Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation

WillParbury Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:02:53 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Parburypolitica uncovers the warped mindset that some Tories have to discrimination.



Remember that post I did on what Conservatives really think about equality legislation  Well it turns out that is not the end of Donal Blaney’s views on equality legislation. Last September on his blog he wrote:

“I am opposed to regulations on businesses that require them to adhere to race equality legislation. If businesses just want to recruit blacks, whites, Asians, women, men, gays, lesbians or the disabled that should be a matter for that company, its shareholders and its customers.”

And if they don’t Donal? I suppose that you think this is all hunky dory and “the market” will somehow mystically make discrimination all OK.

Personally I don’t get this Tory hard right mind set. Perhaps we could get another Tory to explain. Here is commentator and general sourpuss Simon Heffer on The Westminster Hour 6th January 2008

“Take for example the acts of parliament that have ruled out discrimination in the work place against women or members of the ethnic minorities. Again I do not question the good intentions of these laws but I do wonder what life would be like if we didn’t have them. Anyone who refused to hire someone good because she was a women or because he or she came from an ethnic minority or a culture against which the employer was bigoted would soon suffer. Either they would get no staff at all or they would end up hiring mainly second raters. Worse the capable people they had ignorantly refuse to hire would go to work for their more enlightened rivals and put the bigots out of business. Instead of common sense being allowed to prevail there is instead a state and private bureaucracy that monitors, compliance officers and others who are soaking the productive sectors of our economy in a cause that the productive sectors would if left alone have no choice but to espouse for themselves.”

So let’s get this right it’s ok for people to suffer discrimination because they can go somewhere else. Genius. I wonder what David Cameron makes of all of this?



tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation | 34 comments (34 topical)

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#1)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:23:40 PM GMT

Good post.

There's so much wrong with this hard-right mindset I don't know where to begin.

Firstly, Blaney assumes that it's easy to walk into another job once you get rejected from another. For people who are low-skilled, there might only be one decent job available to them, and if they got turned down because they are black, or gay, or transgender, or disabled or old then they will have no job and be unemployed. Is this what Blaney wants to see?


Also, whilst I'm sure most companies, for PR purposes, probably would allow ethnic minorities or gay people to work for them - most companies if they could would try to prevent old people, transgender or people with certain disabilities for working for them.


Jobs should only be awarded on the basis of talent and merit - nothing else. And I would have thought Blaney, as a believer in free markets, would agree with this.


Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#3)

by dickwishart on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:57:08 PM GMT

"Jobs should only be awarded on the basis of talent and merit - nothing else. And I would have thought Blaney, as a believer in free markets, would agree with this."

Surely this is exactly what he is saying!


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#8)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:54:51 AM GMT

No not at all - he's arguing that companies should be allowed to discriminate against ethnic minorities, women, gays, disabled people etc. regardless of how good they are.

That couldn't be further away from a free-market meritocracy.

I suspect that Blaney is opposing equality legislation for bigoted reasons rather than any false desire for less regulation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#36)

by Prbo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:11:23 PM GMT

"I suspect that Blaney is opposing equality legislation for bigoted reasons rather than any false desire for less regulation. "

Surely not!  You're normally so warm-hearted and generous towards people on the right.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#37)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:33:29 PM GMT

Well, I'm afraid it's people on the right who tend not to be warm-hearted or generous (*cough* Thatcher)!

Blaney is a bigoted individual - that's the truth.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#28)

by spartacus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:06:42 PM GMT

Let's face it we all discriminate whether it be your friends, music you like or favourite football teaM! Anti-discrimination law all very well and good, but what about the disgraceful discrimination of the BBC against indigenous white britons in announcing that 15 out of 30 of their new management trainees are to be of ethnic minority and 5 disabled with the remaining 10 to be of any background! According to them it obviously doesn't matter if any trainees are white, which is outrageous discrimination and cannot be right. Job vacancies should only be decided on merit and the preposterous thought that every workplace will exactly reflect the ethnic breakdown of our country is ridiculous but keeps these bean-counters in a job! If we are not careful we will end up with a right mess with people getting jobs they are totally unsuitable to just to meet a quota, what next  brain surgeons and rocket scientists not employed on talent but ethnic group, absolutely ridiculous!!   


