A Reflection on the 2026 Diversity in Law Evening

By Macey Wong

Nobody tells you, when you sign up for a law degree, that some of the most insightful evenings of your legal education will happen after hours. Last Monday, the Banco Court found itself filled with students, legal professionals, and advocates who knew that the University of Queensland Law Society's Diversity in Law Evening was one worth showing up for.

This year's panel brought together six accomplished legal professionals — Luke Furness of Clayton Utz, who served as Master of Ceremonies, barrister Reimen Hii, Professor Tamara Walsh of the University of Queensland, barrister Kerala Drew, Franka Cheung of Corrs Chambers Westgarth, and The Honourable Justice Soraya Ryan, each speaking to their experience of diversity and inclusion in the legal profession with the particular honesty of those who have navigated it firsthand.

Making Your Differences Irrelevant: Navigating Bias with Excellence and Determination

(Justice Soraya Ryan)

There is a particular kind of exhaustion that comes from having to make your difference irrelevant. The Honourable Justice Soraya Ryan put it with characteristic directness. She had to perform well enough that her gender simply stopped being a conversation.

Her Honour’s career is extraordinary. A UQ graduate, prize-winner, Queen’s Counsel, and now President of the Mental Health Court of Queensland. But during her time at the criminal Bar, Justice Ryan had to demonstrate her competence not merely to satisfy her own standards, but to give clients the confidence that her abilities transcended whatever assumptions and prejudices they may have arrived with. Excellence, in that context, was not optional. It was the price of being taken seriously at all.

It is worth noting just how literal that exclusion once was. During her Honour’s time at the UQ Law School, the building had only male bathrooms. Women made do with one that had 'fe' handwritten before the 'male' on the door. The message, however unintentional, was this: the space had been built without them in mind!

Much has changed since then. Women now make up 60% of the legal profession, and the makeshift bathroom sign is long gone. But Justice Ryan was careful not to let that progress flatten a more complicated reality. The legal profession is not a monolith, and its progress has not been uniform. Criminal law, in her experience, has moved more slowly than other areas such as commercial law. Not every courtroom has kept pace, and not every corner of the profession has extended the same welcome. Better? Yes. There yet? No.

Among her most resonant observations was this: that the substance of an argument should never be judged by the form in which it arrives. For anyone who has ever second-guessed how they come across in a room—too quiet, too different, not what’s expected—it is a principle worth holding onto.

And for those not yet anywhere near the top of the profession, Her Honour offered something quietly reassuring. You don't have to be the best. But you should always aim to be your best. It is a small distinction and an enormous amount of room to grow into.

Visibility and the Importance of Leading by Example

(Franka Cheung)

Franka Cheung is a partner at Corrs Chambers Westgarth who has spent her career at the intersection of some of the most complex corporate and commercial transactions in Australia's energy and resources sector, advising governments, institutional investors, and private enterprises on deals that shape the country's economic landscape. She occupies a space that has historically been, and in parts remains, dominated by men. Her reflections on that reality were measured, precise, and powerful.

Gender, she said, was not always an overt obstacle. But assumptions were a different matter. When others made assumptions about her, it taught her to check her own. It is a deceptively simple observation, and one that cuts in both directions: a reminder that the experience of being on the receiving end of bias carries with it a responsibility to do better. Background, she argued, matters far less than the skills you bring to the client in front of you. Even if you're not the most extroverted person in the room, the advice was straightforward. Speak up about what you want. The people worth working with will listen.

She spoke about the value of mentorship not as a formal program, but as a space to find yourself and become comfortable with the knowledge that you don't need to be the loudest voice in the room to be heard within it.

Visibility matters. When leaders are open about the time and space they create for wellbeing and inclusion, they make it easier for those further down the hierarchy to ask for what they need. Small gestures, compounded over time, have a tendency to become culture.

Adversity, Determination, and Breaking into the Profession

(Kerala Drew)

Kerala Drew moved to Australia in 2017 with a First-Class Honours Degree from Queen Mary University of London and the University of Hong Kong. She had qualifications, experience, and ambition. What she didn’t have, it turned out, was the familiarity Australian firms wanted as firms did not always know what to do with qualifications earned elsewhere.

Of the 64 applications she sent out, seven firms replied with a rejection. The rest didn't respond at all. When she did eventually secure a foothold, it was unpaid. She had to work through a trial period before anyone would commit to paying her for what she already knew how to do. It is a remarkable detail and the kind that could break a person. For Kerala, it didn't! What kept her going, she said plainly, was stubbornness. For those navigating their own walls of silence and unanswered emails, her experience offers something more useful than reassurance—it offers proof. You don't have to believe every door will open. You simply have to keep knocking and stay long enough for the one that does. 

