Campaign Launch: Why it's time to review the Equality Act. 60 tickets left.

[PencilsInSpace]

You know how we are constantly being told that there are no planned changes to the EA, and that therefore the proposed changes to the GRA don't affect us?

Well, it turns out a group of politicians are launching a campaign to review the EA.

The launch event is free to attend, Wed 20th June, 4-6 pm, House of Commons

Description

The Equality Act 2010 was established to cover nine protected characteristics: Age, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Marriage or Cvil Partnership, Pregnancy and Maternity, Race, Religion or Belief, Sex, and Sexual Orientation.

However, in 2018 alone, we have seen the gender pay-gap issue, punish a Muslim day letters, concerns about anti-Semitic attitudes and behaviour, and the Windrush Scandal. All of these issues have in common the way in which they compel us to question what equality means in today's society. A number of characteristics such as homelessness, ethnicity, and poverty, although can give rise to discrimination, are not covered by the act. We believe that the equality act needs to be strengthened in order to ensure that we live in a fair and equal society for all.

We are marking the launch of our campaign with an event in Parliament titled "Why it's time to review the Equality Act?". Our speakers include:

1. Afzal Khan MP and Shadow Minister for Immigration
2. Baroness Ruby McGregor-Smith
3. Wes Streeting MP
4. Shabana Mahmood MP
5. Jess Philips MP
6. Mark Lewis (Solicitor)

I'm going to this.

That is a great question.

I assume someone is planning to ask for an assurance that there will be no attempt to remove the word 'sex' nor to legally expand the definition away from biological sex.

I've just booked for this.

I'm pretty useless at thinking on my feet/speaking coherently, but maybe I can raise a question from this thread?

I'd like to meet up beforehand too. I think there's a pub the other side of Parliament Square, just off Birdcage Walk. Can't remember what it's called...

I'm having a think about questions.

Thanks Prawn, I would have liked to see you too! I've got to go away for work next week and playing catch up all the time sadly.

Just remembered the name of the pub: Westminster Arms. It's on Storey's Gate.

There are already inconsistencies which are known in the equality act, like the protection of breastfeeding and pregnant mothers. I'd like to know why they were not included in the header, and represented on the panel. I'd also like to know when a mother is going to be defined as a female sex person for purposes of the law.

Hi, just to say it may be best not to identify the time you will be in the pub as this may make you a target. I know that sounds overly cautious but I wouldn't put times and places on here but instead would message posters.

I wish I could some, still trying to find a sitter! Do pm me if there are definite plans to meet up before hand or afterwards. Thanks.

Oh yes, sorry! Big mouth. In fact I'm just merrily posting names of pubs in the locality - as yet I haven't actually made plans to meet anyone...!

I might be able to join you in the pub afterwards for a drink if you go. I'll keep an eye on what's going on and see if I'm free. I can easily contact a couple of people who are going.

OK, I've got my three points, and a question...

Question -Before the act is changed or expanded we need legally binding assurances that the rights and definitions of those already covered by the act will not be changed or diminished in any detrimental way.

My points to 'back up' this question are...

Firstly, the act makes provision for people with needs. It is not about being a minority. There are plenty of groups that are minorities but don't have additional needs (the super rich, those who went to Harvard, elite athletes etc).

Females are at least half the planet and half the population of this country. But we are oppressed because of biology. So I think the argument must framed around 'needs' and protections and not around simply who is (an oppressed) minority.

Secondly, I hope taking new groups into the act will not be detrimental to those already covered by the act. Because that would be unfair. Our needs as females have not changed, in fact the predominance on our planet of the human race is testament to the fact females have been doing the 'biological thing' for millennium. And we are still oppressed because of it!

If we were not oppressed for our biology it would not matter, but we are, and it does. So we do need protection.

Thirdly, I think as women it should be recognized we are often at the forefront of caring for others, often unpaid and undervalued. We are not (in the main) responsible for the violence carried out against others, or especially against other protected groups.

