A long overdue Open Letter to the Jamaican High Commissioner

Dear High Commissioner:

I have noticed increasing reports about breathtaking levels of discrimination (as well as hate crimes) that are meted out against gay and lesbian Jamaicans. Like others reading about this I have drawn the conclusion that I will not visit Jamaica as a tourist. It would be unconscionable to support a society that violates the civil rights of its sexual minorities in the way your society does.

Sincerely,
Udo Schuklenk

'Discrimination' - always a wrong?

I recall teaching in South Africa, in this case a large class of medical students (likely 300+ were in the lecture theatre). For some reason or other that I do not recall a student replied in response to a particular scenario (I think it was a resource allocation justice case study) that that would be discriminatory, implying that that in its own right would make it a wrong.

Indeed, in common language usage people often wield the discrimination flag when they think they have been wronged in an unfair way. Gay people in Russia claim that they are discriminated against, and that therefore they have been wronged. Some religious people claim discrimination in various contexts, for instance when they are asked to do certain things that their profession requires of them as professionals. They consider this form of religious discrimination wrong. British readers will see these sorts of claims frequently pop up in reporting of the Daily Telegraph.

What people tend to miss is that discrimination simply describes that someone is making choices for or against something. Say, I choose coffee over other beverages in the morning, that means I discriminate against those other beverages. Or I choose to fly in the front of the bus if I can afford to avoid the back of the bus, certainly on all flights longer than, say 5 hours or so. I discriminate against the cramped seating conditions in the back of the bus.

Discrimination is about making choices between options, it is about drawing distinctions.

Now, it seems to me that someone just claiming 'discrimination' is begging the question then. What question? The question of whether or not a particular discriminatory act is justifiable or not. Many people claiming 'discrimination' tend to beg this question. Think of discrimination based on ethnicity. Is it always wrong? If so, most affirmative action programs in operation today would then be wrong, too. Perhaps we should try, in our common usage of the term, to distinguish between 'just discrimination' and 'unjust discrimination'. 'Discrimination' claims without the qualifier should probably be ignored because it is unclear wether there is a problem to begin with. They constitute mere handwaving in the public sphere kind of activities. Once someone claims 'unjust discrimination' we should ask for a justification of the 'unjust' claim. It certainly is not the case, that 'Discrimination of any kind is wrong.'

Simple enough, isn't it?

Canadian Supreme Court reaches sensible decision on HIV transmission

Today the Canadian Supreme Court reached a sensible verdict on the tricky issue of the criminalisation of HIV transmission. It found - essentially - that folks who are HIV infected, on HIV medicine, and who have a low viral load (note, it is not a requirement that there is an undetectable viral load) and who use condoms, are under no obligation to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners.

The main logic of the Court's decision is that if there is no significant risk of bodily harm (as is the case if the above mentioned conditions are met) the legal requirement to inform one's sexual partners of one's infection falls by the wayside.

Of course, many AIDS activists will be annoyed by this decision as it maintains the criminalisation of non-disclosure in cases where someone's viral load is not low, or where someone is not using a condom at the same time that his or her viral load is low, etc.

However, this decision makes a powerful, and sensible case to people at significant risk of HIV infection to get tested, and to get on HIV medication (both to protect their health and that of people they choose to have sexual intercourse with), as well as to use condoms each time they have sex with people they have not disclosed their HIV status to. In fact, this line of reasoning was developed in a paper I published in 2011. You can find it here, the argument runs from p. 310ff.

It might be worth noting that this decision by the Court was unanimous, something quite remarkable, considering the Harper government's recent appointment of four judges to the Court.

The religious 'conscience' again

Another incredible case from the UK. A religious fundamentalist whose day job is working as a marriage registrate refused to marry gay couples. An employment tribunal agreed that her employer (the local council) had harassed her by asking her to marry gay couples against her religious beliefs.

I know, I have been there before (and will be there again), but I just cannot get my head around the fact that she can't just get fired for not doing her job. I mean, people don't come to see her as a religious fundamentalist but as a public official. She's entitled to go home, wash her hands and whatnot to clean herself of the dirt that gay people and other 'sinners' are undoubtedly in her view, but how can anyone in authority permit such stuff to influence her professional conduct? It's utterly absurd. What if gay folks that happen to be marriage registrates refused to wed religious fundamentalists? Or a racist marriage magistrate who refuses to wed mixed-ethnicity couples? If recourse to 'conscience' is sufficient, surely it's a free for all... If the magistrate in question doesn't feel like marrying people that are legally entitled to marry, she's unfit to do her job and should get fired.