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#2)

by treborc on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 05:53:46 AM GMT

But he has picked out a problem, you should not have to pick a person because they come from a minority, it should be the best person.


I am disabled if people turn me away from a job offer just because I'm disabled that hurts, if they say well look your qualifications are not up to scratch I can accept. I can understand the young women being dam well furious for being turned away from the Environmental department because her race was unacceptable that cannot be right.


Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#9)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:57:41 AM GMT

treborc, equality legislation does not force anyone to hire minorities - it stops firms from sacking people just because they are in a minority.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#4)

by alexswanson on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM GMT

"Perhaps we could get another Tory to explain."

I'm not a Tory but I suppose I'm close enough.

The reasoning is that anyone who discriminates for irrational reasons is simply damaging themselves. If one particular manager - for example - consistently refuses to employ black people, then he is simply denying himself access to a talent pool which will then be taken up by another, either in the same company or elsewhere. Eventually, as a result, he will be less successful and will be driven out of a job himself. Therefore, you do not need to laws to accomplish something which is inevitably going to happen over time anyway.

Possibly you need to understand that right-wing people are temperamentally against passing laws, partly because you are always in danger of doing more harm than good, partly because laws are not always enforceable, partly because we simply do not like to live in a society where the govt believes it has the right to tell us how to behave and think. In this case you have to ask yourself wherether such laws can in fact lead to discrimination against whites, or indeed how many cases of discrimination will actually end up going to court. Taking a company to court, however appalling their behaviour might have been, is not a trivial matter.


Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#10)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:12:21 AM GMT

The reasoning is that anyone who discriminates for irrational reasons is simply damaging themselves. If one particular manager - for example - consistently refuses to employ black people, then he is simply denying himself access to a talent pool which will then be taken up by another, either in the same company or elsewhere. Eventually, as a result, he will be less successful and will be driven out of a job himself. Therefore, you do not need to laws to accomplish something which is inevitably going to happen over time anyway.

I'm sorry but that's complete rubbish. It is not inevitable at all and if the legislation wasn't in place, companies would let their deepest prejudices rule time and time again.

How many companies would openly accept talented transgender people without legislation in place Alex? How many companies would willingly pay to upgrade their buildings to accommodate disabled people without legislation forcing them to do so? How many companies would love to openly reject anyone over the age of 50?


Alex, you're either very naive or quite bigoted. Which one is it?


Also, you need to remember that legislation covers race, sexuality and gender in general terms so if it was discovered that someone was discriminated against because they were white, or heterosexual or male then they could sue also.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#11)

by alexswanson on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:43:15 AM GMT

"very naive or quite bigoted"

 Yawn, yet another case of argument-by-abuse so typical of the Left.

For the record, I am not naive. I have suffered at the hands of bullying management personally, and seen others do so. I am not against legislation in this area, and indeed in some respects I think it currently too lax.

What I am trying to do here is not to oppose the idea of legislation per se, but simply to point out that it is possible to believe that racism and homophobia are wrong, but still also to honestly believe that legislation nevertheless does more harm than good. For example, it is very easy to give people the right to sue a company - but have you actually ever tried it? I have, and it's not as easy as it sounds.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#13)

by alexswanson on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:51:32 AM GMT

Oh and PS, for the record, I am not "bigoted" either.

Let me reiterate, abuse is not the same as reasoned argument. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them evil.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#14)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:42:56 PM GMT

Trade unions generally help with any discrimination cases - perhaps you should seek their advice?

but simply to point out that it is possible to believe that racism and homophobia are wrong, but still also to honestly believe that legislation nevertheless does more harm than good.

