30 April 2015, Sydney, Australia
Daniel Solomons committed suicide on 23 April 2013. A Memorial Scholarship was established in his name, and Justice Michael Kirby spoke at the launch event. The name of the talk is, “Lawyers Suicide: The Influence of Legal Studies and Practice, Stress and Clinical Depression and Sexuality’. Daniel’s mother Sandra Solomons also spoke at the event.
CONTRADICTIONS AND DISCORDANCIES
This is not an evening for joy and humour. Ashurst have offered their Sydney office for the launch of the Daniel Solomons Memorial Scholarship. Daniel was their employee. Before that, he was a gifted student at Moriah College. He received the Premier’s Medal for all round excellence in his High School Certificate results. He graduated in an Arts/Law course at the University of New South Wales, with first class honours. He was respected by his colleagues at Ashurst. He was admired for his analytical skills. He was studying for admission to practise at the New South Wales Bar. Two years and a week ago, on 23 April 2013, he took his own life. His death has been a devastation to his partner and his family, his work colleagues, the members of his intended Bar chambers. His is another story of might have beens.
I honour the lovely, discordant, evocative Jewish music, played by the quintet. I appreciate the fine food and the wines. But this is not an evening for enjoyment. Losing Daniel has left a hole in the heart of too many. The sharpest loss has been felt by those present at the event:
His parents, Sandra and David Solomons.
His sisters Michele and Rebecca, who grew up with him.
His domestic partner and faithful friend, David Darley, who is here with his mother, Sandra Darley, still close to Daniel’s family.
His two grandmothers who are both present.
His uncles, cousins and other family members.
His school friends from Moriah College.
His University friends from UNSW.
His work colleagues at Ashurst, who cherished his dazzling abilities.
Jordana Wong from UNSW Law, substituting for Dean David Dixon, who planned the scholarship to continue Daniel’s passions.
And the rest of us who are here, seeking to find meaning out of this tragic anniversary.
This cannot be a usual dinner with laughter and celebration. We have serious work to do. And if we shed tears, that will be entirely appropriate. Yet tears are also not enough. We must respond to Daniel’s family’s determination to establish a scholarship that will recognise in others, and support, the same courage, idealism and determination to change things that Daniel exhibited in his short life.
COMMONALITIES
I feel an affinity for Daniel Solomons. Not to be too boastful (for Daniel and I would never be such) we were both pretty brilliant at school, and at university.
We were both enthusiastic and energised by our early work experience. We loved solving the problems of the law, Daniel and I.
We were both good writers. It is a genetic thing. A capacity to communicate simply. To write in the same language that we talk – a simple tongue derived from the Saxons, that now conquers the world.
We both tended to think outside the square. This irritated some people. But it helped us to see things to which others were blind.
We were both challengers of settled things. And, as we grew up, we knew, from our experiences with love and life, that many things needed changing, including in the law.
Undeservedly you might think, we both were lucky in love. We both won handsome and intelligent partners and (for a reason we could never fully understand) they loved us. Daniel’s, David Darley. My Johan van Vloten. Luck in love, we knew, could not be methodically planned. It was a gift from the Gods.
It is good that tonight we honour David Darley and his mother. Often, you know, this is done for wives or husbands but not for LGBT partners. Yet they are flesh and blood. They hurt. They weep too.
DIFFERENCES
Emanuel Poulos of Ashurst has shared with us a thoughtful and moving description of Daniel’s life in the Firm. So well-constructed and full of detail. Daniel’s sudden death, and its circumstances, would have been a terrible shock to his work colleagues. He had so much to offer and to look forward to. The support by Ashurst for Daniel’s scholarship. It will be one way to keep alive the flame of memory and to honour his unusual personality. It will support those selected who decide to make the study of law their dream. It will help those who need something more, to get started. And who demonstrate personal courage, as Daniel did, seeking knowledge and enlightenment despite challenges, whether personal, financial or both.
Still, there were differences between Daniel’s life and mine:
I am nearing the end. He was knocking on the entrance door. I applied for articles to Dawson Waldron Edwards and Nichols (a predecessor of Ashurst). I may have been brilliant. But they rejected my application. My father was not a lawyer. That was often a prerequisite in those days. Daniel was accepted here. I never made it to a top tier firm. Often in the High Court, I would look at the coversheet of appeal books. The old firms that rejected me may have changed their names. But it did not deceive me. I knew who they were. It did not make a difference to my judgment. But I still remembered. Daniel, on the other hand, entered the magic circle.
Daniel’s office was, let’s face it, a mess. Mine has always been antiseptically neat and tidy.
Towards the end of his life, Daniel, who had suffered anxiety, came to suffer from clinical depression. I never have. Depression is not an easy journey. In Samuel Coleridge’s poem “Dejection” he describes how it feels:
A grief without a pang, void, dark and drear,
A drowsy stifled unimpassioned grief,
Which finds no natural outlet or relief,
In word, or sigh, or tear.