Today she is a barrister at Holmes Chambers practising predominantly in criminal law, and Vice President of the Women Lawyers Association of Queensland. The distance between those titles and the 64 unanswered applications is not lost on her. If anything, it shapes the advice she gives. Knowing how hard it can be to get even one foot in the door, her advice to students was not to wait for the perfect opportunity, but to pursue every available one, because you cannot know in advance what will spark something in you and be the one that changes things. Kerala’s own turning point was not a grand opening; it was a single decision to leave a secure position and pursue the work she was most passionate about. The decision was not easy, but she knew it was right.

Creating Space and Starting the Conversation

(Reimen Hii)

Reimen Hii is a barrister of Malaysian Chinese heritage whose career has taken him from a United Nations-backed war crimes tribunal in Cambodia to the Supreme Court of Tonga, from domestic private practice to academia, and to the presidency of the Queensland branch of the Asian Australian Lawyers Association (‘AALA’). That he ended up at the Bar at all is, by his own account, something of a surprise. More introverted by nature, he had not imagined that advocacy would become his home. But it did—and that, for those who have ever felt that the profession was looking for someone slightly different from them, is perhaps the most useful thing to take from his story. There is no one type. The Bar is broader than its reputation suggests. Of course, it is easier in retrospect, and Reimen was quite candid about parts of his journey where this was not always the case.

As a junior lawyer, he described the particular bind of cultural and professional deference, and the unspoken understanding that those from backgrounds that prize respect for authority are rarely in a position to challenge the rooms they find themselves in. Much of the problematic behaviour he encountered came not from malice, but from a failure to reflect—from well-meaning people who had never examined their own assumptions, nor considered how their conduct affected those around them. Rather than endure it, he chose to act, establishing AALA as a vehicle for representation, education, and genuine professional engagement. The conversation was not happening on its own, so he started it. His advice to students was to do the same. Introversion, as his own career demonstrates, is not a disqualification. If something is not right, find your way to say so and act on it.

Ask First, Act Second: On Meaningful Advocacy and Carving Your Own Path in Law

(Prof Tamara Walsh)

A Professor of Law and Director of the UQ Pro Bono Centre, Professor Tamara Walsh’s research examines the impact of the law on some of society's most vulnerable people. She has spent her career establishing projects that ask the law to look at itself clearly and brought that same quality to the panel.

Her central argument was this: do not make assumptions. Not about the people you serve, not about the colleagues beside you, and not, perhaps most importantly, about yourself. For Professor Walsh, this is not an abstract principle. It sits at the heart of her own work.

Much of her career has been spent advocating for people who occupy a very different position in society than her own. That gap is something she thinks about carefully. It is easy, when standing in a position of relative privilege, to presume that you know what the person in front of you needs. But meaningful change cannot be imposed from the outside. It has to be built in conversation with the people it is meant to serve. Genuinely asking and then listening to the answer is not just good practice, it is a form of respect.

She spoke about the students she encounters who arrive in law school with their careers already decided, their futures mapped onto someone else's path. The task of legal education, in her view, is not to provide a better map. It is to help students learn enough about themselves to draw their own. That path does not have to stay within the boundaries of the profession itself. Some of the most fulfilled people she has taught went on to pursue careers that looked nothing like the ones they had initially planned.

Her own turning point was instructive. The demands of parenthood changed not just her circumstances, but her. What she had once wanted from her career was not the same as what she wanted after. And that, she suggested, is not a failure of direction. Paths are not meant to be fixed and followed without deviation. They shift as the person walking them shifts. It is simply what growth looks like.

"Every path is what you make it." — Professor Tamara Walsh

Until Next Year

As the evening drew to a close, the panel made clear that belonging in the legal profession has rarely been given freely—it has been built, negotiated, and in some cases constructed from scratch by people who were told, implicitly or otherwise, that the room was not designed for them. Each panellist, in their own way, had encountered that message. None of them had accepted it.

Progress has been made, and it is worth acknowledging. But progress is not the same as arrival, and the legal profession, for all its evolution, remains a work in progress. The gaps are real, the pace has been uneven, and the work of closing them has fallen, too often, on those who could least afford to carry it.

For students leaving the evening, the collective message was perhaps this: the profession will not always meet you where you are. But that is not the same as saying there is no place in it for you. Find your corner of it. Question its assumptions, including your own. And if the conversation you need is not happening consider being the one to start it.

Thanks:

The UQLS extends its heartfelt thanks to Corrs Chambers Westgarth for their continued support in making the Diversity in Law Evening possible. It is a partnership that reflects a shared understanding: that a more diverse profession is not simply a fairer one, but a better one. The conversations that began this Monday evening do not end when the room empties. They continue in the choices that students make, the cultures that future lawyers help to shape, and the doors that each generation works to open a little wider than they found them. The UQLS looks forward to continuing that conversation at next year's Diversity in Law Evening and to the stories that are still waiting to be told.