It is possible to believe that, but I'm pointing out that this logic is fundamentally flawed. If you remove discrimination legislation then discrimination in the workplace will rise. The fact is there are still many employers who would love to let their darkest prejudices rule.


If just one person gets refused a job on the grounds of race, religion, sexuality or gender despite being perfectly good enough for the job, then that's one case too many. And I would have though that those on the right-wing would realise that such discrimination prevents a meritocracy from occurring and distorts the free market.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#5)

by treborc on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:37:01 AM GMT

But your all talking about work, discrimination goes deeper as well. For example before the DDA, I would be refused access to the cinema, I would have no access to my town hall, my own MP once said to me your disabled what do you expect.


This has been a problem I see all the time, and it still around to day but is more hidden. For example my last trip to the pictures with my grandson, to see SHREK they are fans. I went to my local cinema it now has a lift to go up the sixty steps of the stairs, I asked for access to be told sorry mate we have not be trained yet the lift has been inplace for two years, but it meets the DDA requirement of having a lift, but nobody can use it. I had to go up on my back side and my grandson who is ten carried my wheelchair up the stairs, because they could not help they are no insured.


Life is still pretty shit if your disabled.


Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#6)

by FA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:48:12 PM GMT

AlexSwanson - In practical terms if discrimination legislation is repealed, discrimination will increase. In practical terms there are some rich racists who simply wouldnt end up suffering economically and would engage in racism with impunity. You'd have to have a pathological hatred of legislation (which many anarcho-capitalist rightwingers do) to oppose discrimination legislation. The other argument against this rightwing approach is that reying on the free market to punish racism because its stupid (and therefore likely to be a bad business decision) "blends" racism into other behaviours in terms of whether the market punishes or rewards - e.g.  a brilliant businessman who's a racist could still be sucessful and engage in flagrant racism but a mediocre businessman who isnt racist would be less successful - the market in such a situation WON'T adequately punish or prevent racism - and racism is so insidious and malevolent that it needs to be disouraged in a more certian and explicit way - namely legislation (which also has the result in society of racism being publicly declared to be unacceptable). If you don't think that racism is deserving of such ublic outrage, the chances are you've never suffered it.


Also, its quite clear that in many cases, right wing people actually take the view that people have a "right" to be racist or otherwise bigoted, not just that they hope the market will punish racism i.e. "since its my company, and I don't like blacks, why can't I refuse to hire any?". Employees aren't serfs working in your house, and they deserve legal rights. Compared to the hurt bigotry and other racism cause, I think the legislation does a pretty good job.



Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#12)

by alexswanson on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:49:45 AM GMT

"a brilliant businessman who's a racist could still be sucessful and engage in flagrant racism but a mediocre businessman who isnt racist would be less successful"

In my experience, managers who treat people unjustly are also generally incompetent and cannot motivate staff, so I can't accept this reasoning.

"racism is so insidious and malevolent that it needs to be disouraged in a more certian and explicit way - namely legislation"

What, like legislation has discouraged drug use and gun crime?

I appreciate that  the left-wing view is that, when in doubt, pass a law. The point I'm trying to make is that there are people in the world who do not accept that this is always the best approach. Decreases in drink driving over the years, for example, have been achieved through education and changes in popular culture rather than through law.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#7)

by FA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:51:55 PM GMT

For the record I used racism as an example for discrmination - I think the legislation should apply remain for all types of discrimination.


Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#15)

by bishophill on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:35:45 PM GMT

There is another argument against discrimination legislation, which is the one I prefer.

The argument is that discrimination is another name for freedom of association, and that freedom of association is a human right. 


Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#16)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:42:06 PM GMT

You're confusing employment and freedom of association.

Everyone has the right to choose who their friends are on whatever grounds they see fit, but employers do not have the right to discriminate against a worker on the grounds of race, sexuality etc.

So yet another argument against legislation blown out of the water. Any more?