To honour Daniel, we must resolve to talk about depression. To analyse its causes. Above all, to understand why it is so common amongst law students, legal practitioners and judges. Although I did not feel its pain myself, I spent many years of enforced silence about another demon of others that Daniel knew: sexual difference. So it is not hard for me to understand the challenge of depression. The way out of the closet is to put it on the table, turn it around, examine it, acknowledge it and challenge its corrosive effects.
RESISTENCE
After I was appointed to the High Court of Australia, in February 1996, I was soon afterwards invited to address a judicial conference in Brisbane. I was asked to talk on any subject I might choose. Perhaps they were hoping for the Rule against Perpetuities or the Statute of Mortmain. Instead, fresh from a recent conference in Canada, I selected stress. Judicial stress. Stress done to judges. Stress done by judges. Little did I know that I could not have chosen a more stressful topic for my audience.
The commentator, Justice Jim Thomas of the Supreme Court of Queensland, was antagonistic to my theme. He blamed his wife, who, he said, had berated him for even coming to respond to such an inappropriate and irrelevant theme. Most of the judicial attendees at that conference appeared relieved and mischievously happy to tweak the tail of the new High Court Justice for daring to choose a “touchy-feely” subject. How rude of him. A few supported me; but not many. However, I stood my ground. That was another thing I shared with Daniel. The sometimes irrational belief in our own correctness. I have kept gnawing away at this subject since 1976: betraying a naively simple belief in rational persuasion. Now there are fewer lawyers who are dismissive of the topic. Too much evidence of its impact. Too many suicides and breakdowns to sustain the code of silence. Now, most law deans, chief judges and leading lawyers know that this subject is serious. We will honour Daniel’s life by treating is as such.
SUICIDAL DIMENSION
Suicide is now such a serious problem in our world that even the United Nations World Health Organisation (WHO) has provided a first report addressing the topic. According to the report, someone in our world commits suicide every 40 seconds. This is more than the aggregate of victims of wars and natural disasters. The largest toll is amongst the elderly. The highest rates occur in Central and Eastern Europe and in Asia with 25% of cases occurring in developed countries. Men are almost twice as likely as women to take their own lives. Inferentially, this is because women have better networks; they are more willing to talk about issues that trouble them; and to seek help. They are less likely to feel an obligation of denial. They will seek help beyond their own limited knowledge and experience. Lonely self-help will often not provide the solution.
The WHO report took a decade to produce. It found that the rates of suicide in developed countries (12.7 per 100,000) were slightly higher than in developing low and middle income countries (11.2). The very highest rates in the world occurred in North Korea, India, Indonesia and Nepal. Worldwide, the most suicide prone countries included Guyana (44.2 per 100,000); followed by North and South Korea (38.5 and 28.9 respectively), Sri Lanka (28.8), Lithuania (28.2), India (21.1) and Southern Sudan (19.8). Russia and Uganda each had 19.5. The purpose of the WHO report is to encourage a new global strategy. The Organisation hopes that this will reduce suicide rates by 10% before 2020.
Australia has a rate of about 11.5 per 100,000. Every year approximately 2,000 Australians commit suicide, with up to 40 times that number making an attempt to end their lives. Suicide is the leading cause of death in Australia for young men under 44 years and for women under 34 years. One person dies by suicide in Australia approximately every 4 hours.
One issue which the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention is currently studying is the particular impact of human sexuality on the suicide rate. This is why the Institute has recently appealed to persons who know someone who committed suicide to assist them with their research into the impact of minority sexual orientation or gender identity. These are topics that can occasionally lead to feelings of isolation, low self-worth, fear of violence and hostility.
Although we have known the basic facts of the science of sexual orientation for more than 50 years, recent research and experience shows that often there is good reason for people, including young people, to feel depressed and discouraged because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. They may keep up appearances. But, particularly if they are suffering from clinical depression, the appearances may simply mask the inner turmoil that is going on. Sometimes that turmoil will lead them to an exit strategy. For people who face what they see as unrelieved stress and pain, suicide can appear a rational way out of unyielding conflict and misery.
Many young people in Australia come up against hostility and animosity because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. A recent report by Beyondblue revealed high levels of homophobia amongst Australian teenage boys between the ages of 14-17. A quarter of the cohort considered that it was acceptable to describe something they did not like as “gay”: assimilating the insult with the description. Most participants in the study agreed that homophobic discrimination was common in their circle and they realised that it could lead to depression and anxiety. However, despite this insight, a significant minority indicated attitudes that would escalate such responses:
38% indicated that they would not be happy being friends with a same-sex attracted person;
41% said that lesbian, gay and bisexual people make them uncomfortable;
34% of boys were unsure whether ending a friendship if someone said they were same-sex attracted would be discrimination;
Around 19% saw homosexuality as immoral; and
17% regarded it as a “passing phase”.