Unapologetically Ourselves: Reframing Diversity for Women of Diverse Backgrounds through Shifting Mindsets

By Jaehee Lee

Long before cultural or racial diversity was even a topic of discussion, women in general were denied entry into the legal profession for decades. In fact, Shakespeare’s The Tempest features a female legal advocate well before such a figure existed in Australia’s legal reality.[1] This alone illustrates the long and arduous journey toward the acceptance of women in law.

While gender equality in the Australian legal profession has improved over time, women now make up 54% of the legal workforce and even outnumber men in PLT accreditation at a remarkable 64.1% compared to 35.6%,[2] these numbers often mask a deeper issue: the lack of representation of women from diverse cultural backgrounds. The statistics reveal a confronting truth: [3]

• In 2018, only 1.2% of practising certificate holders in New South Wales identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (0.7% across Australia).

• Less than 2% of barristers identify as Asian Australian.

• While 25% of law graduates identify as being from an Asian background, this drops dramatically to under 8% at partner level, 0.6% at the bar, and 0.8% in the judiciary.

To address these disparities, various initiatives - such as workshops, training events, sponsorship programs and targeted mentoring – aim to empower women from diverse backgrounds in law. for diverse women in law and their empowerment to tackle with these statistics. The inaugural DWL Advocacy Program, for example, has received positive reviews over the years for its stimulating legal challenges and its promotion of both skill development and diversity.[4]

Yet beneath all these initiatives lies something even more essential: a mindset shift.

Here are some stories worth sharing, from disheartening experiences to empowering insights from senior associate Nada Gu, offering guidance on how we can truly move forward.

What Being a Woman from a Diverse Background Symbolises

Being a woman from a diverse background has often meant having to behave in a certain way just to fit into a community or broader society. Sadly, the legal profession is no exception.

Lawyer Marie Iskander shared that women from diverse backgrounds are often expected to act ‘white and male’ in order to be perceived as a lawyer. She recalled times – often as the only person from a diverse ethnic or cultural background on her legal team – when this pressure led to feelings of imposter syndrome: am I really meant to be here? Throughout her legal journey, she was repeatedly told by people in senior positions not to appear “too emotional” and to avoid raising her voice too much.[5]

Meanwhile, another associate from a diverse background, Mei Gong, shared a contrasting but equally limiting experience of how she was looked down on for being a “quiet technician” instead of the “expressive leader” characteristic others expected.[6]

As such, this leaves women from diverse backgrounds in a difficult position. They are often asked not to stand out, but when conforming to the quiet, reserved image society often expects from them, they are overlooked for leadership roles and career advancement.

Story of Nada Gu: Breaking Barriers Through Self-Recognition and Awareness

Nada Gu, senior associate

The challenges discussed above were no exception for Nada Gu, a senior associate currently working at Corrs Chambers Westgarth. For many women from Asian backgrounds, there is an unspoken expectation to remain humble about their achievements. However, this humility can sometimes lead to their true value being overlooked, ultimately fostering a harmful mindset of self-doubt.  

For Nada, the key to overcoming these barriers lies in breaking the label of being merely “a woman in a challenging Western-centric, male-dominated field.” Doing so requires more than just about acknowledging the discrimination faced by women from diverse backgrounds -  it calls for actively dismantling those barriers through action, confidence and most importantly, a deep recognition of who we are as individuals.

“Aim to be a better version of yourself than you were yesterday…regardless of gender or race.”

Why feel the need to prove that despite being women from diverse backgrounds, they are just as capable as anyone else? Nada encourages them to hold their heads high and speak up with confidence, instead of attempting to constantly justify their worth to others by automatically bending to others’ schedules at the cost of one’s own well-being. Set clear boundaries when needed. Recognise your strengths and use THAT as leverage to build self-worth and confidence throughout your work.

“There’s no such thing as ‘normal’ – we each have our own journey, our own unique self.”

As such, Nada firmly rejects the idea that the discriminatory experiences faced by women from diverse backgrounds should be treated as a “normalised stigma.” She believes that no one’s path should be measured against others. Each of us is unique, moving at our own pace, and it’s vital for women from diverse backgrounds to understand and embrace that truth.

Ultimately, Nada urges women to not conform, but reconnect with their own values, voice and boundaries. Real empowerment begins when we see and value ourselves first, before seeking validation from others.  

Your comfort and self-awareness should be your threshold, not the expectations of others.

Final words

“Woman.” “Diverse background.”

These are simply characteristics, not labels that should disadvantage anyone.

The overarching message from Nada Gu, along with the experiences of many other lawyers mentioned in this blog, highlights the importance of embracing your identity. Use your background not as a burden to explain away, but as an asset to thrive in the workforce. Most importantly, do this not to meet anyone else’s standards, but for your own growth, confidence and self-worth.

Of course, these may sound like easy words. But as we all know, what sounds easy is not always easy in practice. Balancing university life, work pressures, friendships and social expectations can leave people physically and mentally overwhelmed. In the chaos, we often forget something that should be simple: taking care and staying connected to ourselves.