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#18)

by bishophill on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 10:18:11 PM GMT

This is nonsense. If you were correct it would be called "freedom of friendship" rather than "freedom of association". The word association clearly covers both business and personal relationships.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#19)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:39:12 AM GMT

Rubbish - you're trying to make out that employing people is nothing more than establishing acquaintances. It is far more than that - it is people's livelihood and people need to work to make money and provide a better life for their family.

If anyone gets discriminated against just once on the grounds of race, sexuality, disability, age etc. then that is deeply wrong and it ruins people's lives.

Do you not get that? Why don't you step out of your selfish Tory mindset of 'me, me, me' and actually start thinking about other people for a change.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#20)

by bishophill on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:58:05 AM GMT

I didn't say that employing someone was the same as making acquaintances, I said that making friends and employing someone were both types of association you can form. So you have raised a straw man. Do you have any non-fallacious arguments against freedom of association? What I think you are trying to say is that you believe that freedom of association is something we should do without, in order to foster equal opportunities.

Most of the rest of your posting is just venting and name calling. I'll ignore it.

Oh, and I'm not a Tory. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#21)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:48:51 PM GMT

Another Tory who's too ashamed to admit it! No surprises there.

I said that making friends and employing someone were both types of association you can formI said that making friends and employing someone were both types of association you can form.

Both very different types of association. I don't know about you, but I don't pay my friends an hourly wage to hang around with me. Maybe you do, I don't know.

When money is involved, jobs have to be open to all who have sufficient talent. Everyone needs money, even those with minority status. No doubt you're probably a white, heterosexual male who hasn't thought about the consequences of someone telling you you can't have a job because of your skin colour etc.

As I said, stop thinking about 'me, me, me' all the time.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#22)

by bishophill on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:03:13 PM GMT

Again, I'm going to ignore your manners on the assumption that you are just immature and don't know any better. If you want to call me a liar at least have the courage to say so clearly.

You at least seem to have admitted that employment is a form of association, and I agree with you that it's a very different kind of association to friendship. We seem to disagree on whether someone's right to freedom of association is trumped by someone else's need for a job. You are willing to trample someone's human rights in order to force a potentially better qualified candidate on an unwilling employer.

Am I right? Are there other human rights that you are willing to overturn in order to engineer society to your taste? Just asking.

(PS You make assumptions about my race and sexuality. More fallacious argument! My genetic makeup has no bearing on the discussion).


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#23)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:19:27 PM GMT

I do think you're a liar! I thought I made that expressively clear. Not only that, but I consider you to be a bigot. Only people who have got a vested interest in seeing minorities suffer could possibly support denying them employment on the basis of race, sexuality etc.

I'm afraid my friend that it is a human right that people should be allowed to have a job without being discriminated against on the basis of how they were born.

If you disagree with that then there's something wrong with you.

What you are basically advocating is a policy which allows employers to put up 'no blacks' signs or 'no gays' signs or adverts in newspapers which say 'No Over 50's'. Tell me honestly, is this what you want? Are you quite happy for employers to be openly racist or homophobic and deny people a living despite being talented enough to do the job? Why not just be honest about this?

Let's go further - do you think that restaurants, bars, pubs etc. should be allowed to have big signs outside saying 'No Blacks' or 'No Jews'?


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#24)

by bishophill on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:01:05 PM GMT

You are clearly confused. You seem to equate my saying that something should be permitted with my actually advocating it.

I think homosexuality should be permitted, but I don't advocate it. I think cannabis should be legal, but I don't advocate its use. Conversely, I hate tobacco smoke, but I opposed the ban on smoking in pubs.

Do you have a standard for what should be illegal? Or is it just a case of "anything I disapprove of". My standard is that something should be illegal if it causes somebody else harm (see JS Mill). So while adverts which are racist or ageist or sexist are, IMO, disgusting (although I can think of a few exceptions) I don't think that they constitute grounds for outlawing them. Mill points argues that the harm should be direct and at first hand. Not giving someone a job would not meet this standard.

