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.

@PencilsInSpace

Offred I don't think monitoring of PCs is forced as such. There's the public sector equality duty which says any organisation performing a public function has to pro-actively advance equality. Monitoring is obviously going to help them do that - and to show they are doing that - but as far as I know it's not a legal obligation. We just got mandatory reporting of the gender pay gap and there was the suggestion in the meeting that this should be done across other PCs too.

There is already a lot of monitoring of socioeconomic inequality without poverty being added as a PC. There's also Part 1 of the EA which is the public sector duty regarding socioeconomic inequality.

This section requires specified public bodies, when making strategic decisions such as deciding priorities and setting objectives, to consider how their decisions might help to reduce the inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage. Such inequalities could include inequalities in education, health, housing, crime rates, or other matters associated with socio-economic disadvantage. It is for public bodies subject to the duty to determine which socio-economic inequalities they are in a position to influence.

It's carefully written in that individuals cannot bring private discrimination cases under this duty, although they can seek judicial review if they believe a public org has not considered socioeconomic disadvantage when making strategic decisions.

Also what I have learnt since 2018 is that Part 1 of the EA - the public sector socioeconomic duty - has never been brought into force in England. It was brought in in Scotland in 2018, and Wales in March this year.

Thank you for the update!

2. Addition of characteristics that are not already protected, and the modification of existing characteristics to align with the current social environment, ten years on from the writing of the initial legislation. New characteristics could include: homelessness, low socio-economic status and/or poverty, caste, immigration status, and others as appropriate; modifications could include: joining “sex” and “gender reassignment” to be one protected characteristic using gender neutral language

Eye roll.

modifications could include: joining “sex” and “gender reassignment” to be one protected characteristic using gender neutral language

What is wrong with this generation of young women?!

[disclaimer: NAYWALT]

Three years later they have 13 named MP supporters

Looking more closely, Dr Mishana Hosseinioun is not an MP, so they have 12 named MP supporters.

I see someone has already posted this but have to say this again:

others as appropriate; modifications could include: joining “sex” and “gender reassignment” to be one protected characteristic using gender neutral language

What is wrong with these people. They are talking about needing to expand the protected characteristics, and what do they then highlight? Erasing women.

Does anyone know anyone at the Times or (groan) the Telegraph.

This needs to be brought out into the open.

(And also surely protected charateristics are about things intrinsic to someone, eg their sex, race, disability, age. Being poor isn't intrinsic, it is something imposed on people, more often than not by politicians. Make it sounds like they dont think poverty can be ended because as MPs they are so useless, so those who suffer poverty should be what? not discriminated against. Muppets.)