Discrimination is prejudice toward members of minority or subordinate groups without considering the effects of prejudice and discrimination, discrimination often affects minority groups on the basis of age, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. If a person or group of people are treated unfairly in areas of public life such as employment, recruitment, customer service and advertising on the basis of their sexual orientation then this is unlawful discrimination.
Discriminators don’t always consider the effect of prejudice and discrimination. * Sexual discrimination is also known as ‘homophobia’, this means it covers a wide range of different viewpoints and attitudes Towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. * Homophobia is generally defined as hostility towards and or fears of gay people, however it can also refer to social ideologies which stigmatise homosexuality. This type of Discrimination begins with Negative feelings or attitudes towards non-heterosexual or (non straight) behaviour, identity, relationships and community, this can lead to homophobic behaviour and attitudes. * This is the root of the discrimination experienced by many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender or (LGBT) people for short. * Homophobia manifests itself in different forms, for example homophobic jokes, physical and verbal attacks, discrimination in the workplace and negative press coverage. Discrimination against anyone is wrong this chart shows how serious this form of bulling is and how deadly the consequences can be : * Although in many societies gay men and lesbians are more accepted now than they were in the past, homophobia continues to be prominent around the world and in different cultures it is illegal to be gay, bisexual and transgender. * Heterosexist and homophobia are the result of ignorance about sexual orientation and gender identity issues.
Educating society about these issues can help combat fear and discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people * Lgbt people are more likely to experience depression and rejection by friends and/or family, acceptance and understanding can even be a matter of life and death, since the risk of suicide in lgbt adolescents is two to three times greater than in their straight counterparts Statistics show that> This shows how discrimination can affect people’s mental health. Direct discrimination Direct discrimination is to directly treat a person or group of people differently because of their sexual orientation and it is against the law in the UK. Direct discrimination occurs when a person treats you less favourably than he or she treats or would treat other persons and it’s based on the grounds of your sexual orientation. * One example of this in employment is where a person is dismissed on the grounds of his or her sexuality. In a non-employment situation, this would include situations like refusing to allow a lesbian or gay man to stay in holiday accommodation. Bourn and Whitmore define direct discrimination as: “Discrimination which entails treatment of a person on one of the aforementioned grounds (for example, gender), which has an adverse impact on him or her by comparison with the treatment afforded to persons not of the group in question”. * Because of the Sexual Orientation Regulations Act 2003, there have been a number of employment tribunal decisions relating to discrimination and harassment of lesbian and gay men. Most people involved used overt homophobic language, and homophobic treatment over a period of time.
However there is no requirement for discrimination to be overt or even conscious so even if someone isn’t aware that they are using derogatory terms they are still breaching this act. Indirect Discrimination * Indirect discrimination occurs when an employer or service provider imposes a specific criterion, provision or practices which may apply equally to people of any sexual orientation and does in fact place people of the same sexual orientation as you at a particular disadvantage. * To rely on these regulations you must have personally suffered that disadvantage.
As an employer or service provider may be able to argue that the disadvantage was justified, but only if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end. * One example of potential indirect discrimination would be the provision of benefits referring to marital status since same sex couples can not marry they can however have a civil partnership. It is now no longer lawful to provide such benefits to married persons without providing equal access to such benefits for civil partners.
Victimisation can occur if a claim of discrimination has been made. * Victimisation happens when a person treats you less favourably than he or she treats, or would treat, someone else in those particular circumstances because you have done any of the following: * Brought legal actions against the discriminator or any other person under the regulations. * If you have given evidence or information in connection with legal proceedings brought by any person against the discriminator or any other person under the regulations. otherwise done anything under or by reference to the regulations in relation to the discriminator or any other person; or * Alleged that the discriminator or any other person has committed an act which would amount to a violation of the regulations. * Victimisation also occurs where you are treated less favourably because the discriminator knows or suspects that you intend to do any of those things this is known as intimidation. * Allegations of discrimination must be made in good faith so to be protected by the victimisation provisions of the regulations.