Therefore, underrepresentation of women from diverse backgrounds is not just the result of a lack of external opportunity or persistent societal stigma. Yes, those factors are real…but the ultimate problem relies on the internal doubts women carry when they forget to value themselves.

So let’s ensure that respect is present everywhere, in every moment, for ourselves and for one another. Only then can true diversity and wellbeing thrive, not just within the challenging, complex world of the legal profession, but across our entire global community.

References

[1] Speech from 7th Annual Janet Irwin Women’s Dinner ‘Women in the Law – The Past, Present and the Future’ (Supreme Court Library Queensland Archive, 4 November 1999) https://archive.sclqld.org.au/judgepub/mcmurdo041199.htm 

[2] College of Law, ‘The State of Gender Equality in the Australian Legal Profession’ (College of Law, 20 November 2022) https://www.collaw.edu.au/community/news/gender-inequality-in-legal-profession

[3] Diverse Women in Law, ‘Our Mission’ https://www.diversewomeninlaw.com.au/mission

[4] Rose Khalilizade and Nina Prica, ‘The Diverse Women in Law advocacy program’ (The Journal of the NSW Bar Association, 2022) https://bn.nswbar.asn.au/article/the-diverse-women-in-law-advocacy-program

[5] Marie Iskander, ‘Embracing our differences: Women of colour in the legal profession’ (LawyersWeekly, 5 July 2021) https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/31972-embracing-our-differences-women-of-colour-in-the-legal-profession

[6] Grace Robbie, ‘Young lawyers with diverse backgrounds should use it as a ‘superpower’ not ‘kryptonite’’ (LawyersWeekly, 22 November 2024) https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/41036-young-lawyers-with-diverse-backgrounds-should-use-it-as-a-superpower-not-kryptonite

Making Your Study More Zen

By Emi McBride

Do you ever feel sick of studying at the same place all the time? Do those law library lights hurt your eyes like they hurt mine sometimes? Do you ever wish you could study in natural light?

This blog post is for you.

2025 being my third year of university, I thought it was time I switch up where I study. I was becoming almost bored going to the same place, the same room to write my notes, to catch up on lectures, and I’m sure you know the drill. We have a beautiful campus at UQ St Lucia, and we all should take advantage of the facilities on offer – it’s where some of our money goes! I can wholeheartedly vouch that changing where I have studied has helped keep me focused on a more long-term basis.

The first location I would love to share with you is the beautiful Lake Side Cafe, offering amazing natural light and great food varieties – including nine-dollar Banh Mi’s! It is next door to our very own UQ Lakes so if you need to stretch and glance up from your computer, you have a perfect place for walk.

Next on the list is the Music Library, located in the Zelman Cohen Building, which is across from Liveris.

The Bell Top Cafe sits right at the top of the BEL building – look out for the sign on the pathway, there’s a picture of it below! There’s a scenic view with lots of natural light, plenty of tables and plenty of food options for study-fuel.

Level 1 of the BEL Building hosts a mix of outside tables and inside study rooms, with a ping pong table for a well-deserved study break with friends!

I have saved my personal favourite for last – the Art Gallery benches, located outside to the left of the entrance to the gallery. A friend I met this year in one of my classes actually introduced me to this one, so I apologise to her for revealing her not-so-hidden gem! With Darwin’s right next door, these benches are the perfect outside corner to study in.

The Value of Dissent: Lessons from the First Homosexual Movement

By Thomas Dutton

 ‘Until my death, I will count it a credit to myself that on August 29, 1867, in Munich, I found the courage to stand eye to eye against a thousand-year-old, many-thousand-headed, furious-eyed hydra … Yes, I am proud that I found the strength to deliver the first thrust of a lance into the hydra of public contempt’.[1]

                  Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, 1868

Introduction

Dissent is a word often heard by law students. At its core, the word refers to the manifestation of ideas, acts and omissions ‘that are alternative to existing or proposed ones’.[2] Not merely confined to judges, dissent can be found in all facets of the law. Within parliament, for example, Members of Parliament and Senators have been seen to cross the floor, going against their own party’s policies. It is also apparent outside of legal institutions, such as when people protest on the streets for unpopular causes. To this day, the value of dissent in the law remains controversial. On the one hand, many see dissent as an unnecessary hindrance to unified action.[3] In some courts in overseas jurisdictions, in fact, dissenting judgements are prohibited altogether.[4] On the other, many see dissent as an essential part of contemporary democracy - a mechanism to ensure advancements and critical thinking within society.[5]

This post argues for the latter view. To contextualise the ways in which dissent is viewed, it firstly outlines two separate views on dissent. The first view is by Michael Kirby - a former High Court Justice from 1996-2009 - who argues that dissent is essential for transparency and democracy.[6] The second view is by Susan Kiefel - the former Chief Justice of the High Court from 2017-2023 - who argues that judicial dissent can harm the integrity of courts.[7] It then looks at the First Homosexual Movement in late 19th and early 20th century Germany to illustrate the idea that dissent within the law can contribute towards significant change. At a time in which homosexual acts carried prison sentences, a new group of gay emancipation figures had given rise to a reconceptualization of homosexuality which has since found widespread favour in various legal systems. The dissenting ideas of these figures, it is argued, remains a testament to the value that dissent holds within the law.

