Reform of EA2010

[RhymesWithOrange]

Just came across this, it was published last week.

https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/The-Future-of-Equality.pdf

Mentions Maya, Kathleen Stock, Reiner Report, Fair Cop Jess de Wahls.

Recommends the Public Sector Equality Duty is amended so that the requirement to promote diversity includes diversity of political opinion, and to stress the need for tolerance of differing political, philosophical, and religious opinions, especially in educational institutions.

Oh that sounds good. For GC people and for wider society. Thanks for posting, OP.

We very much need this now.

Good.

Going to disagree even though understand previous views.

Diversity of political opinion covers a massive range of things. So much can be reasonably be seen as an opinion that has political sides as it were.

Surely it could lead to endless cases to decide whether X counts as a political opinion or not in the first place. Not productive and would not be popular.

Some political views impact on other protected characteristics. That would be messy.

This is about the case to have tw are men protected under religion or belief that Maya F went to court for.

Thing is that this situation afaik is unique. To have consequences for stating something that is totally standard amongst the vast majority of the population.

Personally I know why that characteristic was used in the case.

It really troubles me that something that is just standard for anyone who hasn't rewritten their dictionary IE the vast majority of the population has been found in law to be a belief rather than a fact.

And I am not saying it shouldn't have happened or anything at all. Total respect to MF for the massive determination to prove what was done to her was wrong, have that agreed in a court of law.

It's a more general point I suppose.

What happens if your political views are at odds with the protected characteristics of sexual orientation, or race?

I mean we're so far in the shit now and I don't have a better idea so.

I just worry about what it would look like in practice. Total can of worms.

What needs to happen is the equality act loudly reiterated by govt with definitions and examples.

And additionally that having a basic fucking grasp of biology and saying what the vast majority of the population think is not a fucking hate crime.

The first is doable.

The second much less so with the state of the police etc. And you know without canvassing a large chunk of people and somehow get what they actually think rather than what they know they are supposed to say.

The main review of the EA I’d like to see is some requirement to provide single sex spaces and definitive clarification that these are appropriate and expected in certain circumstances.

It has become obvious recently that there are circumstances where women are not protected by the current act because the provision of single sex spaces is entirely voluntary in a world where women are disadvantaged and the desires of male people are often prioritised.

In addition, it became clear on the recent trade-crisis centre threads that women pushed out of a job intended for women by a man have no recourse to object under the EA.

rape-crisis, not trade crisis…

Very bad idea. ‘Diversity of political opinion’ opens the gateway to allowing people to say that they are allowed to be racist, homophobic….. It offers a massive chink in the armour of the currently very clear EA, a loophole for all sorts to use, not just those with palatable political views.

But as Maya's case established, just because you hold a protecetd belief doesn't mean you can use it to harrass or be prejudiced against someone. I'd imagine that will be taken into account - it seems that this has been inspired by the case.

Agree gerbil. Woman = adult human female should not be classed as a belief any more than the earth is round is a belief.

Very bad idea. ‘Diversity of political opinion’ opens the gateway to allowing people to say that they are allowed to be racist, homophobic

People are 'allowed' to be racist or homophobic, what they are not allowed to do is incite violence and no one with a protected characteristic can be discriminated against, for example in the workplace.

Being homophobic and/or racist makes you not a very nice person in my book and a person I would clash with because I would argue with their viewpoints but I can't change how they think nor do I have a right to.

Tommy Robinson isn't someone I would be mates with but he can think what he wants, he shouldn't be rejected from a job interview because of what he thinks, he should be rejected as a job applicant because he isn't suitable for the role. He could also be rejected as an applicant for a criminal history if he has been prosecuted for inciting violence or hate crime.

What this has lead to is a woman who recognises biological reality could be accused of a hate crime, it goes on her record without her knowledge and she then can't her a job as a teaching assistant.

People can think different things, they just can't go around beating people up.

Ohholy, but this change would allow people to argue that they acted in a particular discriminatory way because of their allowed racist/homophobic belief. At the moment that’s not an excuse.

Interesting. I am not sure whether or not I agree with this but I will read the report and have a think.

I would say that the public sector equality duty in s. 149 of the Act is really a procedural duty. It requires public bodies to "have due regard" to the need to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and promote good relations. It doesn't require any particular outcome, just that these considerations form part of decision making about policies etc.

So an amendment to the PSED as proposed would only be to "have due regard" to diversity of political opinions, not to impose any obligations about what that would look like in practice.

Off to read the report...

@Sittinginthesand

Ohholy, but this change would allow people to argue that they acted in a particular discriminatory way because of their allowed racist/homophobic belief. At the moment that’s not an excuse.

The EA2010 is quite careful to separate out holding a belief and manifesting that belief, where legal constraints may apply and competing rights need to be balanced. So you can hold unpalatable beliefs like homophobia, but acting on them to eg bully a gay colleague or deny a customer service would be unlawful.

I'd be very, very careful about amending legislation like this.

Have many of us just not spent years of our lives campaigning because of the law of unintended consequences?

I support a narrow, carefully written amendment to require single sex provision in certain circumstances. I support the repeal of the GRA. I am very cautious about going beyond that.

