Sunak would amend the Equality Act

[achillestoes]

Rishi Sunak has been trailing Liz Truss in the Tory leadership battle, and he is now trying to re-invent himself a bit. He has strengthened his positions on sex in the Equality Act meaning biological sex, and specifically said the following about the EA:

“The worst offender in this regard is the 2010 Equality Act, conceived in the dog days of the last Labour government.
“It has been a Trojan horse that has allowed every kind of woke nonsense to permeate public life.”

There is a suggestion that he would ‘review’ the Equality Act. Not sure whether that means he would amend it or repeal it, but obviously we would still have the GRA, which without the Equality Act to alter its meaning, even if slightly, would give the TRAs a boost.

Please note that thedancingbear initiated hostilities at 11:08am with the comment "bigots and arseholes".

I'm sure that if we reply in kind, we'll be the ones in the wrong.

A very well executed "oh, I didn't mean you..."

It's easier to back-track in writing than it is face-to-face, isn't it?

Some posters never realise that throwing around insults just confirms that they have no credible arguments to bring to a debate.

Agree about “woke nonsense” - terrible phrase to use that suggests he’s desperate to win votes in a policy area he hasn’t understood. The idea of a “dog whistle” is way overused but that’s an obvious sop being thrown out to any reactionary bigots in the Tory party he can scoop up.

How about just getting rid of all nonsense from policy and making laws based on scientific evidence and a balance of rights as a general principle?

Fgs. I'm not seeking to 'initiate hostilities'. I don't think Sunak gives a toss about women's rights (or trans rights, or the rights of BAME people, or gay people, or anyone else). He's saying whatever he can to get elected, which includes appealing to people's basest instincts.

If he were to say, in essence 'genderism is becoming a bigger issue, and the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the TRAs. We need a rebalancing of women's and trans rights' then I would applaud that.

But that isn't what he said. He's wittering on about 'woke nonsense' like a Mail Online sub-editor.

He's not a friend of gay people, or black people, or women, or trans people, or poor people (especially poor people), or anyone. Few of the Tories are (and yes, I recognise there are comparable problems within other parties)

Exactly this. 'Dog whistle' is the perfect expression

This is such an interesting discussion - and much needed to be had in government. It's also a real rebuttal to the sneering posters who pop up on here to lecture us that our concerns are not shared by the general population - yet here we are. Women's rights, language, sex ed in schools, sport all being addressed by tory politicians!

@Datun

Nobody very explicitly, but there’s a change in tone from some. It’s more ‘come on now, guys, this is crazy!’ When it’s not at all crazy. They refused all discussion and now this is the outcome.

I'm so glad they are talking about this.

It needs to be no longer seen as a minority issue.

I don't think either of them will actually change the law but guidance/ practice should change.

"I never thought I'd see two politicians going head-to-head on the basis of who can support women's rights the most tho."

I know! It's incredible how much things have now changed after years of us banging on about it.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/29/rishi-sunak-protect-words-man-woman-mother/

Headline: Sunak vows to banish Leftist 'woke nonsense'

Extract
Rishi Sunak has vowed pledged to protect the terms "women" and "mother" as he blamed the Equality Act for promoting "woke nonsense".

He is expected to say: "What's the point in stoppping the bulldozersin the Green Belt if we allow Left-wing agitators to take a bulldozer to our history, our traditions and our fundamental values. Whether it's pulling down statues of historic figures, replacing the school curriculum with anti-British propaganda, or rewriting the English language so we can't even use words like 'man', 'woman' or 'mother' without being told we're offending someone."

While Mr Sunak will insist the Tories have "zero interest" in inflaming current controversies around contentious social issues, he is set to highlight the use of existing laws that are being "used to engage in social engineering to which no one has given consent."

"The worst offender in this regard is the 2010 Equality Act."

"It has been a Trojan horse that has allowed every kind of woke nonsenses to permeate public life and it must stop. My Government would review the Act to ensure we keep legitimate protections while stopping mission creep."

