VM409 – LGBTQ+ Motion 2016

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
  • View Poll Results: Do you agree with this motion?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    42.55%
    On the contrary, No
    44.68%
    Abstain
    12.77%

    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    VM409 – LGBTQ+ Motion 2016, TSR Labour Party
    This House believes that the Government should do more in tackling the issues of homophobia and transphobia.

    There are estimated to be at least 3.6m people on the LGBTQ+ spectrum in the UK but sadly, there is institutionalised homophobia and transphobia in our society, in a similar way to racism. The LGBTQ+ community is statistically one of the most discriminated against demographics in the world today. Although the demographic has seen positive gains in recent years, there is still a long way to go before they are treated equally to heterosexual people. It is a combination of the supposed ‘novelty’ of the LGBTQ+ concepts and a lack of information about them which contribute to the homophobic and transphobic attitudes prevalent today.

    Hate crime towards LBGTQ+ people is up 170% and unfortunately the Government is failing to put enough measures in place to combat the problem. Hate crime can take many forms, both physically and verbally, and the torrent of discrimination that LGBTQ+ people face can take a huge toll on their lives. Nick Antjoule, hate crime manager at the charity Galop, said the figures showed that ‘there needs to be widespread training of police officers about transphobia.’ Mr Antjoule also went on to describe the ‘issue of trust’ which exists between the forces and the trans community. This particular type of hate crime is constantly on the rise. The Government must clamp down on the issue to prevent it from spiralling out of control. Getting the police to treat such crimes more seriously and imposing tougher penalties on the offenders would be steps in the right direction.

    LGBTQ+ people also face substantial discrimination in the workplace with 41% of LGBTQ+ employees saying they have been physically or verbally abused by their co-workers. There should be no reason for people to be afraid of going to work simply because of their sexual orientation. The Government has to to educate employers about how to combat this discrimination and it needs to impose harsher penalties of those guilty of LGBTQ+ abuse. However, workplace discrimination does not just come in the form of abuse. The Williams Institute found that people on the LGBTQ+ spectrum can earn up to 32% less in wages than their heterosexual counterparts. This is a staggering statistic and one which must be rectified. People must be paid based on the job, their skills and their work rate, and it is disturbing that some businesses also base salaries on what sexual orientation someone is - the Government needs to ensure this never happens.

    In our sophisticated country, the hate crime and discrimination in the workplace attacking LGBTQ+ people is an embarrassment. Unfortunately the Government is not doing enough to target homophobia and transphobia. There are three policies the Government needs to implement in order to tackle these issues: by increasing awareness, educating employers and escalating the punishments for those found guilty of hate crimes. Increasing people's awareness of different sexualities, whether that is through PSHE sessions in schools or creating a campaign, similar to UEFA's 'No to Racism' one. Employers can be educated further by the Government further about LBTQ+ discrimination in the workplace and how to deal with it through trade unions and liaising with companies. Finally, the Government must take hate crime against LGBTQ+ people much more seriously and not treat it as a completely 'minor' crime because otherwise, there is the danger that it could keep rising. Instead, the Government should treat such abuse as a serious form of hate crime and deal with it accordingly; depending on the nature of the incident, either fine the offenders, arrest them and/or add the offence to their criminal record.

    Sources:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7159026.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6692991.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7183306.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A motion built on what can be at best be described as based on mistruths with statistics that have me questioning if anyone in the Labour Party actually read the articles they source.

    Why if it is such a big problem does the author feel the need to resort to using incorrect and misleading statistics?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    All hate crime needs to be tackled, including the specifics covered by this motion. See no reason not to support this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Absolutely not.
    Can't have those gays getting ahead of their station, am I right?

    Aye.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Can't have those gays getting ahead of their station, am I right?

    Aye.
    I just usually don't vote for utter rubbish.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm all for enhanced liberty but i'm not sure things are as bad as claimed.

    Nay.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps if this is rewrriten to tackle more types of discrimation I'd give it a vote, it's very exaggerated and if it passes you could've added more to tackle other sorts of discrimination such as racism (heard that's a hot topic in America), religious hatred and most importantly the discrimatiom that foreigners are currently facing, it'd be absurd to pass an anti discrimination act without protecting those people as well.