We're in a climate where a significant anount of people in influential spaces think women dying as a consequence of men getting what they want doesn't matter. I have no confidence that pressing for wider tinkering with equality legislation won't blow up in our faces and lock us into a wholesale stripping of women's rights, LGB rights, children's protections etc.

I support a narrow, carefully written amendment to require single sex provision in certain circumstances. I support the repeal of the GRA. I am very cautious about going beyond that.

I agree with this. The problem with the EA exception for single sex spaces is that it only allows single sex spaces when service providers and users want a single sex space. What it doesn't do is make single sex spaces a requirement under any circumstances, because nobody predicted at the time that service providers would want to remove single sex provision.

This article is also relevant legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/21/schrodingers-pcp/

I started a thread on it here
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4355619-Legal-Feminist-article-Revisits-AEA-v-EHRC

@Sittinginthesand

Ohholy, but this change would allow people to argue that they acted in a particular discriminatory way because of their allowed racist/homophobic belief. At the moment that’s not an excuse.

I don't think it would. If homophobic views were more on display in the workplace, if that homophobic person felt empowered to share their views then, I would hope they would be challenged. It can also show where their homophobia comes from, if it's how they were raised or if it's from an experience. It doesn't make it fair or morally right, but you can't control what other people think, if you did then that is truly the thought police. I don't think the current discussion around this is helping to find common ground or get to the root cause. We can't understand each other if we don't talk and if we talk we might find we don't understand that person and have no wish to try.

I also don't think that is what reform of the EA2010 would do anyway, not necessarily.
If it was about having a plurality of political views then you couldn't discriminate against someone for being a Conservative voter for example. Should someone not get a job if they voted for Brexit or for Nigel Farage?

It would also be a matter of what direction the law reform of the EA went in, my point is we already have laws against inciting racial hatred and violence and I think they broadly work well.

(I've been looking at racism in football recently and there are specific laws to take action against racist acts at football games, the laws just need to be applied and for consequences to follow, and they do.)

Personally I think applying critical race theory in schools and talk about white privilege and white fragility isn't helping racial divides and the rise in homophobia is something that should be explored and challenged as I don't think it is all about what it looks like on the surface. If anything we need to talk more about this stuff not less so to be truly tolerant if we can't be accepting.

(I don't think we should tolerate homophobia or racism but there are racist and homophobic people who we live alongside and they don't need to be punished for their view, but they should face consequences if they are violent or incite violence against any one group based in a protected characteristic. I would say the same of misogyny, sexism and violence against women and girls.)

It does not need amending so much as enforcing.

What needs sorting out is guidance regarding direct conflict between allowing people to use provisions according to choice, while at the same time providing single sex only female provisions for female inclusion and equality (multiple protected characteristics involved).

With strong reinforcement that services not only are allowed to but must ensure that female only provisions are available, without being harassed and legally challenged, while providing mixed sex spaces for those who require them.

I support a narrow, carefully written amendment to require single sex provision in certain circumstances. I support the repeal of the GRA. I am very cautious about going beyond that.

Same for me too.

@Sittinginthesand

Very bad idea. ‘Diversity of political opinion’ opens the gateway to allowing people to say that they are allowed to be racist, homophobic….. It offers a massive chink in the armour of the currently very clear EA, a loophole for all sorts to use, not just those with palatable political views.

This. And the naive and eager "oh we'll get our GC beliefs protected" plays into the hand of exactly those people who want to express their racist, sexist, homophobic views without consequences.

Oh and strong reminders that there are nine characteristics not just one; that those characteristics are not optional or replaceable with ones you happen to like better; an idiots guide to how to do an Equality Impact Assessment (remembering all nine characteristics required by law); and that no one characteristic is more important than and gets to trump any other. And accountability when this is not done properly.

And the naive and eager "oh we'll get our GC beliefs protected"

It feels early for the reminder of the conventional, "Women, be quiet because your protected characteristic should defer to all others in all circumstances" plus the implicit false evaluation of the sophistication of some of the posters on FWR.

@Sittinginthesand

Very bad idea. ‘Diversity of political opinion’ opens the gateway to allowing people to say that they are allowed to be racist, homophobic….. It offers a massive chink in the armour of the currently very clear EA, a loophole for all sorts to use, not just those with palatable political views.

People are racist or homophobic. You can't control it. If you stop them expressing it in public you just drive it underground and let it fester. Better by far that people say what they think and then can be identified and argued with and their lies and prejudice exposed.

What you can legislate against is the use of homophobia or racism to harass or harm or hold back others, and that's why we have hate speech legislation and the EA2010 which protects certain characteristics.

I'm a lifelong Labour voter, someone who's supported civil liberties, and I'm increasingly horrified by the authoritarian direction we're going in. I support freedom of speech, even if I detest what people say.

Just to add that I see this authoritarian 'you can't say that' as a reflection or extension of the idea of safe spaces, where everyone and everything that could upset someone has to be silences and suppressed.

Better by far that we grow up and face the reality — that there are people who are misogynist, racist, homophobic and inclined to voices opinions we don't agree with — and learn ways of living with that. Expose the racism, allow sunlight in, change the racist individual's mind. We GC women know what it's like to be silenced. It's not a solution. It just makes us stronger.