So when you call me a liar and a bigot (you guys really don't do debate, so much as mudslinging here, do you?) you don't actually have a leg to stand on. My whole argument is impeccably liberal (and I would be best described as a liberal, politically). You on the other hand are standing up for bans and thought crimes. With this in mind, I'm sure I can think up some rude names to call you too, but it's not going to enlighten anyone very much is it? Leave it for the playground.

You say that people have a human right to have a job without suffering discrimination. I don't think that such a right exists. That's why you won't find anything like it in the Human Rights Act. Nobody has a right to any particular job.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#25)

by jkitleft on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:12:58 PM GMT

Well let's clear up one thing. There is only one race and that is the human race.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#26)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 01:59:54 PM GMT

First of all bishophill, you are getting confused between liberalism and libertarianism. A public smoking ban is a very liberal thing to do, but it is not libertarian. Additionally, using legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race or sexuality is a very liberal thing to do, but not libertarian.

You're not a 'liberal' I'm afraid - you're a 'libertarian', and a particularly scary type of Ron Paul libertarian too I might say, who believes anything goes, no matter what the consequences are.

You may or may not advocate such bigoted views, but I must say, you're quite naive if you think the consequences of your actions would not be an increase in discrimination and more black people, Jews, gay people, over-50's going without work.


I want to ask you this question - and please answer it rather than going off topic:


What do you think would happen if all anti-discrimination legislation were removed?


Do you think we'll all live happily ever after and no business (large or small) will ever discriminate again?

Because I certainly don't. I know what will happen. You'll get small businesses here, there and everywhere who would love to sack a man because he is gay, you'll get openly racist bosses who will quite happily sack someone because he is black and every business which actually wants to make money would sake everyone once they reached the age of 50. Small B&B's would have signs outside saying 'No Queers' or 'No Muslims'.

Is that the kind of society you want to see bishophill?

I think you live in a libertarian la-la-land where as I live in the real world. I know exactly what would happen if anti-discrimination laws are removed and it wouldn't be pretty.

My standard is that something should be illegal if it causes somebody else harm (see JS Mill).

??? So you don't think that is a worker gets sacked because he or she is black - that this doesn't cause that worker harm? What planet are you living on!

Presumably then if you support Mill's view then you support a ban on smacking children?

You say that people have a human right to have a job without suffering discrimination. I don't think that such a right exists. That's why you won't find anything like it in the Human Rights Act.

I don't know which Human Rights Act you've been reading, but it specifically says you cannot discriminate anyone because of race, gender etc. (with exemptions for religious and political institutions). So you're completely wrong on that one.

And if you don't think it's a human right that people should be allowed to work and not get sacked because of their sexuality or the colour of their skin - then shame on you.

And I'm afraid if you do believe this, then that does make you a bigot.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#27)

by bishophill on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:18:38 AM GMT

There's a lot to respond to here:

We can debate whether I'm talking liberalism or libertarianism, or whether these are in fact the same thing. You clearly believe that Mill was not a liberal, but I don't suppose I'm going to persuade you otherwise.

You've put up another straw man (how many is that now?) by suggesting I believe that "anything goes". This isn't liberalism or libertarianism, or a belief of mine. You are talking about libertinism which is quite different. Why do you persist in creating all these straw men? It doesn't really help your case.

It's debatable if removal of the anti-discrimination laws would make any difference at all since they are in practice pretty much unenforceable. So the answer to your question is that I think that pretty much nothing would happen. I don't think that the British are racist on the whole. Yes, there is a loony fringe who would inevitably put up signs saying "No queers", but they would be shunned by polite society for it. This would arguably have a greater effect on them than any amount of legislation. Discrimination on these lines goes on despite all our laws preventing it.

