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.

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

Where I'm from we call them homophobes and racists.
Gc trying to destroy the equality act, i can totally see that happening, making the world a worse place.

If you're taking away 'destroy the equality act' then you are not understanding what is being said here.

The whole 'women shut up and put up, because otherwise you'll make things worse for everyone' thing comes out a lot in an attempt to make women stop requiring equality, and is the worst kind of sexism really.

Protecting hate speech will not end well, every sexist, racist, homophobe will use it, who will be worse off?

The belief that anyone who doesn't agree with you is someone you can name call and dismiss and should be silenced and repressed is not a particularly mature one either.

You're making a complex issue into a very black and white one, which does not work. And ends up misrepresenting the situation in an attempt to make women give up their rights to benefit males.

The belief that anyone who doesn't agree with you is someone you can name call and dismiss and should be silenced and repressed is not a particularly mature one either.

Agreed. Particularly if such people then assume the right to classify disagreement as hate speech. I've no idea how anyone thinks that can lead to a functioning social or political system nor fail to observe that these are historically the preconditions for absolutism and authoritarianism.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

The belief that anyone who doesn't agree with you is someone you can name call and dismiss and should be silenced and repressed is not a particularly mature one either.

Agreed. Particularly if such people then assume the right to classify disagreement as hate speech. I've no idea how anyone thinks that can lead to a functioning social or political system nor fail to observe that these are historically the preconditions for absolutism and authoritarianism.

Agreed. Exactly how many times does history have to repeat itself before this sinks in?

@ScreamingMeMe

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

Also for people who hate lesbians, gay, women and many others. Stupid idea. It's a licence for bigotry.

@anaily

Protecting hate speech will not end well, every sexist, racist, homophobe will use it, who will be worse off?

The paper refers to a distinction between hate speech and points of contention.

You can also ask the question, what counts for racism or homophobia. The fact that it's seen as clearly a line that you can draw, no questions asked, is an illustration of the problem.

Because saying, oh, well, we can't stand for those things has become just as much a way to suppress public discussion of important questions as gender ideology has.

Lots of people who don't support CRT, BLM, "taking the knee" or do support certain political parties are now being branded as racists. I've seen people condemned as racists for reading Thomas Sowell, who isn't my cup of tea but it's a bit crazy on the face of it to call him a racist writer. I've seen gay people who don't think same sex marriage is a rights issue, or don't believe in surrogacy, or are conservative Catholics, called homophobic. I've known a man from the back woods trying to make a complaint to the town authorities told he was using the wrong words for aboriginal people, when he was using the same language all his aboriginal neighbours used. Many of these people have well thought out reasons for their views that have nothing to do with hatred of said group. They have a difference of opinion.

People confuse having a different set of ideas or experiences around a question as being some kind of hatred or deep ignorance, very much as they do with gender ideology.

Hate speech laws have been around for a while now, in different places with somewhat different approaches. Is there any evidence that they have reduced hate, or hate crime, or hate speech?

Gottalife

Also for people who hate lesbians, gay, women and many others. Stupid idea. It's a licence for bigotry.

Would any beliefs that are founded in hate not be considered as "extreme beliefs" though? Same for racism. So they wouldn't be covered, would they?

The paper refers to a distinction between hate speech and points of contention.

I'm not sure if some people have actually read the paper.

@StealthPolarBear

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

And 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.

Agree Floral

It is fact and rational thought that need protecting and enforcing, not beliefs which could be rational or not.

Likewise I think we need to shift the language used in discrimination discussions. We used to say suffered ‘wrongful discrimination” or “unfair discrimination”. Now that has become just ‘discrimination” as if all discrimination is wrong. Clearly this is not the case.

What we need to get to is a robust wisdom so that when we discriminate, differentiate etc, it needs to be logical, scientific, rational, factual, proportionate, defensible.

Likewise I think we need to shift the language used in discrimination discussions. We used to say suffered ‘wrongful discrimination” or “unfair discrimination”. Now that has become just ‘discrimination” as if all discrimination is wrong. Clearly this is not the case.

When a male co-worker tells a female co-worker she belongs in the kitchen, is that sexiest and sex discrimination? The same male co-worker tells male co-workers that they belong in the kitchen or they should earn the household income, does the discrimination stop as he was being sexist to everyone so treated everyone equally, hence no discrimination.

Ah, the old chestnut of a sexist man telling women and other men they belong in the kitchen, a scenario we've all seen play out zeroes of times...

When a male co-worker tells a female co-worker she belongs in the kitchen, is that sexiest and sex discrimination?

I think that would be classed as harassment.

Have to disagree oldcrone.

That's clearly 'banter' and if you don't react in the correct way ie smile/ laugh etc. Then it's obvious you have no sense of humour and possibly hate men.

@anaily

Likewise I think we need to shift the language used in discrimination discussions. We used to say suffered ‘wrongful discrimination” or “unfair discrimination”. Now that has become just ‘discrimination” as if all discrimination is wrong. Clearly this is not the case.

When a male co-worker tells a female co-worker she belongs in the kitchen, is that sexiest and sex discrimination? The same male co-worker tells male co-workers that they belong in the kitchen or they should earn the household income, does the discrimination stop as he was being sexist to everyone so treated everyone equally, hence no discrimination.

And this post is bizarre anyway.

I've been working for 30 years and have never heard a man say to get back in the kitchen. I mean I don't know what your experiences are that you have heard that.

I'd be really interested in what sector/ when etc.

I mean it's such a cliche! Blokes have way better things to say and do and have for years.

This is your actual current experience of sexist things at work??!!!

I mean that whole post is bizarre.

How old are you anally?

Over 80?

I cannot fathom what your sector could be. Would like to know as it sounds well. Very very strange!

'When a male co-worker tells a female co-worker she belongs in the kitchen, is that sexiest and sex discrimination?'

In my 30 years experience I have never heard that. Maybe when a group of people are joking around about shit from the old days?
I mean sure someone says it somewhere. But. To think that's a common standard thing is just really very peculiar.

'The same male co-worker tells male co-workers that they belong in the kitchen'

And I've never heard this either. The only reason I can think it would be said is to put down a gay man in the 70s.

'or they should earn the household income, does the discrimination stop as he was being sexist to everyone so treated everyone equally, hence no discrimination.'

I have also never heard anyone say to a man at work he should earn the household income.
I mean. What?
Your examples are so far removed from reality that it makes them hard to take seriously tbh.

In the end you're trying to prove I think that sexism against women at work is... Not an issue or applies to men as well. By using such terrible examples I'm actually quite embarrassed for you.