DOING SOMETHING
The response to this problem in Australian society (which would appear to be larger than in most other western countries) demands institutional and individual responses. The places where such responses need to occur obviously include educational institutions. Some of these are under the control of religious (“Faith”) organisations that are resistant to changing the environment that gives rise to the discrimination, hostility and potentially terminal responses on the part of those targeted. Not all those who commit suicide amongst young Australians are from sexual minorities (LGBTI). But clearly some are. The higher rates of suicide amongst young males appears significant.
When the Australian Federal Government launched a “Safe Schools Coalition Australia” initiative, supported by federal funding of $8 million, to support an active campaign against bullying in schools, this was criticized by the Australian Christian Lobby. It called for a boycott. Nor is its approach confined to evangelical Christian churches. In March 2015, I wrote to a senior official in a Roman Catholic educational institution, drawing attention to reports that students had been refused accreditation of a LGBTI student group which would have financial and venue advantages for them. The institution had also reportedly refused permission to the students to meet on the university premises. The response by the senior executive of the institution was discouraging:
“As a [religious institution] recognised by Australian law, we believe that we have a right (and duty) to run [our body] in a way that is consistent with and gives witness to our Faith. We clearly identify our Objects in all of our recruitment materials and we ask all students to respect the Objects. We do not assert this as a justification for unjust discrimination, as we are absolutely opposed to unjust discrimination, but we do assert that this allows us to approach and deal with issues in ways that may be different to the practices of secular institutions but are none the less valuable and important. By way of illustration; while a secular [organisation] may well affiliate clubs with a “Pro-Gay Marriage” advocacy purpose, [we] would not, and indeed could not affiliate a … gay marriage advocacy club without completely undermining our existence… which operates within a ‘context of Catholic faith and values’. However, our commitment to pastoral care, human dignity and opposition to unjust discrimination means that we must - and do – ensure that all students continue to feel free to exercise their own judgment and discernment on such matters and are free to act in accordance with their conscience. Furthermore, we do not ban or prohibit such issues from being discussed publicly or privately at [our institution], and indeed to do so would be counter to the purpose and role. We would however, seek genuine debate, which means we would normally require the case for [our Faith’s] position to be debated together with any opposing positions. “
The fundamental message of this response remains that the institution concerned is happy to receive public funds to support its mission. But that mission is certainly hostile to the actuality of LGBTI students. Those students who are not themselves Catholic (and even some who are) might dismiss the institution’s unfriendly approach as predicable unequal treatment and just move on. But some students, particularly those raised in a Catholic tradition, could easily feel conflicted, stressed and unworthy by reason of such an environment.
Recently, the Holy See refused to accept the appointment of an ambassador accredited by the Government of France. He was openly gay. His offence, it seems, was that he did not keep his sexual orientation to himself. Demanding this of experienced ambassadors may perhaps be surmountable in countries like Saudi Arabia, The Russian Federation and Uganda and possibly the Vatican. But for young students in an Australian educational institution, it only serves to sharpen the anxieties, stress and depression. This can clearly have deleterious consequences for those exposed to suicidal thoughts. But especially for young people who may love their religion and hate themselves for being unchangeably gay, as science teaches that they are.
Earlier, there were similar religious attitudes in the United States and in South Africa to support racial discrimination against minorities and miscegenation. Apartheid in South Africa was often supported by the Dutch Reformed Church (which has since recanted) on the basis of scriptural texts. These problems are bad enough as an intellectual dilemma for people growing up. But are particularly harmful as they apply to vulnerable young people who may be suicidal in what should be a nurturing environment. I may be wrong, but I cannot see that such attitudes in publicly funded institutions in Australia are compatible either with legal and constitutional principle or with the pastoral and legal duty of care owed by every educational institution to those in their charge, given increasing knowledge of the risks.
In Daniel’s case, he had no religious conflicts we know of as he grew up in Moriah College. He was surrounded by love and protection by his family, teachers and fellow pupils. Yet, even then, he was caught in the chains of suicide. Daniel’s basic problems were that he suffered from clinical depression, a recognised pathology. And he worked in the law. For such a person, this is an especially hazardous occupation.
CLINICAL DEPRESSION
I have just returned from a conference in England, most of whose participants were statisticians and biological scientists. Statisticians are drawn from the most brilliant of students. I know this from my time as Chancellor of Macquarie University, with its degrees in mathematics, statistics and actuarial studies. I was, I think, the only lawyer at the conference. One participant, Professor Lewis Wolpert, an expert in cell and developmental biology at University College London, talked of the challenge of severe depression. He has given papers and written books on the subject. He talked openly about his own experience with depression. He explained that:
“If you can describe your severe depression, you probably have not had one. It is indescribable and one enters a world with little relation to the real one. It was the worst experience in my life, even worse than the death of my wife from cancer. With her dying, I could do things to help her and I mourned afterwards. But with my depression, there was nothing I felt I could do and I believed that I would never get better. My state bore no resemblance to anything I had ever experienced before. I had had periods of feeling low but they were nothing like my depressed state. I was totally self-involved and negative and thought about suicide all the time. I just wanted to be left alone.”