Your point re the harm principle is not quite right. I was talking about employing someone rather than firing them. When someone is fired their rights are governed by a contract of employment which will set out the reasons under which the employee can be fired. Presuming our minority employee hasn't actually agreed that he can be fired on grounds of his being a minority, then the situation you describe doesn't arise. We can also wonder why a racist employer would take on a minority employee in the first place.

You say I'm wrong on the HRA, so I've checked it again. Article 14 says:

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Since employment is not mentioned elsewhere in the text, the HRA does not appear to protect minorities against discrimination in employment issues. If you are seeing something else, I'm sure you'll point it out to me.

You did very well to write such a long post with only minor lapses into abusive language, but you let it slip at the end, which was a shame. You'll get the hang of it eventually.   


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#29)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:27:00 AM GMT

It seems you're putting up a straw man by endlessly going on about this non-existant abusive language!

Mill was a liberal - it's just that your views and Mill's views are somewhat different.


Anti-discrimination law is certainly not unenforceable and many cases of unfair dismissal have been brought to court and overturned.

Yes, there is a loony fringe who would inevitably put up signs saying "No queers", but they would be shunned by polite society for it.

What difference does that make!? The fact that you think it's even acceptable for hotels to put up 'no queers' signs worries me. Why can't hotels just accept people as they are rather than discriminate against them on the basis of skin colour or sexuality?

Your effectively allowing one standard of living for white, heterosexual men who can get access to any job (provided they are talented enough) and access to any restaurant or hotel, and then a lower standard of living for the 'underclass' (black people, gays) who won't have equal access.

Presuming our minority employee hasn't actually agreed that he can be fired on grounds of his being a minority

Plenty would, just so they get the job in the first place. You're incredibly naive on this issue I must say. Many employers would fire people on the grounds of skin colour if they had the chance and they'd very easily find loopholes in contracts that allow them to do it.


Freedom from dismissal on these grounds is included in the HRA but not explicitly. The general outlawing of discrimination includes employment issues and cases have gone to court because of this.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#30)

by bishophill on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:55:55 PM GMT

 

You think that calling someone a bigot is not abusive? How odd! And you called me a Tory too. (I assume this wasn't meant as a compliment!).

I've told you that I think "no queer" signs are wrong. But I do believe in freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. All of these fundamental freedoms are overridden in some cases where someone cannot exclude another person on the basis of their sexuality, colour etc. (And for the avoidance of doubt, here's a question for you to answer - do you think that these fundamental freedoms should be cancelled in order to avoid discrimination on grounds of age/sex/race. And are there any freedoms that you feel are important enough not to be overridden in this way).

And it cuts both ways too. There was the hotel for gays which was prosecuted (IIRC) for excluding heterosexuals (I'm  not sure how that turned out in the end). Now you would presumably argue that these homosexuals were bigots and the law was quite justified in pursuing them. I just think that they were people who preferred the company of like-minded (-sexed?) people. That's no skin off my nose.

I just think that my world, where everyone's conduct is ruled by mutual consent is much nicer than yours, where both sides are condemned as bigots and are forced to adhere to your preferred behavioural standards (bearing in mind that you are not even a party to the transaction!) 

 

In the real world the problem for employers is getting good employees full stop. (I know, I've been there). These are rabid capitalists, for heaven's sake. They want to make money. Why on earth should someone pay vast sums of money to recruit a highly skilled member of staff and then fire them, triggering another round of disruption and recruitment costs?

And you're seriously saying that someone would sign a contract saying they could be fired on grounds of their skin colour? I'm sorry, but you're stretching credibility here.

I've checked up on the HRA and you are completely wrong. This from the Equal Opportunities Commission:

It is important not to misunderstand the impact of Article 14 of the ECHR, which prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights and refers to discrimination on any ground 'such as sex... other status'. This is not a "free-standing" bar on discrimination and is limited to the identified rights and freedoms within the ECHR and can only be invoked in conjunction with one of those rights. In order to rely on Article 14, a claimant must first point to a separate Convention right (such as the right to freedom of expression), which may arguably have been breached, in conjunction with Article 14. A breach of Article 14 can be found where a substantive Convention right is engaged but it is not necessary to prove that that other Convention right was actually violated.