This doesn't, I think, IMHO, mean we should get special treatment, but it does mean that we should not be overlooked.

I don't even know if my third point is relevant but I think it is because if we look at the way women have been treated, (denied reproductive rights, separated from their children because they are not married, expected to care for the younger generation and the older generation (sometimes simultaneously) and often for free, paid less, raped, abused, sexualized etc etc) we can see that females are, as a group, in our society (and pretty much every society) treated worse than those who are not us.

So before the act is changed, or dismantled, or re-formed, the protections for those already in the act need to be set in stone.

That's brilliant Italian

How can they object to that

Females are at least half the planet and half the population of this country. But we are oppressed because of biology. So I think the argument must framed around 'needs' and protections and not around simply who is (an oppressed) minority.

YY. We have unique needs that are frequently dismissed, disregarded and not addressed due to structural sexism/misogyny.

www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/blog/uk-equality-act-is-not-fit-for-purpose-its-time-for-the-law-to-recognise-multiple-discrimination

I was enjoying this article till it started asking us to support gender equality.

"The British Academy of Film and Television Arts has today confirmed its new eligibility requirement for the British film categories at the EE British Academy Film Awards in 2019"

"The areas of under-representation the Standards address are all the protected characteristics from the Equality Act 2010, as they pertain to the act. These are gender, gender identity, age, carers (including working parents), pregnancy/maternity, disability, race/ethnicity, religion or belief, sexual orientation and marriage/civil partnerships. The Standards also seek to address under-representation of people from lower socio-economic groups and ensure wide regional participation"

www.bafta.org/media-centre/press-releases/new-diversity-requirement-film-awards

What? No sex?

so BAFTA is making "progress" along the same lines

I'm coming to this. Won't get there too early as I'm coming from work but if someone can pm me the meeting place it would be good to see you all.

May I suggest you take discussions of questions etc off this forum?

Strategies etc might be more effective if those with opposing viewpoints were not to know about them in advance

I think what I'd most like to ask them is what their intentions are. Are they suggesting the whole EA should be up for review or do they have specific things they want changed in it? What are their practical plans? How will they consult? Do they intend to introduce a private members bill or what?

It's not just what the law says, it's how it works in practice.

I want to mention the #sexmatters thing and the number of local authorities and other public orgs that can't even correctly list the protected characteristics - not just the sex/gender willful confusion, I saw some glaring omissions - one LA forgot about race!

Public Sector Equality Duty - are orgs fulfilling their duty to properly assess the impact of their policies? Clearly not when you look at trans schools guidance. Lots of examples unrelated to sex as well, especially disability - universal credit can only be claimed via an online journal which is causing lots of problems for people with LD, local authorities removing all phone contacts from their websites and literature and expecting everyone to do everything via online forms - it's accessibility 101 to provide different ways for people to access services and a lot of that is being removed.

Sex based exceptions - how are they working in practice? EG all women shortlists! To what extent are women prevented from asserting their rights due to victimisation, and why is that not being tackled? (That one's for Wes )

I'll have some time tomorrow morning to collate people's questions. I'm really pleased there are a few of us going.

There may be very little chance to question or comment at all, but over my dead body will anything else be changed quietly and under the radar.

Haha shit x post

If I think of anything else I'll send you directly Pencils. But I think people have covered the main things for me.

What mechanisms are in place to ensure all people with protected characteristics are represented equally?
(Like my example in other threads of wanting to be able to articulate my identity as a lesbian in my own words, when I view this as a sex-based attraction and dominant language focuses on gender, and the way I experience anxiety around this due to my autism and inability to negotiate new rules).
Currently it seems that campaigning groups with the most funds and energy and with ideas that fit in with establishment conventions are the most successful in having their voices heard.

I've got a ticket too, and would be well up for a drink beforehand if that's still happening.

I'm going. Yay.