Discrimination for A.I.D.S. to come under rights act?

Press, 17 November 1987, Page 4

Discrimination for A.I.D.S. to come under rights act?

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington The Human Rights Commission is considering the best way of bringing discrimination against A.I.D.S. within its ambit. A member of the Commission, Ms Rae Julian, told a seminar on A.LD.S. in Wellington that the simplistic way would be to regard A.I.D.S. discrimination as another form of discrimination on the grounds of physical disability. Such discrimination was not covered by the Human Rights Commission Act, 1977. The Government had asked the Commission to review the legislation, she said. Informal communication with politicians from both sides of Parliament had led the commission to believe there would be

strong support for the inclusion of disability in any amendment to the legislation. But Ms Julian said protection against discrimination of A.I.D.S. victims, or those carrying the AJD.S. antibodies, did not cover the whole field of A.I.D.S. discrimination. Such discrimination often extended to those people perceived to be “at risk,” particularly male homosexuals, whether or not they had A.I.D.S. or carried its antibodies. Increased discrimination related to A.I.D.S. could only be addressed by including sexual orientation as well as physical disability within the Human Rights Commission Act, she said. The Commission considered that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was wrong,

and said so when Parliament considered the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1985. That legislation had not changed the human rights aspect of sexual orientation. "I do not know what the prospects of getting sexual orientation through this time are like,” Ms Julian said, “but it will undoubtedly again be a conscience issue.” The other alternative was to have a distinct category of antidiscrimination — as was done in New York — to cover all forms of A.1.D.5.-related discrimination. She did not know if Parliament would regard that as a conscience issue too, or whether it would be better than seeming to be introducing antidiscrimination as a result of subterfuge.