Cognitive therapy eventually gave assistance to Professor Wolpert. He gradually got better. But his family were embarrassed about his depression. They would tell no one. He knew from his reading that only 10% of patients with severe depression do not have a relapse. He regarded William Styron’s Darkness Visible as an outstanding exposition of the problem. Styron points out that:
“The pain of severe depression is quite unimaginable to those who have not suffered it, and it kills in many instances as it cannot be borne.”
Cultural and social inhibitions in many countries prevent identification, treatment and support during such an illness. Pharmaceutical drugs can sometimes help. Professor Wolpert found that physical exercise was useful. He saw an analogy between depression and cancer, in the sense that it is a normal process of living (sadness) that has become disordered and magnified. He tried to analyse the condition from an evolutionary point of view. Feelings that are so common in society could have some advantages for the individual. A “social competition hypothesis” suggests that depression is an adaptation whose function is to inhibit aggression by rivals and superiors when one’s status is low. It is a means of yielding, when there is acute social competition. It thus reduces the efforts of the aggressor. But Professor Wolpert is not convinced. Especially when depression leads to suicide, it is hard to see an evolutionary value in it. It may have a perceived individual value, as terminating unendurable pain. It may, like sexual orientation, simply be a variant in nature whose purpose is not always clear and may not matter much given its reality as part of human experience. If it exists, that is enough. Society must respond. It must seek to palliate and help the subject and to avoid needless termination of the subject’s life.
LAWYERS’ RESPONSES
Those who suffer the indescribable pain, recounted by Professor Wolpert, are rendered extremely vulnerable if their career choice has taken them into the law. The law is usually a very public vocation. Its top practitioners are on display most of the time. They face fierce competition. They are often perfectionists. Overachievers. Trapped in “pin striped prisons”. We now know that law places special and excessive pressures on students and practitioners. Working in symbiosis with depression, this can trigger suicidal thoughts and actions. As wise commentators have observed, because lawyers generally sell their talent in modules of time, there is always pressure on them to sell more and more time, until there is no time left for the other priorities of life.
There is some evidence that pressures of this kind are heaviest in large firms where it is harder to maintain a life/work balance. Although many firms today (and some law schools, even judicial institutions) have attempted remedial measures to show that they care about the challenge of depression and the risks (including suicide) that it brings, commentators repeatedly observe that the lawyers most at risk commonly do not believe that these efforts are real or intended to be taken seriously:
“… [P]rivate practice lawyers are often subject to tight, client-driven deadlines and exacting internal performance targets – the competitive and confrontational nature of legal practice leaves many believing that such wellbeing policies are not worth the paper they are written on. ‘A few months ago, my firm distributed helpful tips, printed on colourful postcards, suggesting we ought to “go for a swim in the ocean” or “go home and cook a meal with your family”, wrote one lawyer anonymously… in 2013. “Apparently the irony of recommending such fun and whimsy to a group of employees who are effectively required to remain at the office upwards of 14 hours/day for months on end was lost on the hopeful folks in human resources. Under such conditions, and with the profession’s poor track record in looking after its own, such cynicism is well placed.”
Certainly, there does now seem to be a growing realisation of the existence of a true crisis in legal employment as a career choice. In a recent poll asking “is life as a lawyer what you thought it would be when you were a student?”, more than 37% of respondents said “No, I wish I was working in a different career”. Only 11% of the 444 respondents to the survey said their law career had fulfilled all their expectations.
Plainly, we have a problem here. Estimates suggest that one in three lawyers from law school to final retirement, suffer at some stage from depression and low self-esteem. A number will face serious suicidal imaginings. If one of Google’s lawyers’ suicides and inserts the name of the city or town, names will come up that one knew but sometimes had forgotten. Tristan Jepson was such a name. His parents established the Foundation in his name in his name to tackle the issue. Daniel Solomons was another young lawyer who fell victim to suicidal depression. Most of his colleagues did not know, could not understand and could not believe that such a talented and handsome, much admired person would suffer the condition at the end of his life. Or respond as he did. But that is the fact. Lawyers have to face the facts.
Shortly before the launch of the Daniel Solomons Scholarship, yet another Sydney lawyer, a specialist in tax, who had taken a part in advocacy for a genuine response to suicide risks, took his own life. This challenge is always with us. It goes on. It does not disappear.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
The beginning of wisdom is the accumulation of knowledge. The Tristan Jepson Foundation has sponsored research by Professor Ian Hickie of the Sydney University Brain and Mind Institute. There must be more such research. The burgeoning legal industry and the multiplying Australian law schools – now numbering more than thirty five – should contribute to it. They have a stake in addressing the challenge successfully. So have we all. So has our society.
As with sexual orientation and gender identity, those who have faced the challenge of depression and suicidal thoughts need to come forward, stand up and identify themselves if they can. They should bravely become role models for those who do not yet dare. Tristan and Daniel did not live long enough to follow the lead of Lewis Wolpert in acknowledging the condition, facing it squarely in the eyes and seeking to communicate its burdens and dangers to their fellows. So this is the great opportunity loss we have suffered through the deaths of these young men. We must act before more join them.