 (Emphasis is mine)


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#33)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:29:05 PM GMT

Hugh, there's quite a lot wrong with what you've said there.

Firstly, it is rather arrogant of you to assume that all the top mathematicians are male. It may well be true that statistically more men than women occupy the 'extremes' at either end, but you are wrong to say that only men can possibly be top mathematicians. It is true to say that only Tories could come up with such ignorance.

Secondly, you've misunderstood the discussion here. This isn't about positive discrimination - we're talking about people getting sacked or not getting hired because of their skin colour, sexuality etc. despite the fact that they are perfectly talented enough to deserve the job.

Now if the ten best people happen to all be Asians then so be it. If a job requires physically strong people, then physically strong people should be hired (although that's not to say that they all have to be male).

But if one of the top mathematicians for the job was white and yet he or she got discriminated against because of his or her skin colour then that is very wrong and naturally, should be opposed.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#35)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:31:26 AM GMT

No, you're wrong there I'm afraid.

Once again Hugh, I think you've misunderstood the point of this thread - we're talking about anti-discrimation legislation and the benefits of it, not positive discrimination. I hope you can see the difference.

Now, your 'logic' about mathematicians is somewhat worrying. You're confusing statistical probabilities with reality. Men outnumber women in most of the top industries purely for the fact that women take more time out of work to have children and look after them. Far fewer women work full-time than men. Hugh, you have a very chauvanistic attitude and I suggest you don't share your conservative views with any females or you'll likely get a deserved slap in the face!


That's not to say that even in a perfect world, statistically men may outnumber women in the top maths jobs - but men are not more intelligent than women no matter how much you flatter yourself Hugh!

Your equating of positive discrimination to BNP policy isn't worth answering because it's so downright stupid. I don't think you actually understand what positive discrimination is.

Suppose you introduced a law saying that any racist word, deed, or discernible intent automatically got you a jail sentence. So a conjectural law intended to protect minorities would actually jail a lot of them and not many whites.

Aha, I spotted where you've going wrong. You view all anti-discrimination legislation as favouring minorities over majorities. This isn't true. It is illegal for a black employer to sack white employees on the grounds of race too. If minorities discriminate unfairly then they deserved to be punished too.

You also need to consider whether having such laws also introduces collateral effects you weren't expecting and that are worse than the issue you set out to correct.

I've considered it and decided that there are no negative effects of anti-discrimination laws where as there certainly are many negative effects of not having these laws in place. That's why they were introduced in the first place.

So would you support such a law?

No - it would be too much of a restriction on free speech. I suspect most wouldn't support that.

Drink driving was reduced not by stiffening the penalties, but by raising awareness and using peer pressure to make it unacceptable to drive drunk.

??? So you don't think the thought of going to jail for a long time puts people off drink-driving? Certainly puts me off. Plus, if people do drink-drive then they deserve to be punished adequately.

The same approach can work here without inadvertently criminalising a whole bunch of people you are actually trying to help.

Very naive. We all know what would happen if anti-discrimination was removed and it wouldn't be pretty. We'd have one standard of life for white heterosexual males and one rule for the new 'underclass' (everyone else).

Hugh, you spout more of this faux-libertarianism / anarchy where anything goes regardless of the consequences. The motto of the libertarians should be ' we're all free, but some are more free than others'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation (#17)

by jkitleft on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM GMT

While I am vehemently against affirmative action, as shown in UK law (except for the NI police force, which perhaps should be granted an exception), I am in principle for employment discrimination bans, however, I want to know whether the act has any outcome on the decision of employers to fire minorities who they dislike.


Tory attack dogs savage equality legislation | 34 comments (34 topical)