Homophobic bias of the Sex Offenders Register challenged
I do not advocate teenagers having sex before the age of 16.
But if they do have sex before their 16th birthday, they should not be arrested, given a criminal record and put on the sex offenders register.
Perhaps the ideal solution would be that the age of consent remains at 16 but that sexual behaviour involving young people under 16 should not be criminalised, providing there is informed consent, no one is harmed and there is no more than two or three years difference in their ages. This would end the criminalisation of similar-aged young people, while protecting the under-16s against sexual abuse by those much older. I hope this reassures you – Peter Tatchell
LONDON –
Gay rights group OutRage! has written to the Home Secretary, David Blunklett, urging him to reveal how many gay and bisexual men convicted under discriminatory, homophobic sexual offences legislation remain on the Sex Offenders Register (a copy of the letter follows below).
The Home Secretary is also being asked by OutRage! to declare an amnesty, which would remove from the Sex Offenders Register men who were convicted of consensual, victimless same-sex offences with men aged 16 and over.
“Some gay men convicted under the discriminatory age of consent law, before it was equalised, may remain on the register”, said Peter Tatchell of OutRage!
“One example is the case of Norman Williams. He was convicted in the notorious Bolton Seven trial in 1998. There are probably other men that we don’t know about”.
“Williams was forced to sign the Sex Offenders Register after being convicted in February 1998 of consensual sex with Craig Turner, aged 17 and a half”.
“In the case of men found guilty of consenting gay sex with 16 and 17 year olds, the behaviour of which they were convicted is no longer a crime. There is no reason why they should remain on the register now that the gay age of consent has been lowered from 18 to 16”.
“Some men convicted of gross indecency or buggery may remain on the Sex Offenders Register – even after these offences are swept away by the forthcoming reform of the sex offences laws. The new legislation will not grant them amnesty, even though the government now accepts that these laws are unjust and should be abolished. The convictions of these men will stand, together with the requirement that they remain on the Sex Offenders Register”, added Tatchell.
“The Sex Offenders Act 1997 set up the Sex Offenders Register. The 1997 Act classifies consenting, victimless same-sex behaviour as a serious sex crime, on a par with rape and child abuse”.
“A gay man aged 20 who is convicted of consensual sex with a man aged 16 or 17 is required to sign the Sex Offenders Register and to remain on it for at least five years”.
“In contrast, a heterosexual man aged 19 who is convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl as young as 13 is not required to sign the register”.
“The Sex Offenders Act was never amended to take account of the equalisation of the age of consent, so gay men aged 20 or over are still required to sign the Sex Offenders Register if they are convicted of gross indecency or buggery with a partner aged 16 or 17”.
“This is clear evidence of homophobic bias in the Sex Offenders Act and the Sex Offenders Register”.
“The result is that gay men whose ‘crimes’ had no victim, and which were committed with a consenting partner aged 16 or over, will continue to find themselves on the Sex Offenders Register, lumped together with rapists and child sex abusers”.
“They are compelled to fulfil the onerous restrictions imposed by the Sexual Offenders Act, and are also at risk of vigilante attack”.
“Not granting amnesty to these gay and bisexual men will continue to jeopardise their job prospects, personal safety and psychological well-being”.
“It will also seriously compromise the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Sex Offenders Register by blurring the distinction between violent, abusive offenders and those convicted of consensual, victimless acts”, added Tatchell.
Writing to Mr Blunkett on OutRage!’s behalf, Brett Lock draws the Home Secretary’s attention to the repeal of the discriminatory age of consent. He points out that the Sex Offenders Register was intended to protect society from dangerous sex offenders who were likely to repeat their abusive, harmful behaviour.
In this letter to David Blunkett, Mr Lock says:
“We trust that your office can recognise that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to punish people convicted of a discriminatory offence when one considers the fact that those persons cannot become repeat offenders since, logically, their actions no longer constitute an offence”.
“If the Sex Offenders Register is to be used as an effective front-line defence against those who pose a danger to society in general and children in particular, it makes no sense to undermine its authority by retaining those people whose ‘crimes’ had no victim”, he wrote.
Mr Lock suggests to the Home Secretary that there is a precedent set by other countries – notably post-apartheid South Africa – where those convicted of violating unjust laws were able to apply for amnesty in order to avoid continued punishment for having broken laws that society has since acknowledged as morally reprehensible and discriminatory.
Full text of the OutRage! letter to David Blunkett follows below:
Rt. Hon. David Blunkett, MP
Home Secretary
Home Office
50 Queen Anne’s Gate
London SW1H 9AT
1 December 2002
Dear Mr Blunkett,
OutRage! welcomes the proposed reforms to Sexual Offenders Act. However, while we do not oppose the tightening up of the Sex Offenders Register, we are concerned that there is a possibility that gay and bisexual men convicted of discriminatory homosexual offences where there was no victim and involving males aged sixteen or over might
have to remain on the Sex Offenders Register – which the public now broadly believes to contain only dangerous sex offenders and those who are a threat to children.
It is unfair and unjust to lump consensual gay and bisexual offenders together with rapists and child sex abusers. This not only compels them to fulfil the onerous restrictions embodied in the Sex Offenders Act, but also puts them at risk of vigilante attack.
We trust that your office can recognise that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to punish people convicted of a discriminatory offence when one considers the fact that those persons cannot become repeat offenders since, logically, their actions no longer constitute an offence.
Furthermore, there is a precedent set by other countries – notably South Africa – where those convicted of violating unjust laws were able to apply for amnesty in order to avoid continued punishment for breaking laws that society has come to understand to be morally reprehensible and discriminatory.
In view of this, OutRage! requests that the Home Office disclose how many men are listed on the Sex Offenders Register as a result of a conviction for a consenting act with another male aged sixteen or over, in particular, those convicted of the offences of gross indecency, buggery, and soliciting and procuring, which discriminate against same-sex behaviour.
Furthermore, we ask that the Home Office agree to remove from the Sex Offenders Register any gay or bisexual man convicted of a homosexual offence committed with a consenting male aged sixteen or over.
It seems only reasonable and just that these men are removed. If the Sex Offenders Register is to be used as an effective front-line defence against those who pose a danger to society in general and children in particular, it makes no sense to undermine its authority by retaining those people whose “crimes” had no victim and whose actions no longer constitute an offence.
Yours sincerely
Brett Lock, OutRage!