Text for Speech made to Richmond Cabinet by Cass Mann Tuesday 23 March 2004

The Corporate Equality and Diversity Policy and Strategy (referred to as the "Document") establishes Council's priorities around the equalities agenda in order to allow Council to fulfil its community leadership role. In this it clearly sets out Council's standards but fails entirely to indicate how breaches and contraventions of these by employees and elected Members will be dealt with, how offenders will be held to account and how they will be disciplined and penalised. The Document states "We will ensure that all Members, managers and staff are clear about their roles and responsibilities under equalities legislation and Council policy...".

I concentrate on the Document as relating to the category "lesbians and gay men" and make the allegation that our community finds Council guilty of institutionalised homophobia for the following reasons.

The Document states "The Council...believes that equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination are fundamental human rights. We actively oppose all forms of discrimination and are committed to the principle that no person shall face discrimination by being treated unfairly...", adding "We will not discriminate (indirect and direct) on the grounds of...being a lesbian or gay man..." and "Discrimination as outlined above and harassment is unacceptable and contrary to our aim of providing quality services...".

Therefore when I asked the leader of Council on 2 March at the full meeting of Council to formally and officially dissociate Council from the homophobic statement issued by Cllr Dance in November 2003 and he refused to do so, he lay open Council to charges of institutionalised homophobia. The Document does not address this matter in respect of having in place strategies or guidelines for disciplining or penalising the leader or Cllr Dance, unless Council indeed supports and validates her statement as the leader indicated.

Further, when I sought to put before the leader the fact that many lesbians and gay men were afraid to walk the streets of Richmond, I was dismissed by his riposte that he found it "hard to believe", without even having examined the evidence, thereby ensuring our community would be unlikely to deal with him ever again.

As the Document contains no penalties for breaches or contraventions, the civil rights of the lesbian and gay community are not protected under it and we have nothing to gain from its adoption as abuses will remain unremarked, unchecked and officially validated, despite the section "Our Commitments" stating "We will identify, tackle and prevent any form of institutional discrimination".

Will Cllrs Dance and Arbour be disciplined following the document's adoption and, if not, this section should be struck out entirely, as should the Key Strategic Objective "To prevent and tackle unlawful discrimination and institutional discrimination".

Further, what penalties would the Document provide for disciplining Cllr Cranfield-Adams who recently threatened with closure the local on-line communities website which, he felt, suggested he was gay, when in fact he openly was and is? His actions directly undermined the public perception of Richmond's lesbian and gay community, which he describes as "Spiteful and vindictive", with suggestions of internalised homophobia within it but, without safeguards, the Document will let him get away with it, as it will Cllrs Dance and Arbour.

In conclusion, without disciplinary procedures and penalties in place, this Document is not worth the paper it is written on.