The extent of individual homosexual discrimination * Individual discrimination is discrimination fuelled by certain attitudes about a minority group, causing the individual to target that group, seeing them as lazy, unproductive, harmful, or unwanted in the society because of their sexuality and background. * Individual homosexual discrimination is discrimination against one person. * For example if a male patient was to refuse medical treatment from a male gay doctor that would be individual homosexual discrimination.
One case of individual discrimination I found was: Lesbian police officer wins sex discrimination case against her senior Lesbian police officer court win A lesbian police officer who suffered “relentless” homophobic abuse at the hands of her sergeant has won her sex discrimination claim. PC Tracey West was regularly taunted by Sergeant Michael Service who claimed gay officers were “p**fs and freaks”. Sgt Service also made a jibe that her sexuality was an “illness” and spoke about her civil partnership, asking who would “wear the trousers” in the relationship.
PC West was so traumatised by her six-month ordeal she resigned from Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary then emigrated to Australia. The 42 year-old sued the force and Sgt Service for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. She has now won her case after an employment tribunal ruled she was subjected to “a relentless series of homophobic conduct”. Sgt Service has been ordered to pay PC West ? 7500 while her former employers must pay ? 2500in compensation. A hearing in Glasgow was told the abuse started in early 2007 at the force headquarters in Dumfries.
Sgt Service first made a remark to PC West that he would pass paperwork “over the dyke” to her at the office they shared. PC West later joined the Gay Police Association. Sgt Service claimed members of the group were all “p**fs and freaks”. He also told her that a fellow representative from another force could not come into their office. Sgt Service claimed he did not want the “p**f” in the room and that any money for tea and biscuits was not to come out of his budget.
Ms West told the hearing: “He apologised for making the p**fs comment and said he didn’t know that the term was offensive. He then smirked. He knew what it meant and he was laughing. ” The sergeant also said that when he spoke about a colleague sounding “so gay” he meant “happy”. The mother-of-two made an official complaint in August 2007 after more than six months of constant abuse. Sgt Service was forced to resign in April 2008 after 20 years in the force as a result of the proceedings raised against him.
He claimed at the hearing that PC West was lying and that she had made up the accusations to help fund her move to Australia, where her and her partner remain in the police. In a written judgment, employment judge Raymond Williamson said: “The claimant was subjected to a relentless series of homophobic conduct by Sergeant Service for more than six months and that she suffered significant distress and hurt feelings. “The behaviour contributed to the claimant deciding to emigrate to Australia and remove herself as far away as possible from the unhappy circumstances of life in Dumfriesshire.
Institutional discrimination Institutional discrimination is characterized by societal-level conditions that limit the opportunities and access to resources by socially-disadvantaged groups. Institutional discrimination occurs when the culture, policies, systems and procedures in an organisation inherently discriminate against a group or groups of people. This happens because the systems and processes were designed without taking into account the diverse needs of groups within the community in relation to e. g. their sexual orientation. One case of this institutional discrimination I found was: UK Catholic adoption agency loses battle to stop same sex couples adopting. The UK adoption agency Catholic Care has lost its five-year fight to reserve its services for heterosexual couples only, in a landmark court ruling, reports the Catholic Herald. The adoption agency based in Leeds, had taken its case to the Upper Tribunal in order to win the right to maintain charitable status while being permitted to refuse to place children with same-sex couples, in accordance with the charity’s Catholic ethos.
However, they were defeated today as the Charity Commission argued that the charity’s stance is “divisive, capricious and arbitrary” and undermined the dignity of homosexual couples whose parenting abilities are “beyond question”. The tribunal concluded that Catholic Care had failed to come up with “weighty and convincing reasons” as to why the agency should be allowed to discriminate against gay couples who were trying to access their services. Emma Dixon, who was representing the Charity Commission, told tribunal judge, Mr Justic Sales, that Catholic Care’s desired arrangement would iolate Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and other characteristics. She said: “A requirement to operate within the tenets of the Church cannot constitute Article 14 justification. “To do so would be to offer protection to the substance of the Church’s belief that homosexuality is sinful. ” FULL STORY UK Catholic Care loses its five-year battle (Catholic Herald)