On Friday, Milton Griffin QC was the keynote speaker at the launch of Pride in Law, Australia's first LGBTIQ networking association. Here is his moving speech:
Firstly, I thank the organising committee for
according me the honour and privilege of addressing you this evening. I warmly
acknowledge the presence of the Attorney General, the Chief Justice, Justices
of the Supreme Court and Judges of the District Court, and members of the
Magistracy. I am equally delighted to see so many friends, who by their
presence, are supportive of this cause.
Before I commence my address, I must make
reference to the circumstances of this occasion. This magnificent ceremonial
Banco Court, in which I have been present both as a participant and a
spectator, alone lends gravitas to the proceedings. Moreover, the presence of
the Attorney, and various judicial officers, is recognition of the acceptance
and support that is given, their regard for this Pride in Law Association, and the
issues concerning the LGBTQI community. I also note the support of the Queensland
Law Society and legal firms as sponsors.
I am, and have been, through no matter of
choice, a member of that community. I was such a member at the time of my admission
to the Bar in 1975, although it was generally known merely as gay and lesbian.
Since then, greater sensitivity, understanding, both socially and in medical
terms, have led to the inclusion of other diverse groups under that umbrella
LGBTQI, which for convenience, I will later refer to as, The Community.
Having accepted the invitation to speak, I
ascertained the topic about which the organisers wanted me to speak, was my
career and experiences as a gay man in the law. It seemed to me that that was a
recipe for an entirely dull and uninteresting reflection. I have, therefore,
decided that this occasion demands a rather less subjective consideration of
the period during which I worked as a barrister and presided as a Judge.
I propose, therefore, to recall for some of
you, and to inform others, what the social, political and legal climate was
like when I commenced practice as a barrister in 1975. I will then outline some
of the changes, both socially and legally, which affected The Community over
the next 40 years, the period when I was both a barrister and a member of the
judiciary. Finally, I will make some observations as to the state of affairs
that presently exist which affect The Community, and make some modest and
personal predictions for the future.
Stephen Sondheim, the American composer,
had one of his characters sing, in the musical Follies:
“Good
times and bad times, I’ve seen them all
I’m
still here.
I
got through all of last year, and I’m here.
Lord
knows at least I was there and I’m here.
I’m
still here.”
This paean to survival sums up neatly what
it felt like for many, both gay and straight, to endure the worst excesses of
abuse of power, authoritarian government and to live in a Police State during
the Bjelke-Petersen National Party government. I was there, and I am here, and
this is consistent with the theme I have chosen – ‘survival’.
Let me then take you back to what really was
the beginning of a nascent quest for rights for gay and lesbian people. It was
a night in Sydney in 1978:
“On
24 June at 10 pm as a night-time celebration following a morning protest march
organised by the Gay Solidarity Group, more than 500 people gathered on Oxford
Street, in a planned street "festival" calling for an end to
discrimination against homosexuals in employment and housing, an end to police
harassment and the repeal of all anti-homosexual laws. The figure rose to around
2,000 as revellers out for the Saturday night at Oxford Street bars and clubs
responded to the call "Out of the bars and into the streets!". Although
the organisers had obtained permission, this was revoked, and the police broke
up the parade. 53 of the participants were arrested. Although most charges were
eventually dropped, The Sydney Morning Herald published
the names of those arrested in full, leading to many people being ‘outed’ to
their friends and places of employment, and many of those arrested lost their
jobs as homosexuality was a crime in New South Wales until 1984. Only two
people who were arrested were fined. The rest were released and the charges
dismissed. The police response to a legal, local minority protest transformed
it into a nationally significant event which stimulated gay rights and law
reform campaigns.”
Much
the same flavour of police behaviour obtained in Queensland. Gay people were
often harassed, had identities demanded, photographs taken, and were, on
occasions, subjected to bullying and violence by police.