Differing Views on Dissent – An Example

The views of people on dissent can differ wildly. This is exemplified by the differing views of judges in the High Court. At one end of the spectrum is Michael Kirby. Of all High Court judgements reported in the Australian Law Review between 22 May 1998 and 10 February 2003 (excluding cases with only one or two judges), Kirby had a dissent rate of 34.0%.[8] This was nearly two times the judge with the second highest dissent rate – Ian Callinan at 18.0%.[9] According to Kirby, respectful dissent and disagreements are fundamental to Australia’s legal system.[10] If disagreements amongst judges were hidden from public view, he argues, the courts would lack transparency, denying ‘the ultimate sovereign, the people, the right to evaluate, and criticise, judicial choices’.[11] He also views dissenting judgements as having the ability to ‘appeal to the future’.[12] For example, he mentions Isaac Isaacs’ dissenting judgements in early High Court cases, whose textualist understandings of the Australian Constitution now represent mainstream jurisprudence on Australia’s division of powers.[13] Kirby has likewise stated that respectful dissent should not be merely confined to the courts – it should also be protected in broader society.[14]

Further to the other end of the spectrum is Susan Kiefel. Out of Kiefel’s decisions on AustLII’s High Court database from 2017-2019 (excluding single judge decisions), Kiefel had a dissent rate of only 2.21%.[15] This was lower than any other High Court judge during this period.[16] She cautions against law students putting too much emphasis on dissenting judgements, instead encouraging a focus on ‘mundane’ majority judgements.[17] According to her, dissenting judgements can serve little purpose other than entertainment.[18] She draws attention not to the existence of dissent itself, but rather the way it is often delivered – often with ‘extravagant language’, mockery of other judges’ reasoning, and a perhaps ‘self-indulgent’ desire to entertain the reader of the judgement.[19] She views such dissents as undermining the integrity of the judiciary.[20] However, on dissent in general, she has stated that judges who disagree with the majority should express that disagreement, albeit briefly.[21]

Theoretically speaking, Kirby and Kiefel’s views are not in direct conflict. That is, both views allow for dissent which is purposeful and respectful. Where they differ, however, is the degree of importance that they attach to it. Kirby appears to encourage dissent, whereas Kiefel appears to problematise it in some regards. Their views arguably illustrate that, in the law more broadly, the level of importance attached to dissent can vary significantly.

Germany underwent several societal shifts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Left: A poster for women’s suffrage from 1907. Right: An image of an entertainment complex in Berlin in 1932.

The History of the First Homosexual Movement

The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a time of significant change in what is now Germany. Prior to the mid-19th centuries, the various German polities which would eventually constitute the German Empire were largely agrarian, with most inhabitants living outside of cities and large towns.[22] However, from around the mid-19th century, there was a significant increase in heavy industry (most notably coal and metal production), as well as a large-scale migration to German cities.[23] With this came great social change. Urbanisation and the possibilities of new, reformed social orders saw newly formed subcultures and political groups advocate for a variety of social and political causes.[24] On the one hand, some figures resented the industrialisation and social change that arose. A broad movement termed the völkisch movement saw writers, aristocrats and ordinary people alike reject modernisation as a cause of societal degradation, instead harkening back to an idealised past based on German ethnic identity.[25] On the other hand, various progressive movements such as trade unionism and feminism gained increasing prominence.[26] In both the former and latter category were two broad movements for the advancement of the rights of homosexuals. Overlooking the question of lesbian attraction, several figures attempted to associate male homosexuality with a supposedly ancient tradition of Männerbund – leagues of male warriors.[27] Through homosexual relationships, it was posited, the masculinity, strength and camaraderie of German males could be fostered free from the supposed inferiority of women.[28] It was argued that these homosexual bonds, particularly in military settings, could unify and strengthen German soldiers against various perceived threats such as communism and Jewish people.[29] Other figures, who are the focus of this post, sought to justify homosexuality on both liberal principles and theories on the innateness of homosexuality.[30] They argued for the liberalisation of laws towards homosexuals on the basis that same-sex attraction is involuntary.[31]

