Discrimination For A.I.D.S. To Come Under Rights... (Press, 17 November 1987)

On 17 November 1987, a discussion took place in Wellington where the Human Rights Commission explored how to effectively tackle discrimination against individuals affected by A.I.D.S. Ms Rae Julian, a member of the Commission, addressed a seminar on the matter and suggested that a straightforward approach would be to consider discrimination against A.I.D.S. as a type of discrimination based on physical disability. However, she noted that such discrimination is not currently included in the Human Rights Commission Act of 1977. The New Zealand government had tasked the Commission with reviewing the existing legislation concerning discrimination. Through informal discussions with various politicians from different sides of Parliament, the Commission anticipated that there would be considerable support for modifications to the law that would encompass disability discrimination. Ms Julian highlighted that while adding protections for A.I.D.S. victims and those with A.I.D.S. antibodies is essential, this change would not comprehensively address all forms of discrimination linked to A.I.D.S. She explained that discrimination also frequently affects individuals perceived as “at risk,” particularly male homosexuals, regardless of their actual health status related to A.I.D.S. To combat the increasing discrimination associated with A.I.D.S., Ms Julian advocated for the inclusion of sexual orientation protections within the Human Rights Commission Act, alongside protections for physical disability. The Commission had previously expressed the view that discrimination based on sexual orientation is inherently wrong, particularly during the debates surrounding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1985. Despite the passage of that legislation, the underlying human rights considerations regarding sexual orientation remained largely unchanged. Ms Julian expressed uncertainty about whether the issue of sexual orientation would be successfully addressed in Parliament this time, noting that it would likely emerge as a matter of conscience. An alternative solution suggested was to establish a distinct category aimed at prohibiting all forms of A.I.D.S.-related discrimination, similar to provisions in New York. However, she remained unsure whether Parliament would treat this approach as a conscience issue or perceive it merely as an attempt to introduce anti-discrimination measures without transparent motivations.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand