The ConDems are 'consulting' on scrapping the equalities act

[AliceWorld]

here

The backlash continues...

Link to article here

Exactly. I don't disagree Peachy. I agree that there have been lots of noises about withdrawing from EU. I also agree that this is just part of a biger picture of consultations and research being scrapped, anonymous comments on websites outweighing the well reasoned arguments of stakeholders from the voluntary sector etc.

Part of me thinks it's a gimmick and it will sink without a trace (wasn't there one like this last year? A Clegg initiative?). But part of me worries that the government really will implement policy/scrap legislation on the back of gimmicks like this. Terrifying.

Well theya re implementing changes to disability support despite evidence (based on ESA assessment evaluation) that it fails those with a non visible disability such as ASD or MH issues- those least able to self advocate, potentially.

It's going mainstream now; with potentially devastating consequences. Lightweight twitter era politics for the dumbed down amsses.

SWC - here

Um, I'm not inventing an enemy to attack, I'm not attacking you, I'm politely asking you not to use misogynistic language. The only thing I'm interested in attacking is a move to scrap laws that protect us, and since getting rid of this law is one possible outcome of the consultation, this is surely the time to argue against it.

swc - you are the one being offensive not Elephants. She is not making a personal attack on you, but on the language you used. She asked you politely not to use the word hysteria. It is sexist - it is generally only used against women. This is the feminist board. Sexist language will be challenged.

Yes, that's why I linked to wikipedia, because there is no other evidence that hysteria has EVER been used as a label to put women down, criticise their mental faculties, or otherwise imply that they should not worry their pretty little heads. It definitely wasn't because I quickly googled and linked the first half-useful thing that came up to give any readers an overview of why I object to the term. Oh no. I can link to the works of Freud on Project Gutenberg if you prefer, but I know that you're bright enough to already know about the meaning and history of this word so I won't play along if that's alright with you.

I'm not going to withdraw it - calling women hysterical is misogynistic language. Have it deleted if you like, I really don't mind, but if politely commenting on the language someone uses is a personal attack, I am obviously not sensitive enough to post on MN.

Anyway, back to the actual aubject of this thread. It is pretty strange that an actual MP in the government knows next to nothing about this - can't work out if that's a good thing (i.e. they are not taking it too seriously and it's just an exercise), or a bad thing (it is being slipped past unnoticed, taking a whole swathe of legal protections with it). Any thoughts?

What an utterly bizarre website. They are suggesting (as a option for consideration) scrapping not just the Equalities Act, but other acts such as the Firearms Act (which controls sale/possession of guns) and the Sale and Supply of Goods Act (which provides fundamental rights for consumers). Oh, and while we're at it, let's scrap the regulations that protect people from exposure to asbestos.

Don't know what was wrong with what we had previously. I sympathise with small businesses -- it must be pretty scary to even advertise a job nowadays.

Goos becuase it offered zero protection to carers, just for a start- plus an awful lot outside my knowledge zone as well I suspect. And the fact it addressed issues preventing people with cured / managed syndromes from getting into work based on no longer relevant health histories?

If someone can't manage to run a small business in a way that doesn;t break the act then they should not run a business. Why yes, we do have a small business actually.

Melpomene - immediate thought is - it's cheaper to use asbestos and Sale of Goods protects consumers from unscrupulous retailers/manufacturers, thus costs them money. It very often turns out to be the bottom line and main motivation.

Melpomene: the website is using the same verbiage and suite of options for every one of the 25 or so areas it lists. It asks about scrapping for each of them.

But, far more importantly, it asks how to improve each

Surely this is the aspect to concentrate on, and use as an opportunity?

Can anyone point me at areas of the Equality Act (or any of the others of obvious interest) that is not covered by previous legislation? Also what, if any improvements, to any area, is this a good time to call for?

[PS: I'm not keen on the word "hysteria" either, because of its etymology, but I hope is side issue doesn't derail the thread].

But surely in any reasonable democratic society it should simply not be an option to 'scrap' gun control laws (including the law against selling firearms to children), all laws controlling the use of hazardous chemicals etc? Does anyone but the most extreme anarchist really think that it's a good idea to scrap those laws?

The fact that they have used the same wording every time shows that not much thought has gone into the consultation process.

melpomene: I can't find gun control in the linked list: which one of the headings is it under?

I think it's over-interpreting to say they are scrapping all laws about eg hazardous chemicals. All the items up for discussion seem to be either statutory instruments/guidelines, or portmanteau legislation where provision for most (though not all) issues already exists in precious legislation or treaty obligations.

How much of this is fighting bureaucracy, and how much is it the actual issues? Which issues would need fresh legislation/regulation if these specific ones were scrapped? And what, ideally, would it look like?

I know that they're not seriously going to end up scrapping all of those laws; it's just thoughtlessly presented and implying that they are considering scrapping important legislation which protects vulnerable people doesn't inspire any confidence at all.

The Firearms Act is under the Dangerous and restricted goods section. The Children and Young Persons Act, which prohibits cruelty to children and child prostitution, is under the same section.

Thanks melpomene!

Ph goodness I hate it when I bang on but 'that is not covered by previous legislation? Also what, if any improvements, to any area, is this a good time to call for?

Yes; this was first time (in conjunction with EU) that carers got rights- EU IIRC regulated that the rights given in the act applied to carers by default.

So if you are late because of your child's SN, or need appointments etc you are safe. Keeps a lot of carers in employment for a start!

Carers are not exclusively female but due to lot of things- propernsity of SN affected famillies to marital breakdown, increased healrh in old age etc- rgey do tend to bw.

Oh goodness yes I forgot all teh chuld protection stuff (such as the duty to provide CP servies) is also up for debate.

Whilst I know that most of these will simply continue to exist, I strongly suspect that things like the equality act etc will be decried as placing a burden on businesses and ended. Possibly the SN ed stuff as well, seeing as many parents use it to force the LEA t educate their child effectively.

The only Firearms Act up for this exercise is that of 1968. The subsequent legislation in 1982, 1988 and 1997, and 2009 are not up for change.

Peachy: thanks.

Sorry. Haven't had a chance to read all of thread but am packing to go away tomorrow and would like to get an e-mail to my mp tonight/tomorrow am if needed but want to put a clear question about a clear issue. Does anyone know if, for example, Fawcett have heard of this and what they say?

Meditrina - that's a relief, at least.

PS - took your advice E&M - decided to write to my MP anyhow, even though I am a little short on detail. Will catch up on the thread when I get more time.

notenoughsocks, not sure if I'm too late but yes Fawcett know. On the email I have they are 'extremely concerned' and urge people to 'comment on the suggestion to scrap the 2010 Equality Act'

Hi- am coming very late to this thread- apologies. I have tried to find media coverage of this and failed. Does anyone know if this issue has been picked up in the press at all, and if so, where? Would be really grateful if anyone could give me any links. Thank you.