The genesis of the First Homosexual Movement predates the unification of the German Empire. Following the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, the land now known as Germany was under the control of a loose array of free cities, principalities, kingdoms and other polities.[32] Prussia (the largest polity) criminalised homosexual acts under § 143 of its criminal code, punishable with prison sentences of one to four years.[33] Seeking to challenge Prussia’s anti-homosexual law just prior to unification, a lawyer by the name of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs had begun publishing a series of pamphlets from 1864.[34] He argued for the decriminalisation of homosexual acts on two bases.[35] Firstly, he argued that homosexual men and lesbian women (whom he called Urninge and Urninginnen respectively) were a distinct category of people, whose sexual orientations were indicative of having inborn features of the opposite sex.[36] Secondly, on liberal principles, he argued that criminalising homosexual acts is unjustifiable, being comparable to anti-Semitism and the broader persecution of people based on ethnicity, religion, nationality or birth status.[37] He originally wrote his pamphlets under the penname of Numa Numantius, though his identity was discovered in April 1867 when his house was raided by Prussian authorities for unrelated reasons.[38] As a result of the raid, his identity was leaked to the press by police, he was detained for just over two months, and was subsequently banished from the province he was then residing in.[39] This seemingly only served to increase his efforts, however. In August 1867, he stood before a crowd of around 500 judges, parliamentarians and lawyers to argue his cause, drawing heavy condemnation from the audience.[40] He was forced to leave the stage before he could finish his speech.[41] However, in early 1868 under his own name, he sent a pamphlet to those in attendance at the conference, forewarning that such dissent would not start and end with him.[42] He wrote, ‘[a]s long as this love publicly exists in the penal code, as long as state prosecutors and the courts emphasize the fact, lovers of this kind may open public channels in their behalf to come before the forum and to enter their protest and to establish their petition of rights’.[43] Despite Ulrichs’ efforts and widespread debate on the matter, homosexuality continued to be criminalised.[44] As Germany unified, it was criminalised under § 152 of the North German Confederation’s penal code (passed in 1870), and then § 175 of the German Empire’s criminal code (passed in 1871).[45]

Left: An image of a couple dancing at a famous Weimar-era Berlin club called Eldorado. Right: An image of the inside of the Institute for Sexual Sciences in Berlin.

Towards the end of the 19th century, the First Homosexual Movement began to take an institutional form. Alongside several homosexual emancipation figures, a prominent sexologist by the name of Magnus Hirschfeld founded the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee in 1897.[46] Its primary aim was to petition for the repeal of § 175.[47] Hirschfeld argued that homosexuality is  innate, seeing same-sex attraction (alongside transgender identity and intersex variations) as a feature of ‘sexual intermediacy’ – being neither fully male nor fully female.[48] Aside from this theory, he also employed a number of liberal arguments, such as, inter alia, the idea that governments have no place in interfering with consensual sexual relations, and that laws should not penalise natural phenomena.[49] After World War 1, the relatively laissez-faire attitudes of Weimar authorities towards sexuality saw some degree of freedom in German cities.[50] Several gay and lesbian clubs had since opened in Berlin and other cities, and gay and lesbian magazines had since begun to circulate within Germany.[51] After garnering support from the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Weimar Republic, Hirschfeld further established the Institute for Sexual Sciences in Berlin in 1919.[52] This was the first organisation of its kind to research and educate the public on matters of sexuality.[53] Amongst other things, it oversaw the first gender reassignment surgery in history, as well as helping to produce what was possibly the first film to portray homosexuality in a positive light.[54] Despite Hirschfeld and his colleagues’ work being admirable to some, such efforts were met with severe condemnation. Hirschfeld himself was fined DM200 for obscenity in 1903, beaten by völkisch activists on two occasions in 1920 and 1923, and was frequently vilified in local media and by masculinist homosexuals.[55] Once the National Socialists gained power in 1933, the Institute for Sexual Sciences was raided and dissolved, its publications were destroyed, and a crackdown on homosexual clubs and organisations more generally began.[56] Hirschfeld’s German citizenship was later forcibly revoked in 1934.[57] With homosexuals being arrested, imprisoned, killed, castrated and sent to concentration camps under the Third Reich,[58] the First Homosexual Movement had effectively ceased within Germany.

The Impact of the First Homosexual Movement

Despite a severe disruption of momentum under the Third Reich, the kind of dissenting ideas brought forth by figures like Ulrichs and Hirschfeld have since found favour across several jurisdictions. Some facets of their theories, most notably the idea that homosexuals are a sort of ‘third sex’, have not been widely accepted.[59] The degree to which the First Homosexual Movement influenced later gay rights movements is also yet to be researched in depth. At the very least, however, the work of figures like Ulrichs and Hirschfeld nudged various legal systems towards greater rights for homosexuals. Whilst homosexual acts were previously conceived as the product of upbringing, choice, diseases, culture or other external factors, the First Homosexual Movement saw homosexuality start to be redefined in a radically new light – as an innate and immutable characteristic. In several European jurisdictions which had decriminalised homosexual acts in the 1930s and 1940s, law reformers had drawn directly upon Hirschfeld’s work in arguing their cause.[60] These jurisdictions include Denmark (decriminalised in 1933), and Sweden (decriminalised in 1944).[61] In England and Wales, the Wolfenden Report of 1957 recommended that consensual homosexual acts in private between people over the age of 21 years be decriminalised.[62] Similarly to the ideas that Ulrichs and Hirschfeld had expressed decades earlier, the report stated that homosexuality is not a disease and is unlikely to be changeable.[63] It also stated that ‘[i]t is not … the function of the law to intervene in the private lives of citizens’.[64] England and Wales decriminalised homosexual acts 10 years later in 1967,[65] with much of the English-speaking world gradually following. As of 2025, less than one third of all countries globally retain laws against consensual homosexual acts in private.[66] In short, and to use the phrasing of Kirby, the dissent of Ulrichs and Hirschfeld had become ‘vindicated by history'.[67] Whilst heretical at the time, their view that homosexuality is not a criminal matter has since become the norm in various legal systems across the world.

