon – case from Northern Ireland – Court ruled against Northern
Ireland’s law criminalizing homosexuality. VICTORY
- 1988 – Norris – Court ruled the same way but case was coming out of
Republic of Ireland. VICTORY
- Both cases involved a pretty clear case of criminalizing private behaviour
- These were not adventurous rulings – not moving ahead of the crowd really
 2

- 1998 – Lisa Grant - First major relationship claim – case from Britain
involving SW train – did NOT rule in favor of same-sex workplace benefits.
DEFEAT
- 2008 – EB vs. France - adoption case – court held by 10-7 vote that French
governments refusal of lesbians’ application to adopt was unlawful. VICTORY
- ECHR plays an increasing role in same-sex issues

EU – European Court of Justice

- EU is a very powerful institution – smaller but is very significant –has policy

that began on trade issues but has spread to regulatory issues having to do
with economic affairs, service industries, etc. to reduce barriers on
movement of capital goods and people
- Took EU a long time to move into “equity issues” – did so from the beginning
on gender issues but other equity issues not so much.
- With the 1980s, more with 1990s and even more with 2000s there has been
more discussion on sexual diversity.
- What institutions count?
o 1. European Parliament – direct election, large assembly organized by
party clusters (ie. Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, etc.). Not a
very powerful chamber though – profile and leverage has increased
but it is not the center of power. Does not have the formal clout of
most national legislatures.
 Have made some progressive decisions on LGBT issues but this
has no influence on implementation
o 2. *Commission – this is where the power is. HQ in Brussels – often
prominent politicians and former politicians are named by their
government (lots of lobbying). Very large bureaucratic system with a
hierarchy. A lot of power resides in the politician representing his
nation.
o 3. **Council of Ministers – ultimately rules the day.
o 4. **European Court of Justice – also shifting very gradually on LGBT
issues – don’t want to me too ahead of majority of members of nation
states
 Works on different treatise than ECHR
- European Commission can provide funding – have been helpful to LGBT
issues by giving LGBT groups funding
- Extremely incremental in its leverage
- Article to be posted from www.EUobserver.com - shows how much
Commission has opened up and been helpful to gay and lesbian issues –
worried about replacing grassroots activism and replacing it with
bureaucratic activism
 3

Activist Development

- Has not been that different from that in North America

- Activism surfaced/resurfaced after WWII
- National organizations established in some countries, that had real staying
power – ie. in Denmark, France, etc.
- In 1970s and beyond, saw same kind of radicalism emerge – challenged
patterns of policing and also saw cautious approaches to political activism
(ie. aiming for legal reform, etc.)
- 1980s – start to see limited policy gains (basic non-discrimination
measures). AIDS hits Europe (just as bad as in NA – heavily identified with
homosexual males) and there is a North-South divide. AIDS helps to raise
profile of issues around sexual diversity.
- 1989 – Denmark enacts first domestic partnership regime
- Slowly after this there is a development of recognizing same sex
relationships
- Marriage only enters policy agenda in the late 1990s –
- Netherlands (2002?), Belgium (2003 – no parenting rights though), Spain
(2005), Norway (2008), Sweden (2009), Portugal and Iceland (2010)…more
to come

European case has important differences but not in sequencing of issues. Overall,
there is no pattern across the whole of Europe, but NW Europe has a pattern similar
to Canada.

Country Responses

Survey Data from 2000 – data may have changed only slightly since then.

Percent responding that homosexuality is never justified:

Netherlands – 7%
Sweden – 9%
Denmark – 21%5
Belgium – 27%
Spain – 17%
Italy – 30%
Poland – 60%
Russia – 71%
Latvia – 77%
Hungary – 88%
Turkey – 85%
 4

2006 Survey asking about adoption rights:

Do you agree with adoption rights for same sex couples?

Same kind of nervousness we see in the US.

Netherlands – 69%

The rest of Europe is between 24 (Italy) and 51% (Sweden).

In Eastern Europe, average favorable view is 11%.

Huge variation on public policy within Europe – moving in an inclusive direction. At

the same time, European level rhetoric is increasingly promoting Europe as
inclusive and equitable.

Countries may have a nationalist response to criticism by the ECHR.

Complex entanglement of anti-immigrant sentiment and other things.

Emergence of European institutions.