My own decision, (with my partner Johan van Vloten) to be open about my sexual orientation was, in part, motivated by a feeling of obligation to young LGBTI people (including lawyers) coming along behind us. I cannot respect the attitudes of the Faith organisations quoted in these remarks who enter the educational space and alienate and humiliate a vulnerable cohort who came under their direct influence. They seem to be far from the loving message of the religion they purport to promote. In particular, they seem distant from the response of Pope Francis, soon after his election to the See of Rome, declaring of the sexual minorities: “Who am I to judge?”
Eventually, Faith organisations, Christian and non-Christian, will have to reconcile themselves to the science of the origins, causes and features of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity. It is not binary. Meantime, they should be brought to understand that their practices promote homophobia in society, as is recorded in the recent Australian survey on the attitude of teenage males. They cause or aggravate low self-esteem, lack of honesty and consignment to silence or duplicity that feeds depression and suicidal conduct. Especially in the stressful world of legal studies and of contemporary legal practice.
Lawyers and law students should support the Tristan Jepson Foundation and the Daniel Solomons Scholarship. These parental-driven initiatives help us to fill the void left by the loss of such gifted, young people. Not all of them are LGBTI. Not all of them suffer clinical depression. Not all of them are remembered as they should be. But all of them deserve to be respected. This way, we can learn from their pain. We can respond to their cry of despair.
The Daniel Solomons Memorial Scholarship is a practical initiative in a great ocean of neglect and indifference. Daniel’s life and death should not have been in vain.
Hillary Clinton: Human rights are gay rights', Trailblazer award, The Center for the LGBT community - 2017
6 December 2011, International Human Rights Day, Geneva, Switzerland
Good evening, and let me express my deep honor and pleasure at being here. I want to thank Director General Tokayev and Ms. Wyden along with other ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, and UN partners. This weekend, we will celebrate Human Rights Day, the anniversary of one of the great accomplishments of the last century.
Beginning in 1947, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a declaration that would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. In the aftermath of World War II, many nations pressed for a statement of this kind to help ensure that we would prevent future atrocities and protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people. And so the delegates went to work. They discussed, they wrote, they revisited, revised, rewrote, for thousands of hours. And they incorporated suggestions and revisions from governments, organizations and individuals around the world.
At three o’clock in the morning on Dec. 10, 1948, after nearly two years of drafting and one last long night of debate, the president of the U.N. General Assembly called for a vote on the final text.
Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none dissented. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people.
It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.
In the 63 years since the declaration was adopted, many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality. Step by step, barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity have fallen away. In many places, racist laws have been repealed, legal and social practices that relegated women to second-class status have been abolished, the ability of religious minorities to practice their faith freely has been secured.
In most cases, this progress was not easily won. People fought and organized and campaigned in public squares and private spaces to change not only laws, but hearts and minds. And thanks to that work of generations, for millions of individuals whose lives were once narrowed by injustice, they are now able to live more freely and to participate more fully in the political, economic, and social lives of their communities.
Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.
I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.
Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.
The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.
This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.
It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.
The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors.
Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do. South Africa’s constitution, written in the aftermath of Apartheid, protects the equality of all citizens, including gay people. In Colombia and Argentina, the rights of gays are also legally protected. In Nepal, the supreme court has ruled that equal rights apply to LGBT citizens. The government of Mongolia has committed to pursue new legislation that will tackle anti-gay discrimination.
Now, some worry that protecting the human rights of the LGBT community is a luxury that only wealthy nations can afford. But in fact, in all countries, there are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other, whether they are women, racial or religious minorities, or the LGBT. Former President Mogae of Botswana pointed out recently that for as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS. Well, that holds true for other challenges as well.
The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn’t cultural; it’s criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.
In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing.
Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who’ve justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.
The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so.
Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all.
Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it.
But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.
Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn’t until he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee. Likewise, some worried in my country that the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” would have a negative effect on our armed forces. Now, the Marine Corps commandant, who was one of the strongest voices against the repeal, says that his concerns were unfounded and that the Marines have embraced the change.
Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. We need to ask ourselves, “How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?” This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding.
A fifth and final question is how we do our part to bring the world to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Yes, LGBT people must help lead this effort, as so many of you are. Their knowledge and experiences are invaluable and their courage inspirational. We know the names of brave LGBT activists who have literally given their lives for this cause, and there are many more whose names we will never know. But often those who are denied rights are least empowered to bring about the changes they seek. Acting alone, minorities can never achieve the majorities necessary for political change.
So when any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot sit on the sidelines. Every time a barrier to progress has fallen, it has taken a cooperative effort from those on both sides of the barrier. In the fight for women’s rights, the support of men remains crucial. The fight for racial equality has relied on contributions from people of all races. Combating Islamaphobia or anti-Semitism is a task for people of all faiths. And the same is true with this struggle for equality.