    I won't be voting against it and will be happy to see it pass however I will not be voting in favour simply because I believe we've had similar pieces and this could do more than just focus on LGBT matters. I'm afraid I'll be abstaining from this in hope it'll be rewritten
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see how anyone could vote aye to a motion that contains this veritable nugget of pure ********.

    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    [field=VM409 – LGBTQ+ Motion 2016, TSR Labour Party]
    and it is disturbing that some businesses also base salaries on what sexual orientation someone is - the Government needs to ensure this never happens.
    Nay, obviously. Who wrote this crap?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I mean, this needs to be changed (I've been looking at this more now).

    I agree with this but I really don't believe that wages are low for LGBTQ+ just because of their sexuality.

    The Williams Institute found that people on the LGBTQ+ spectrum can earn up to 32% less in wages than their heterosexual counterparts. This is a staggering statistic and one which must be rectified. People must be paid based on the job, their skills and their work rate, and it is disturbing that some businesses also base salaries on what sexual orientation someone is - the Government needs to ensure this never happens.
    Seriously? You cannot really say that this is purely because they are paid based on their sexuality. Not all employers have access to that information unless directly told.

    But what I won't tolerate is hate crime increasing against LGBTQ+. We should do as much as we can to combat this by implementing sexuality lessons into our education system for example. I also believe on the crime side of things that those who commit hate crimes against LGBTQ+ should face the same punishment as those who commit hate crimes against a specific race. This is something we should not tolerate in our 21st century society.

    Abstain.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    Nay, obviously. Who wrote this crap?
    I'd put my money on Kay_Winters.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The opening sentence is of course agreeable, but a lot of this motion descends into very questionable stuff. Of course businesses shouldn't discriminate pay based on sexuality, but that's already covered by the Equality Act 2010. Institutionalised homophobia and transphobia in our society? Really? Getting the police to treat these crimes more seriously? Is there any evidence that police don't treat cases of homophobia seriously?

    Abstained, but I'm bordering on a Nay.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Financier)
    The opening sentence is of course agreeable, but a lot of this motion descends into very questionable stuff. Of course businesses shouldn't discriminate pay based on sexuality, but that's already covered by the Equality Act 2010. Institutionalised homophobia and transphobia in our society? Really? Getting the police to treat these crimes more seriously? Is there any evidence that police don't treat cases of homophobia seriously?

    Abstained, but I'm bordering on a Nay.
    I'll be sure to nudge you towards a no if this somehow gains another ayes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Financier)
    The opening sentence is of course agreeable, but a lot of this motion descends into very questionable stuff. Of course businesses shouldn't discriminate pay based on sexuality, but that's already covered by the Equality Act 2010. Institutionalised homophobia and transphobia in our society? Really? Getting the police to treat these crimes more seriously? Is there any evidence that police don't treat cases of homophobia seriously?

    Abstained, but I'm bordering on a Nay.
    you should give it a nay for using incorrect and misleading figures.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain, the problem is heavily exaggerated
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I'd put my money on Kay_Winters.
    I'm glad you value me so highly. In fact I had nothing to do with this motion, you don't have to be LGBTQ+ to support LGBTQ+ people
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    I'm glad you value me so highly. In fact I had nothing to do with this motion, you don't have to be LGBTQ+ to support LGBTQ+ people
    You don't have to insult the intelligence of the House with some of the nonsense in this motion to support the LGBT community either. And yet the author has seen fit to do so.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    I'm glad you value me so highly. In fact I had nothing to do with this motion, you don't have to be LGBTQ+ to support LGBTQ+ people
    Value you so highly? :laugh: No, I suspected it was you based on your extremely biased ramblings alongside the infamous ‘Whiggy’ in support of similar claims.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Value you so highly? :laugh: No, I suspected it was you based on your extremely biased ramblings alongside the infamous ‘Whiggy’ in support of similar claims.
    I suspect the sarcasm of my comment was lost. I would also hardly call it bias when I have to live through homophobia and transphobia on a daily basis, as do most of my friends, but sure call it what you will.
 
 
 
Updated: October 22, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.