The ConDems are 'consulting' on scrapping the equalities act

[AliceWorld]

here

The backlash continues...

Link to article here

Let's not make bogeymen that aren't there yet - particularly not when ther's a job to be done now.

Can someone help me with who at would be the best arguments to make in this consultation?

• as well as the Equalities Act, which of the others need to be commented on?

• obviously we say that it shouldn't be scrapped.

• what do we say in terms of alterations and improvements?

I think in relation to what else needs picking up on you ahve to read and decide for yourself; i concentrated on the ones about not providing lifelong care (after all, I do my best but after I die that probably won't be enough), and provision of SEN education.

Lots will jump out at you as you peruse the list however, and you must prioritise as you see fit.

The Fire Regulations Act being scrapped is VERY important in relation to whether or not Huge swathes of people keep their jobs: this one piece of Legislation determines the legal requirement of "minimum numbers" (of people) in any number of workplaces.

Scrap this one piece of Legislation and people will be out of work, pronto.

I thought the ones about employment law, and on pensions at least might be directly of interest to posters in this forum.

But I'll go it alone on my responses if there is no consensus on which are the most important reforms to resist, or what are the improvements wanted, or the good and persuasive arguments to use.

For me its the evironmental regulations of most concern, they are suggesting getting rid of the Environmental Permitting regs which are what controlls what pollution companies dump into the water/ground/air and the Environmental Information regs which give us all the powers to ask about for information on environmental issue from the government/state owned busiesses. And then there is the Climate Change Act, rights of way, habitiats protections and trade in endagered animals etc etc

Not that everthing else isn't as important, just my personal interest.

To me the danger is that all these regulations are generally not interesting (to technical and dull) except to the few which are against them, and changes could slip through without anyone noticing.

Presumably this is the legislation used by the Fawcett Society to challenge the cuts because they disproportionately affect women? If the public sector is attacked then all that work will be put back in the home and done for free by (primarily) women.

I applaud your campaigning attitude, meditrina, but I suspect you're not getting a consensual and organised response regarding the best way of approaching this is because it's a thread talking specifically about the equalities act posted in the Feminism/Women's Rights section.

Maybe it's worth starting a thread on the subject on another board in order to get a wider response to the whole package?

I was hoping to find which, of the all the areas up for reform, were relevant to this forum (which is why I mentioned specifically pensions and employment law in my later post). Are you saying there is nothing in those "regulations" which is of feminist concern? If so, phew.

This whole consultation exercise can become an opportunity. But I don't know either:

a) which parts - if any - of the Equality Act (or other acts) need improving, and
b) the best way to make persuasive arguments on this points

and still hope there may be some help forthcoming here. Or is there something wrong with actually engaging with the consultation in they way requested (via linked website)? Or just wrong in asking for things to say other than this which might occur to individuals?

Nononono, not at all - you misunderstand me, meditrina.
I just wondered if a different approach might be more effective in garnering a focused effort - which is clearly worth making.

But if your idea is to target the areas of legislation of most interest to feminists, then fair enough - this is the place.

In that case, perhaps it would be worth starting a new thread on this board trying to pull together a campaign aimed at responding to this consultation in a more targeted manner.

They are intent on making it impossible for women to work.

I tend to think that effort becomes diluted when it is spread across threads.

I'd expected posters here would have wanted to tackle all the relevant angles (they are all on link in OP).

And even if not, my request for help in which improvements to call for, and how to drive it forward persuasively still stands in the narrower context of the one Act only. But I don't want to keep banging on about it, and will just lurk now to see if anyone does have any good answers on this bit.

I don't know how to improve it, meditrina, and I should think fairly few people in the general public would know either. What I do know is that the Equalities Act offers protections, and if it is binned then who knows what the situation will be with discrimination legislation. Some posters here have mentioned specific instances in which this legislation has affected their lives. Reading through it it's not difficult to imagine others.

I would seriously urge people to write to their MPs as well as contributing on the website. They have an obligation to follow up your questions and respond to you.

Sorry for my moodiness last night. I just really do get surprised that women are shocked when male govermments target women. One of the first things the Condems did was specifically target women (who are poorer anyway because of childcare responsibilities) for cuts, whereas men, who are richer, did not get targeted.
Then they wanted to change rape anonymity laws.