Conversely, when we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won’t suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. Right here in Geneva, the international community acted this year to strengthen a global consensus around the human rights of LGBT people. At the Human Rights Council in March, 85 countries from all regions supported a statement calling for an end to criminalization and violence against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
At the following session of the Council in June, South Africa took the lead on a resolution about violence against LGBT people. The delegation from South Africa spoke eloquently about their own experience and struggle for human equality and its indivisibility. When the measure passed, it became the first-ever U.N. resolution recognizing the human rights of gay people worldwide. In the Organization of American States this year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBT people, a step toward what we hope will be the creation of a special rapporteur.
Now, we must go further and work here and in every region of the world to galvanize more support for the human rights of the LGBT community. To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear — I am not saying that gay people can’t or don’t commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay.
And to people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility, too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home — the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms and offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are.
And finally, to LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people.
The Obama administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work. And in the coming months, we will provide every embassy with a toolkit to help improve their efforts. And we have created a program that offers emergency support to defenders of human rights for LGBT people.
This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the president has directed all U.S. government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons.
I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it.
The women and men who advocate for human rights for the LGBT community in hostile places, some of whom are here today with us, are brave and dedicated, and deserve all the help we can give them. We know the road ahead will not be easy. A great deal of work lies before us. But many of us have seen firsthand how quickly change can come. In our lifetimes, attitudes toward gay people in many places have been transformed. Many people, including myself, have experienced a deepening of our own convictions on this topic over the years, as we have devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay.
This evolution is evident in many places. To highlight one example, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality in India two years ago, writing, and I quote, ‘If there is one tenet that can be said to be an underlying theme of the Indian constitution, it is inclusiveness.’ There is little doubt in my mind that support for LGBT human rights will continue to climb. Because for many young people, this is simple: All people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their human rights respected, no matter who they are or whom they love.
There is a phrase that people in the United States invoke when urging others to support human rights: ‘Be on the right side of history.’ The story of the United States is the story of a nation that has repeatedly grappled with intolerance and inequality. We fought a brutal civil war over slavery. People from coast to coast joined in campaigns to recognize the rights of women, indigenous peoples, racial minorities, children, people with disabilities, immigrants, workers and on and on. And the march toward equality and justice has continued. Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well.
I know that the thoughts I’ve shared today involve questions on which opinions are still evolving. As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights. We are called once more to make real the words of the Universal Declaration. Let us answer that call. Let us be on the right side of history, for our people, our nations and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today. I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together.
Thank you very much.
Magda Szubanski: 'None of us can live in a bubble where we pretend that other people don't exist' Results Day Marriage Equality - 2017
speech can also be viewed here. This video courtesy of Kathryn Bird facebook
15 November 2017, Canberra, Australia
One of my great hopes is that this does not become a case where there are the acceptable gays, who are the married ones, and the other ones, who are the non acceptable gays.
This is for all of us, no matter what way we want to live our lives.
It is that we must live as equal people within this country,
And the great thing is ... I’m always very moved ... thank you for the welcome to country, every time I’m at an event, I’m always struck by the warmth and generosity that our indigenous brothers and sisters give us, to this land.
Because apart from them, all of us have come from somewhere else seeking a safe, civilised society.
White Australia began, literally, as a prison. A place for the dregs of society to be dumped and to rot in isolation. A mere 239 years later, it has become one of the most stable, peaceful democracies in the world.
Now we have voted through one of the last remaining pieces of inequality that exists in the legislation.
That shows that a belief in this country for a second chance for people, to not judge people, by their looks, by whatever sexual identity or cultural or ethnic or religious identity, is core to our beliefs, this is not something that’s added on it comes from our history. That welcome extended to us by indigenous people, the reciprocity of that is so important to the way this society is formed, and the way we see ourselves as Australians.
And I hope that we are all mindful in this moment, of other people who don’t have the advantages that we have, and are still struggling with lack of opportunity and inequality, and that we reach out our hands to all of them, but also, as we said, to people who voted ‘no’.
Now in the legislation that is coming ahead, we’ve all heard the rumours ... we’ve all seen the legislation actually that they’re proposing.
And it would actually create a form of segregation, for LGBTQI people who wish to marry. Well I’m saying, as an LGBTQI person, no matter what the result would have been, I would never have treated anyone who voted no with anything less than respect. I would never not serve them. I would never not ‘be funny’ for them.
None of us can live in a bubble where we try to pretend that other people don't exist. We must find ways to reach out our hands across the divide that's been created by this unfortunate survey, and go forward with a deep and good faith understanding of one another, as a nation.
I also think it's a moment for pure humble gratitude.
WE are so lucky to live in this country. When we think about the other countries, where just for being who we are, we could be killed, bashed pushed off a tower.
And this sends a message that this country does not stand for that sort of behaviour, that this is civilised country, that this is a secular country, that this is a country that allows religious freedom. And this is a country that believes in equality and justice, and we've had virtually no leadership in this, we have led ourselves.
And so we can rely on the Australian people to do the bloody right thing.
Go us!
Oh, I did promise I'd do an Irish dance if we won.
