"Ladies and Gentlemen,

It can be said that within the CNV the attention for equal opportunities for gays and lesbians has gone hand in hand with the history of the Equal Opportunities Act, which has taken a long time to be established, about twenty years.
Now my question would be whether our attention is not directed too much at the legal grounding of those equal opportunities.
Is it not about time to start focussing on the practice of equal opportunities?
I Shall limit myself to labour and income, the heart of trade union interference.
I have come to this conclusion, exactly because the establishment of the Equal Opportunities Act in the Netherlands has taken such a long time.
Especially the juridical intentions to open the possibility of civil marriage to gays and lesbians have taken up a very long time.
This contradicts with, for instance, the anchoring of equal rights for men and women.
Only after pressure from Europe on the Dutch government, it increased its actions in the field of equal chances for men and women in the labour process.
It seems however that the Dutch legislator leads the way when gay and lesbian rights are concerned, although this might come across as strange to those who have been fighting for these equal rights for decades already.
Fact is that the Netherlands are at the forefront internationally, and that legislation outruns the acceptation and settling of social insights.

This however, is the result of a very difficult process.
The Equal Opportunities Act has been held up long and been limited to the general discussion whether special schools could legally refuse a teacher because of his or her sexual preferences.

The final compromise on this issue was that rejection because of sexual preferences was not allowed.
Being a homosexual in itself therefore could not be a reason for refusal, but what if there were more reasons, would these legalise a rejection?
And what could that other reason be? Could it be said that a person does not fit into the team just because he or she is an homosexual?
Could that be a legitimate reason?

I shall not hide from you that this act has caused widespread and extensive discussions within the CNV.

Let me sketch the situation.
On the one side were those CNV members who believed special schools ought to have the right, based on the Christian faith, to refuse employees.
On the other side were those (very) active gay groups within the ACP (police) and the Union of Education within the CNV, who protested loudly and actively against discrimination.

The opinion of the CNV has always been that: special schools should have the right to hire an employee who can identify him or herself with the special objectives of that particular school; precisely because that employee can and will be asked to propagate the school’s special objectives; but that has nothing to do, whatsoever, with whether that person is hetero- or homosexual.
The common ground or denominator all CNV members agree on is the word respect.

Respect for the way people give meaning to Biblical concepts/notions/ideas like equality and respect for each person, being a unique human being created by God.
But of course, not all CNV members think the same on the practical execution of these ideas.

It is my personal opinion that the concepts; equality and respect for every individual can only receive meaning in continuous discussion and testing by practical experience.
Law might forbid discrimination of gays and lesbians, but does that mean it does not happen?
If you go through the jurisprudence of the equal opportunities commission of the last two years this will show to be a somewhat naive question.

Let me name a few cases:

• Unmarried partners of employees of the Dutch Railroad Company cannot make use of the same travel opportunities as married partners.
• Two friends were refused on a camping, having vacancies, because it was a family camping.
• A dining coupon of a company was only valid for married couples.
• Until February 1997 students of the theological university of the Roman-Catholic Church in Utrecht could earn two study-points by joining a debating society.
  In order not to jeopardise papal recognition, the university cancelled the two study-points to be earned by joining the gay debating society.
• A housing corporation refused the partner of a tenant as a co-tenant.
• Dance schools exclude same gender couples from competition, motivating that
  1. it is not possible to keep up a role division between leading man and following woman,
  2. two women do not have the power to perform the dance correctly,
  3. the elements grace and passion show less with same gender couples.

Sometimes the official grounds for discrimination seem ridiculous, but they make me come to the conclusion that practice is still far from what is prescribed by law.
Or to quote the president of the Supreme Court:
“Fundamental attitudes that have been engraved deeply in human society, can not solely be changed by legislation”, and: “Human rights have to be fought for continuously”.
This means that the CNV too is confronted with a heavy duty to expose and solve these social abuses and wrongs.
A first task for the CNV would be to examine labour conditions. To check with collective bargaining agreements still containing discriminating provisions, but also, to find out which way equal treatment can be stimulated. A collective bargaining agreement after all is the royal way to fight for the rights of workers. It is important to inspect the labour conditions we have agreed on in the past.
With reference to this I would like to emphasise the FNV suggestion to define a code of conduct/behaviour that will protect homosexual employees, in addition to good collective bargaining agreements.
I, furthermore, think it necessary the CNV makes this subject part of the European social dialogue. We would like to raise the matter there in order to reach new agreements.
This requires an active attitude of our gay and lesbian members.
It is striking, for instance, that only 6% of the complaints that reached the equal opportunities commission in 1996 were about discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference.
I find it remarkable that there is relatively little discussion on the rights and opportunities of gays and lesbians on the working place. Striking as well is that judges motivate badly in cases of equal opportunities.
And even the Supreme Court hesitates to establish an aggravated motivation duty for judges.
To quote Martens, president of the Supreme Court again: “Such an aggravated motivation duty lays a heavy burden on the person that has to judge the facts.
To answer the question whether discrimination is in play, he or she often has to make difficult decisions. Subtle differences are very hard to motivate.”


I totally disagree with this rejection of aggravated motivation duty.
Cases like discrimination need full transparency to be able to judge the arguments properly.
In a society like ours discussion is needed to be able to determine an open opinion.
This current attitude conveys the feeling of back room politics, where the opinions of the judges can be decisive.
This is especially important with an independent judiciary that has to practice full transparency in cases that concern our total society.

In the Netherlands equal opportunities of gays and lesbians are legally established, but they will have to be conquered in the practice of every day: in one’s own living environment, in church, at work.
This demands personal courage and stamina or staying power.
The CNV chooses against discrimination and for equality of every individual on the basis of Christian principles. After all, isn’t every one of us created after God’s image?
As a trade union we shall dedicate our energy to acquire equal opportunities and treatment for everybody.
There will, most likely, always be employers who will try to discriminate.
How many employers do not hide behind those employers who honestly admit they would rather not hire homosexuals?
It is the task of the labour union movement to prevent unequal treatment on the work floor.
Hopefully this will lead to treating gays and lesbians as normal employees, with rights and duties.

What can foreign countries learn from the Dutch example?
Firstly that the basis against discrimination is formed by legal grounding of equal opportunities.
Secondly that the struggle for equal treatment has to be fought every day. It is a tough struggle, in which trade unions are obliged to dedicate their powers to try to eradicate discrimination on the work floor.
As a Christian trade union we experience this duty from the Christian principle to respect each person."

Watch the other pictures, check who supported the initiative and read the closing document here.