An image of the Memorial to the First Homosexual Emancipation Movement in Berlin.

Conclusion

Dissent within the law can be risky. Whilst people like Kirby had often dissented and view dissent as being vital, other people such as Kiefel seemingly attach less esteem to it. Of course, dissenting ideas are not always beneficial. As Kiefel seems to rightfully suggest, dissent simply for the sake of dissent may be amusing, but does not advance the law.[68] Nonetheless, the First Homosexual Movement illustrates that dissent should not be written off as meaningless. Whilst early homosexual rights figures were fined, interned and beaten for their efforts, their ideas ultimately foresaw a future in which the absence of laws targeting homosexuals is the norm. As a law student, your ideas may be seen as too liberal, too conservative, unorthodox, or just plainly disagreeable. Without dissent, however, our legal system would be nothing more than an echo chamber.

Sources

*Except where stated otherwise, all translations are by the author.

[1] Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Gladius Furens [Raging Sword] (Kassel, 1868) 1.

[2] Denis de Castro Halis, ‘Dissent and Law’ in Mortimer Sellers and Stephan Kirste (eds), Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (Springer, 2023) 762, 767.

[3] Ibid.

[4] See, eg, Diletta Tega, ‘Collegiality Over Personality: The Rejection of Separate Opinions in Italy’ in Vittoria Barsotti et al (eds), Dialogues on Italian Constitutional Justice (Routledge, 2021) 107.

[5] Halis (n 2) 762.

[6] See generally Michael Kirby, ‘Judicial Dissent’ (2005) 12 James Cook University Law Review 4.

[7] See generally Susan Kiefel, ‘Judicial Courage and the Decorum of Dissent’ (Selden Society Lecture, Supreme Court of Queensland, 28 November 2017).

[8] Andrew Lynch, ‘The Gleeson Court on Constitutional Law: An Empirical Analysis of Its First Five Years’ (2003) 26(1) The University of New South Wales Law Journal 32, 47-49.

[9] Ibid.

[10] See generally Kirby (n 6).

[11] Ibid 5, 10.

[12] Michael Kirby, ‘Consensus and Dissent and the Proposal for an Australian Statute of Rights’ (2008) 12(10) Southern Cross University Law Review 129, 137. See also ibid 6.

[13] Kirby (n 6) 6.

[14] Queensland Law Society, ‘Dissent, Democratic Ideals and Delivering Justice: A Conversation with Michael Kirby AC CMG’ (YouTube, 5 December 2024) 00:30:59 – 00:32:20 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCfMDo9OMI4&t=2016s>.

[15] See Andrew Lynch and George Williams, ‘The High Court on Constitutional Law: The 2017 Statistics’ (2018) 41(4) UNSW Law Journal 1134, 1135-1138, 1146 (‘High Court 2017 Statistics’); Andrew Lynch and George Williams, ‘The High Court on Constitutional Law: The 2018 Statistics’ (2019) 42(4) UNSW Law Journal 1443, 1444, 1449 (‘2018 High Court Statistics’); Andrew Lynch, ‘The High Court on Constitutional Law: The 2019 Statistics’ (2020) 43(4) UNSW Law Journal 1226, 1227-1228, 1233 (‘2019 High Court Statistics’).

[16] Lynch and Williams, ‘High Court 2017 Statistics’ (n 15); Lynch and Williams, ‘2018 High Court Statistics’ (n 15); Lynch, ‘2019 High Court Statistics’ (n 15).

[17] See Kiefel (n 7).

[18] See ibid.

[19] See ibid.

[20] See ibid.

[21] Susan Kiefel, ‘The Individual Judge’ (2014) 88(8) Australian Law Journal 554, 558.

[22] Douglas Pretsell, Urning: Queer Identity in the German Nineteenth Century (University of Toronto Press, 2024) 5-7.

[23] Ibid 7; Peter N Stearns, The Industrial Revolution in World History (Routledge, 5th ed, 2020) 60-2.

[24] Pretsell (n 22) 7, 9.

[25] See ibid.

[26] Pretsell (n 22) 9.