It reminds me of an anecdote I read about a virgin southern pacific island who were about to be invaded by colonialists. According to the story the natives saw the massive ship coming but rather than taking up their spears and defending themselves they went back to their work as if nothing was happening. The sight being registered before their eyes was was above and beyond anything they could conceptualize.

Sancti, you can't say they're "not just targeting women" because disabled people are targeted too. All this means is that women are DOUBLY targeted: roughly 50% of disabled people are women.

Put it this way, they're not going out of their way to target men, that's for sure.

Bump

Sorry, I did say I wasn't going to come back, bit I really do need some advice from you experts.

Which bits of the Equality Act in respect of Women's rights are new in this specific act and are not/not covered by previous legislation?

Thanks.

It's scandalous isn't it? I don't know what they think this website will achieve.

Quite apart from the mind boggling at proposing the Equality Act be scrapped, it's also outrageous that parliamentary procedure has been reduced to this.

Is this how decisions are now made in this country? People vote on a website and laws are repealed? WTF!

I agree with meditrina that there are lots of sections on there that are relevant to the feminism section of MN. There's lots in there that will affect women in the pensions and employment bits too.

Well Sakura I do know what you mean, so I'm not shocked in general about it - more shocked that there has been no comment on it.

And - above all - determined not to go back to work and forget about it.

Anyone written a letter yet?

Alright SWC, what you're saying is interesting but can you leave out the "orgy of hysteria" chat? Got enough men telling us we're insane, over-reacting harpies ruled by our hormones, thanks, without you joining in the fun.

Cheers.

SWC I do know that Dh used the Eu regs together with this act to avoid being thrown off his course for being late and missing a crucial uni session because ds1 had a meltdown in Dh's car as he was dropped off at comp for a transition day.

'Sancti, you can't say they're "not just targeting women" because disabled people are targeted too. All this means is that women are DOUBLY targeted: roughly 50% of disabled people are women.

I thought I went on to demnstrate how the rules woudl adversely affect mroe women than men? . Of course half of disabled people are men (is that actually right I wonder- in teh classes I teach it's more like 75% male but that may be a random thing and certainly is not relevant).

Many disabled people are female; most arers are female. It ALL hits women disprportionately. But it will hit others as well. The effects on my boys would be as negative as for me, and I will fight as hard for them as for myself.

smallwhitecat isn't Section 1 the socio-economic duty bit which was scrapped before it came into force? If so, then obviously it hasn't been used at all

It's a "possibility" that shouldn't have been mentioned.

Much of what's in the Equality Act is bound up with EU law so it would be easier said than done to just scrap it.

As I said before, there's also the important point of decision making processes and accountability. Are we happy for our government to overturn pieces of legislation that took years of deliberation and debate (and a lot of input from Tories and Lib Dems, not just Labour) on the basis of comments on a website

It's just bonkers.

Rosa: does that mean you think that people shouldn't engage in this consultation?

I'm not sure. I think it's all bullshit but I guess there's no harm in inundating the site with all the reasons why the legislation is important and why they shouldn't be proposing scrapping it.

Having looked at some of the comments, I think quite a few people on there have pointed out that the website represents a rather worrying move in terms of policy making and decision making processes in government.

'Much of what's in the Equality Act is bound up with EU law so it would be easier said than done to just scrap it.

Except that the idea of abolishing Eu membership and legalities has also been mooted.

I'm sorry to talk from a Sn perspective; it's not that I don;;t care about equality, I do, hugely but it's just my field IYSWIM; but a lot of the equality act provisions are enforced usually be reference to the EU provision (such as carer's rights- which IS a hugely feminist topic IMO) so tehy would need to jointly scrapped; also the right to sn education, whcih is a huuman right ATM. Scrapping one without the other would be pointless.

'Are we happy for our government to overturn pieces of legislation that took years of deliberation and debate (and a lot of input from Tories and Lib Dems, not just Labour) on the basis of comments on a website'- it's already happening, it's how the DLA consultation worked. It has become an established process. And no, i don;t like it; anonymous comments seemed to hugely outweight the direct experiences of many and concerns of the large charitable bodies. I want decision based n fact and experienced input; not opened up to the BNP members and hate organisations (whom it must be noted seem to have issues with all the groups likely to be affected by this idea)