The
Police Force came to be under the control of a modestly talented, deeply
ambitious and equally corrupt, Commissioner of Police, Terrence Murray Lewis,
who was complicit in having his police officers, for his own corrupt purposes,
do the bidding of the conservative government. Lewis was knighted for his
services to policing and the government. The government actively used
homophobia for electoral advantage, equating it to paedophilia and presenting
it as morally deviant. Government was uniformly hostile; the Education
Department refused to offer teaching work to openly gay men, and an amendment to the liquor in 1985 made it an
offence for publicans to serve alcohol to “perverts, deviants, child molester
and drug users.” I point out that sexual acts between consenting females have
never been the subject of criminal legislation in Queensland, however women, too,
were equally, often subjected to abuse and discrimination.
As a
result of activism, Australian states gradually, during the 1970s and 1980s,
began to liberalise their anti-homosexual laws. This was not the case in
socially conservative, National Party controlled, Queensland. Numerous sections
of society which were to become more vocal, railed against this extraordinary
state of political affairs until, in the late 1980s, a commission of inquiry
was instigated, led by the Honourable G. E. Fitzgerald QC, as he then was. The
Fitzgerald Inquiry, as it came to be known, shone an unrelenting spotlight on
the criminal excesses over the entire political structure. The findings of that
inquiry led to the National Party government being comprehensively swept from
power with the Labor Party winning government in 1989. This marked the
beginning of significant legislative changes amongst other things, to the
standing, recognition, acceptance and equality of people from The Community,
not least of which was, in January of 1991, the decriminalisation of homosexual
acts between consenting adult males.
I was
there, and I survived, and I’m here.
Specifically in relation to the legal world
and culture, it is sufficient to say that from the 1970s and into the 1980s, a
flavour of the legal world and culture can be gained by reference to its lack
of recognition, even blindness, to women in the profession. It is correct to
say that although there were some female practitioners, they were small in
number. They were, in fact, largely invisible when questions of promotion and
judicial office were discussed. The legal profession, including judicial
officers, was composed almost entirely of white males. Their attitudes, understandably,
were a product of having lived through the Second World War. Many were veterans
of that war.
An occasion, in the mid-1970s, springs to
mind that nowadays seems impossible to imagine. It exemplifies such rigid and
entrenched attitudes: A female journalist, whose husband was a prominent young
barrister, was engaged by a newly-formed national newspaper, to report on proceedings
in court. She was the first female journalist to be engaged to do so. On one
particular occasion, she went to court wearing a pants suit; that is, a
tailored jacket and slacks. When the judge came into the courtroom and observed
her, without any preliminaries whatsoever, he ordered her from the courtroom
for being, in his opinion, inappropriately dressed. This is a true and honest
account of the incident, for I was there. One can only imagine his horror and
consternation at the ceremony here this evening.
As for me, I practised as a prosecutor in
the Government until 1987 when I took chambers at the private Bar. I have
little to report, I must say, about my time at the Bar apart from memories of
working hard, and occasionally being asked for advice by gay men who complained
about unsolicited police brutality and violence. I took Silk in 1999.
I cannot claim at any time during my
career, direct knowledge of or experience with discrimination or homophobic
conduct, although as no doubt will forever be the case, cowardly statements are
made and slights perpetrated behind one’s back.
There is one curious incident that I
recall, however, on an occasion when I was sent to prosecute a prisoner within
the prison walls of Boggo Road prison, now happily, decommissioned.
The prosecution concerned an offence
committed by a prisoner. He worked in the kitchen of the prison and was alleged
to have added, by way of a special ingredient to the visiting Magistrate’s
food, a powdered cleaning product, called bon ami. The hearing lasted all day
and at the luncheon break I was offered a meal from the prison kitchen. I chose
to have a meagre glass of water, go hungry, and keep myself safe. That is the
background. The incident really concerns my arrival at the prison, which was a
foreboding 19th century, red brick edifice, with enormous doors at
the entrance point, through which one had to pass to another set of metal gates
that led into the prisoners’ yard through which I was led amongst the
prisoners, to the hearing room. It is not irrelevant to record that I was
wearing a particularly colourful suit, as was the fashion in those days, teemed
with an equally bright tie. As I walked through that prison yard, a chorus of
whistles commenced, directed at me. I was, at first, dismayed, even perhaps shocked.