Joel Creasey: 'We are not going anywhere', marriage equality rally - 2017
26 August 2017, Melbourne, Australia
Joel Creasey is a comedian, speaking at rally for 'yes' campaign in advance of a marriage equality postal survey being conducted in Australia by the conservative government.
My boyfriend he proposed to me.
He proposed that we see other people ....
But in that moment I realised that I truly do want to get married. It is my basic human right, I know I am such a diva these days ...
Like food, shelter, marriage, what’s next, clean drinking water, I am out of control ...
I heard somebody say the other day that gay marriage affects all Australians, it affects ALL Asutralians
Incorrect. It only affects the two people in love wanting to get married.
The only people being affected by gay marriage today is the Fitness First around the corner, because they are empty while every gay man and lesbian is at this rally.
And while I’m at it, can I just say, no. We do not want to marry THE SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE.
I had a one night stand with it once. It was terrible. Very needy, and stayed for breakfast.
Young people, of whom I am one, thank you Anthony, we need to get out to vote. We saw what happened only too recently in America, when people did not turn out to vote.
Jennifer Hudson was voted off seventh on the third season of American Idol.
I know it takes effort and young people and people of my generation and younger, we hate effort! I haven’t cooked a meal in three years. I won’t watch a youtube ad if there’s not a ‘skip ad’ option at the start of it. And I Ubered tothe gym the other day, and it’s in my building.
But this is one of those moments in our young lives that demands that effort.
Insta-story yourself voting if you must, trust me, it’s going to make great content.
But I’d like to speak directly now to those young people who might be struggling right now with their sexuality, made now only worse by this plebiscite, this amazing, non binding, postal plebiscite ... well it’s a survey really, probably done by the same people who do Family Feud.
Survey says - you screwed up Prime Minister.
And I’d particularly like to talk to those young people who are perhaps living in a smaller town, where being gay isn’t particularly common place. Let me assure you, it does get better.
And to please, stick in there, find an ally, find somebody you can talk to.
To the young people let me assure you, the best part of being an adult is youcan make your own decisions.
You don’t have to be friends with the bullies you share maths classes with.
You don’t have to talk to those family members who don’t accept you for who you are.
Christmas can just be you and a couple of hotties sipping Mai Thais in Hawaii if you want.
You don’t have to hang out with Uncle Peter who constantly asks, ‘when you decided to be gay’ .
The gay community is a family, and we are waiting for you, here in Melbourne, and in Sydney and in Adelaide and there’s three in Perth, we are waiting for you all around the world, waiting to embrace you, and tell you that you are loved, and important, and that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with you.
And if I’m perfectly honest, when you get here, I’ll probably try to crack onto you on the dance floor of the Peel.
That said, we’re talking about small towns as well, if a footy club in the regional town of Hamilton Victoria can paint their fifty metre line rainbow, then anything is possible. And do not lose a skerrick of hope.
Now I know Seb said earlier not to speak directly to the No campaign, but I’m a comedian and I can’t help myself, so I’d just quickly like to talk to those people who printed the laughable ‘STOP THE FAGS’ posters. First of all, hello I’m on the television and I’m famous, so isn’t that exciting. Probably never spoken to one of those people before. And yes, I agree, smoking is revolting. And no I’m sorry, we are not going anywhere. That is not going to happen. We are going to fight. We are going to achieve marriage equality, we are going to be allowed to marry the person we love, regardless of gender and sexuality.
We are going to win, in SICKENINGNESSand in health.
And I’m finally going to be able to sell my ten page bridal spread to New Idea, like I’ve dreamt of all my life.
And finally, PS Stop the Fags, your graphic designer sucks, I’ve made more compelling posters on Microsoft Paint.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen,
Love is love.
Zach Wahls: 'The sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character', Opposition to House Joint Resolution 6 Banning Civil Unions - 2011
1 February 2011, Iowa State House, Dew Moines, Iowa, USA
Good evening Mr. Chairman. My name is Zach Wahls. I'm a sixth-generation Iowan and an engineering student at the University of Iowa and I was raised by two women.
My biological mom, Terry, told her grandparents that she was pregnant, that the artificial insemination had worked, and they wouldn't even acknowledge it.
It wasn't until I was born and they succumbed to my infantile cuteness that they broke down and told her that they were thrilled to have another grandson.
Unfortunately, neither of them lived to see her marry her partner Jackie of 15 years when they wed in 2009.
My younger sister and only sibling was born in 1994. We actually have the same anonymous donor so we're full siblings, which is really cool for me.
I guess the point is our family really isn't so different from any other Iowa family. You know, when I'm home we go to church together, we eat dinner, we go on vacations. But, you know, we have our hard times too, we get in fights...
Actually my mom, Terry was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in 2000. It is a devastating disease that put her in a wheelchair. So we've had our struggles.
But, you know, we're Iowans. We don't expect anyone to solve our problems for us. We'll fight our own battles. We just hope for equal and fair treatment from our government.
Being a student at the University of Iowa, the topic of same sex marriage comes up quite frequently in classroom discussions... The question always comes down to, well, "Can gays even raise kids?"