[27] See Ulrike Brunotte, ‘Queering Judaism and Masculinist Inventions: German Homonationalism Around 1900’ in Marko Derks and Mariecke Van Den Berg (eds), Public Discourses About Homosexuality and Religion in Europe and Beyond (Palgrave MacMillan, 2020) 125, 130-2, 135-6, 138-9.

[28] Jason Crouthamel, ‘Homosexuality and Comradeship: Destabilizing the Hegemonic Masculine Ideal in Nazi Germany’ (2018) 51(3) Central European History 419, 422-6. See also Claudia Bruns, ‘The Politics of Masculinity in the (Homo-)Sexual Discourse (1880 to 1920)’ (2005) 23(3) German History 306.

[29] Crouthamel (n 28).

[30] See Clayton Whisnant, Queer Identities and Politics in Germany: A History, 1880–1945 (Harrington Park Press, 2016) 16-22.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Pretsell (n 22) 25.

[33] Ibid 6, 25.

[34] Ibid 27-8.

[35] See ibid 28.

[36] See generally Hubert C Kennedy, ‘The ‘Third Sex’ Theory of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs’ (1981) 6(1-2) Journal of Homosexuality 103.

[37] Pretsell (n 22) 28; Robert Deam Tobin, Peripheral Desires: The German Discovery of Sex (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015) 89-92.

[38] Pretsell (n 22) 28-29.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid 29.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid 30.

[43] Ulrichs (n 1) 15-16 [tr Michael Lombardi Nash], cited in ibid.

[44] See Thomas Vormbaum, A Modern History of German Criminal Law, ed Michael Bohlander, tr Margaret Hiley (Springer, 2014) 78-9, 132; Pretsell (n 22) 50-1, 64-6; Tobin (n 37) 9-10.

[45] See Vormbaum (n 44); Pretsell (n 22) 50-1, 64-6; Tobin (n 37) 9-10.

[46] Elena Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom: A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) 91.

[47] Ibid.

[48] See Ralf Dose, Magnus Hirschfeld: The Origins of the Gay Liberation Movement (Monthly Review Press, 2014) 68-73.

[49] Mancini (n 46) 52-4.

[50] See Whisnant (n 30) 83-4, 92-8, 100-3, 112-20.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Mancini (n 46) 114-5.

[53] Ibid 115.

[54] Ibid 115-6, 118.

[55] Ibid 93, 100, 105, 116, 122.

[56] Ibid 140-1; Whisnant (n 30) 209.

[57] Mancini (n 46) 140.

[58] Whisnant (n 30) 214-8.

[59] See eg, Kennedy (n 36) 109-110.

[60] Dagmar Herzog, Sexuality in Europe: A Twentieth-Century History (Cambridge University Press, 2011) 77-82.

[61] Ibid.

[62] See generally Home Office (UK), Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution (Cmnd 247, 1957) (‘Wolfenden Report’). See also Laura A Belmonte, The International LGBT Rights Movement: A History (Bloomsbury Academic, 2021) 93-4.

[63] Wolfenden Report (n 62) 126-7.

[64] Ibid 21.

[65] Belmonte (n 62) 114.

[66] Lucas Ramón Mendos, Laws on Us: A Global Overview of Legal Progress and Backtracking on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Gender Expression, and Sex Characteristics (Report, 1st ed, May 2024) 29-30.

[67] Kirby (n 6) 10.

[68] See Kiefel (n 7).

Images (In Order of Appearance)

Glass Panel with Yellow Splash Paints (Image, Jr Korpa, Unsplash, 18 September 2019) <https://unsplash.com/photos/glass-panel-with-yellow-splash-paints-6YPthISMBZY>.

Broschuere Deutscher Verband für Frauenstimmrecht 1907 [Brochure German Association for Women's Suffrage 1907] (Photograph, Horst Ziegenfusz, Wikimedia Commons, 2018) <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Broschuere_Deutscher_Verband_f%C3%BCr_Frauenstimmrecht_1907.jpg>.

Berlin, Stresemannstraße bei Nacht [Berlin, Stresemannstraße at Night] (Photograph, Wikimedia Commons, 1932) <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-13681,_Berlin,_Stresemannstra%C3%9Fe_bei_Nacht.jpg>. Under CC BY-SA 3.0 DE Licence. Kept by the German Federal Archives.

A Couple Dances at the Eldorado Nightclub (Photograph, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1929) <https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/photo/a-couple-dances-at-the-eldorado-nightclub>.

Albani Antinous. Institut für Sexualwissenschaft [Albani Antinous, Institute for Sexual Sciences] (Photograph, Wikimedia Commons, circa 1920) <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Albani_Antinous._Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft.jpg>.

Denkmal für die erste homosexuelle Emanzipationsbewegung bei Nacht [Memorial to the First Homosexual Emancipation Movement at Night] (Photograph, Alorin, Wikimedia Commons, 24 April 2018) <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Denkmal_f%C3%BCr_die_erste_homosexuelle_Emanzipationsbewegung_bei_Nacht.jpg>. Under CC BY 4.0 Licence.