That, however, did not last long, and I converted my surprise into a state of
comfortable satisfaction that the prisoners had displayed particularly good
taste. I was certain that this was an isolated incident that could only have
occurred to me. Some few years later, I was deflated to learn that a male
colleague, and friend of longstanding, had had the same experience as he walked
through the prison yard. He informed me, that he was wearing a pale blue suit
with red stitching. So much then, for the so-called good taste I imputed to the
prisoners. I am sure you would all like to know the identity of the blue-suited
barrister. He remains a friend to this day. But I have given my word to Judge
Terry Martin that I would not reveal his identity.
It is beyond coincidence, in my opinion,
that the quest for equal recognition, fairness and tolerance, in relation to
the way LGBTQI people hoped to be treated in Queensland had parallels in the
Women’s Movement. That Movement so arduously pursued and which fought hard for
women’s rights, created both an atmosphere and laid the foundation for a
growing acceptance of the LGBTQI community: first to be seen, then heard, then
listened to. The Community was carried along in its slipstream.
From 1989, women in the law had begun to
find a voice or voices, and this later came to be reflected in the appointment
of women to the bench. In Queensland, the first female appointment was the Hon.
Margaret McMurdo AC, to the District Court in 1991, later to be appointed the
President of the Court of Appeal in 1998. The winds of change set in motion by
the Fitzgerald Inquiry and put into practice by the Labor Government under the
Premier, Wayne Goss, saw a greater recognition of women in the law and the
commencement of women appointed to the bench. Appointments began to be made in
this State, and federally. Justice Susan Kiefel, as she then was, was appointed
to the Supreme Court of Queensland and then to the Federal Court of Australia.
The Hon Michelle May AM, was appointed to the Family Court of Australia, and
has recently retired from that court as a Justice of Appeal.
In that context and atmosphere, in 1992, I
was appointed an Acting Judge of the District Courts. I undertook a further
acting appointment in 1999, replacing Judge Richards who was on maternity
leave, and was appointed permanently in 2004 by the then Attorney General, the
Hon. Ron Welford.
Any discussion of my career would be
incomplete and distorted without reference to my partner of 35 years, Michael
Barra. He has been my constant companion, closest friend and ally, counsellor,
advisor, and sometime member of the Fun Police. Our mutually supportive
relationship, based amongst other things, but fundamentally on mutual respect,
has provided me with the love, support and courage that has given me, without
doubt, the career that I have had.
During the course of my legal career, I did
not hide or dissemble about my sexual orientation. I believe I acted with
dignity, honesty, authenticity and truthfulness.
In fact, in 2004, on the occasion of my
elevation to the bench, it was a significant moment for me personally and for
those who supported equality of opportunity when Attorney General Welford said
in his speech about me, that: “my appointment would bring fresh insights, and a
new diversity to the Court, in a way that will broaden its perspective…” and
that, as Attorney, he would continue to bring to the membership of the Courts:
“new capacities and diversities … ”. This was a bold statement of intent, which,
in my view, has not always been practised.
I should make it perfectly clear that
although I was the first openly gay person to be appointed a judge of this
State, that is no more than a factual assertion. It neither affected me
personally or professionally nor was it, of course, of relevance in the way in
which I discharged my judicial duties.
I was welcomed to the District Court by the
then Chief Judge, Patsy Wolfe AO, with warmth and generosity. Likewise, I felt
nothing but inclusion, respect and friendship from the Justices and Judges of
the Supreme and District Courts in both work and social circumstances when almost
without fail my partner, Michael, was by my side, and who was equally warmly
accepted. This speaks eloquently and strongly of the attitude of the highest
levels of the legal profession and is entirely consistent with the presence of
those distinguished members of the judiciary who are present here this evening.
I could not pass by this topic without referring to two occasions on which
members of the judiciary have supported both Michael and myself with good
counsel and advice. The two occasions to which I am about to refer reflect the
inclusive and accepting attitudes that then, as now, prevail amongst members of
the judiciary for the benefit of LGBTQI people.