...The conversation gets quiet for a moment because most people don't really have any answer. And then I raise my hand and say, "Actually, I was raised by a gay couple, and I'm doing pretty well."
I scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT. I'm actually an Eagle Scout. I own and operate my own small business. If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I'd make you very proud.
I'm not really so different from any of your children. My family really isn't so different from yours. After all, your family doesn't derive its sense of worth from being told by the state: "You're married. Congratulations."
No. The sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other. To work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us. That's what makes a family.
So what you're voting here isn't to change us. It's not to change our families, it's to change how the law views us; how the law treats us.
You are voting for the first time in the history of our state to codify discrimination into our constitution, a constitution that but for the proposed amendment, is the least amended constitution in the United States of America.
You are telling Iowans that some among you are second-class citizens who do not have the right to marry the person you love.
So will this vote affect my family?
Would it affect yours?
In the next two hours I'm sure we're going to hear plenty of testimony about how damaging having gay parents is on kids.
But in my 19 years, not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple.
And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character.
Thank you very much.
Cate McGregor, 'We've got to be better than she is', response to Margaret Court's views, ABC's The Drum' - 2017
1 June 2017, ABC Studios, Canberra, Australia
In May 2017 tennis great Margaret Court wrote a letter to The West Australian decrying Qantas airlines for being a corporate supporter of same-sex marriage. The 24 times Grand Slam singles champion claimed she would boycott the airline. There was outrage and calls for Court's name to be removed from Melbourne Park. Cate McGregor is a cricket commentator, writer and activist for transgender issues.
Airbrushing a great player out of Australia’s sporting history by removing her name from that arena would be a mistake.
I think it’s a strategic mistake for the LGBTI community to pile on to her, given her views, as repugnant as I find them, are clearly in accordance with her faith , and they are bona fide held.
I think [Margaret Court] has absolutely overstepped any support from theology or religion in some of her discursive remarks about the families of transgender kids, which are just nonsense.
To go on about the parents of trans kids failing or neglecting their children and that transgenderism is some kind of parental failure.
I know a lot of families with young kids who are grappling with gender issues. They are loving families, there is a mother and father present, the kids are loved to bits.
And those parents only want two things:
They want their child to be happy, and primarily, they want them to not kill themselves.
And I've had that conversation with numerous families.
The risk of self harm among kids experiencing this kind of conflict doesn't need to be compounded by this sort of gratuitous unsubstantiated nonsense..
The first person to liken anybody to a Nazi generally loses an argument, and I'm almost delighted she's done that.
And I would have thought that talking about the LGBTI community in respect of grooming children for sex is pretty poor taste coming from a Christian clergywoman in the current climate.
If anyone has forfeited their moral authority in this domain it has to be the Australian Christian churches who have presided over systematic child abuse that we have learned about recently through Royal Commissions.
The free speech element is important though. I add weight to that because the pile-on last week strategically helped her. It gave prominence to her views and it rendered her a victim.
Trans people are probably maximum about two percent of the population. We face enormous ridicule and discrimination. No one wants to be transgendered. We don't choose it, we're born like it.
If it's the work of the devil, then 'by your work shall we know them'.
I went to bed last night not having made the life of any other Australian miserable to the extent that I am at least aware of.
This woman has to look at her conscience and live with her remarks and ask herself as a Christian when she examines her conscience, has she dealt with us lovingly? She says she loves homosexuals but not their sin.
I think the onus is now on the media and other people to question that very deeply.
And I'll close on this. And the last thing that really sickens me with this, is the constant obsession of this strand of fundamentalist Christianity, with LGBTI people.
We're all sinners, according to the teaching of both the Old and the New Testaments. We're all broken in our humanity. Every one of us grabbles to lead an authentic decent life.
I happen to be a believer...to think that I arrived at my life decision without a process of agonising discernment is ...an offensive and gratuitously offensive thing to say to me when she has no experience of my life or parental background.
And the bottom line on this, is that there are numerous other sins alluded to, but I don't ever hear her going on about adultery,
I don’t hear her lecturing people on their second marriages as adulterers, because she would lose half the Australian population if she did
But we’re the low-hanging fruit, you can kick us to death to the applause of the mainstream media and ramp up solicitations for money ...as I saw her acolytes doing on christian radio the other day ... and it’s frankly sick making.
I respect this woman for her achievements, I oppose efforts to boycott the Australian Open or to rename that arena because it smacks of Stalinist airbrushing of someone’s history and that’s making them an unperson and it's wrong
But I would ask her to think very heavily and examine her conscience about the impacts these remarks have on a very small minority of Australians, whose lives are difficult enough without this kind of stuff.
I don't think persecuting a 74 year old Christian pastor is actually going to take us anywhere. She was a living national treasure for a while, and piling on to her is going to erode our moral authority.
All we can can do just be visible and proud and not break under this and live our lives authentically.
We’ve got to be better than she is, that’s the crazy double standard, we’ve got to show dignity when she’s not required to.