After I had taken Silk, my dear friend of
long-standing, the Hon. Michelle May AM, who is present here this evening,
convinced me, in only the way which she can, to have Michael accompany me to
Canberra to attend the presentation of Silks before the High Court and the
dinner which followed in the presence of the High Court Justices. I am ever
grateful to her for encouraging me to have my partner by my side on that special
occasion. I am equally grateful to the present Chief Justice, and Justice
Atkinson, who in a similar vein in 2004, took me to lunch before my swearing-in
ceremony and strongly counselled me, as only they can, to make mention of
Michael in my speech on that occasion. It is obvious from these personal experiences
some 14 or more years ago, that there was, and continues to be, an appetite for
tolerance, inclusion and equality which has been demonstrated amongst the members
of the judiciary and the profession, not only in this State but in my certain
experience, throughout Australia.
In Queensland, legislative advances in
treating the gay community with tolerance, inclusion and respect have continued
to be made over the past 3 decades with some loss of momentum during the years
of the LNP Newman Government. In recent times, all issues of consent in sexual
matters have been standardised and reflect equality. Legislation was introduced
recognising same sex partnerships, which faulted but was recently reinstated by
the present Government, as well as equality for same sex couples wishing to
adopt.
As for the Police Force, there has been a
dramatic about-turn in their attitude to The Community. This followed, and is
in conformity with, Police practices in other Australian States and Territories.
Dedicated teams throughout the State operate to protect and assist LGBTQI
people.
And what of the future?
Two days ago, three out of five Australians
agreed that the Marriage Act should be amended to include the right for same
sex couples to marry. It is a happy and significant coincidence that the
inauguration of this Association occurs two days after that result was
announced. That vote is portentous of further satisfactory and appropriate
changes to the law in Australia and hopefully consequential changes in
attitudes. For those who are of a conservative turn of mind, the argument will
always be used that such a change opens the floodgates to all sorts of
diabolical behaviour and consequences. In fact, in 1989, the then Premier of
this State, Russell Cooper, in the dying days of the National Party government,
said of Opposition policy to decriminalise homosexual acts that it: “would send
a flood of gays crossing the border from the southern States”. This type of ‘floodgates’
argument was also utilised in the recent same sex marriage debate, happily with
little effect.
The prospect of change to the Marriage Act
will offer the opportunity to same sex couples in Australia to legally
formalise their relationships. After 35 years, Michael and I look forward to
that prospect.
Despite advances with attempts to change
the rights of people to achieve equality, there will always be those who resist
such change with discrimination, intolerance and bigotry. Many of those who
made statements on behalf of the recent No Campaign, including politicians,
indulged in such conduct, resulting in hurtful and harmful effects on members
of the LGBTQI community. For example, a survey during the time of the lengthy
Same Sex Marriage Poll, disclosed from a reputable source, that there had been a
40% increase in young people seeking help for emotional and mental health
issues as a result of negative attitudes expressed and statements made on
behalf of the No Campaigners.
And what may we look forward to in the
future?
A social commentator has recently said that
humankind is going through a transformation to a new age of enlightenment. I am
more realistic. In my view, humankind will continue to exhibit the historically
documented behaviours of both tolerance and compassion on the one hand, and intolerance,
bigotry and ignorance on the other, against those who do not conform to their
particular ideal stereotype. Therefore, all fair minded, compassionate and
tolerant people must be ever vigilant against those negative attitudes. For
example, in Australia, and elsewhere, there is evident the rise of white
supremacists and the growing incidence of hate speech, particularly online.
With all that has been achieved so far, make no mistake; fear, intolerance and
bigotry are still abroad.
One can also be optimistic, for it is true
that what has occurred this week demonstrates that a majority of the Australian
people have turned their backs on discrimination, exclusion and division and
opted for inclusion and equality.
As to the future for LGBTQI lawyers, the
support given by all branches of the legal profession to this Association suggests,
strongly, a world in which practitioners can pursue their careers in an
atmosphere of tolerance, equality and acceptance.
There will, however, always be challenges;
that is the nature of the world. Not everyone will adopt and exhibit appropriate
values.
With that in mind, may I proffer some
advice for those of you in the LGBTQI community and supporters:
Take the fight to those who would oppress
you.
Clothe yourselves in dignity.
Arm yourselves with truth, honesty,
authenticity and courage.
In that way, you will be supremely prepared
and fortified for battle to withstand any challenges which the future may
present.
Milton Griffin QC
Thanks Milton Griffin QC for your outstanding personal contribution and outstanding speech. Regards to Michael. Kindest Regards, John Haydon.
ReplyDelete