"Our laws must protect free speech, block biological men from competing in women's sport and ensure that children are allowed to be children."

He has pledged to produce clear guidance explaining sex in the Equality Act means biological sex and self-identification does not carry any weight in law.

I never thought I'd see two politicians going head-to-head on the basis of who can support women's rights the most tho.

It's amazing to see and regardless of who wins the leadership contest the next few years are going to be fantastic for women and girls.

The obvious thing wrong with the Equality Act in my view is the existence of "gender reassignment" as a protected characteristic. The definition is woolly and meaningless:

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

What on earth does "other attributes" mean? What even does "reassigning the person's sex" mean?

If you're going to have trans identity in there, you need a watertight definition.

I agree @RoyalCorgi the whole thing is a woolly mess and Rishi Sunak is right to say this:

The worst offender in this regard is the 2010 Equality Act, conceived in the dog days of the last Labour government.

It has been a Trojan horse that has allowed every kind of woke nonsense to permeate public life.

Any legislation must have clear definitions.

No-one can change sex, it cannot be re-assigned and that needs to be made clear.

The intersection between the GRA and the EqA is also problematic, both rely on hideously regressive sex based stereotypes which are downright insulting and offensive.

I think both need to be re-written and I question the merits of keeping the GRA at all.

Clearly defined terms and absolute lines need to be drawn, no room for obfuscation or misinterpretation.

People born male should respect that women have a right to safety and dignity and single sex spaces where someone who has a Penis does not there.

Well, they've made it clear they won't so the only way to ensure the safety, dignity and privacy of women is to force them to do so.

I think it's quite clear from both of their perfomances recently that women's rights are now at the forefont of the British public's minds, maybe even the most important issue to them right now.

rewriting the English language so we can't even use words like 'man', 'woman' or 'mother' without being told we're offending someone."

I can't wait to be able to start using these words again without threat of retribution.

Bring it on.

‘The idea of a “dog whistle” is way overused but that’s an obvious sop being thrown out to any reactionary bigots in the Tory party he can scoop up.’

But what is it dog whistling about? What do you think he means to do? The leaked text of his speech says he means to retain legitimate protections while clamping down on the excessive bits.

‘I do consider racists, sexists, homophobes (and, yes, transphobes, which isn't the same as being GC) to be bigots and arseholes, yes. Don't you?’

I think all these words get thrown around too liberally.

It's obvious to lots of us that the Govt should repeal the GRA and remove the woolly 'gender reassignment' from the Equality Act. Those two are what have enabled women's rights to be trampled on.
People that undergo (or are 'intending to' ) 'gender reassignment' are protected anyway, by sex or sexual orientation, or by workplace laws.

I'd like to change the Equalities Act in some respects, particularly as mentioned with watertight definitions. I'd like laws on the workplace to not be dependent on the whims of managers, for example some precision on who should be able to have flexible working and working from home part of the week. I'd like a law that is about what you do more than having a written policy which is only there to meet the statute.

None of which I expect is what either Tory leader proposes.

This. The whole 'Gender' Recognition Certificate which allows people to change the SEX on their Birth Certificate is the problem, it has led directly to this mess we are now in. That and the ridiculous veil of secrecy over a GRC.

No-one should be able to change an absolute fact on an official document, no-one.

If there has to be a GRC it should be an additional document, the Birth Certificate should not change and neither should the sex information on any other document. Add a separate field to be completed by those it applies to.

And I’d fundamentally disagree with you, but that’s another discussion

People need to be careful who they jump into bed with, because they risk their own rights being chucked under the bus.

Jumping in bed with buses, or indeed any motor vehicle, is probably not legal.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/man-sex-with-van_n_57b4ebd0e4b095b2f54277de

Wouldn't trust him a quarter of an inch to actually carry out a meaningful review of this legislation rather than just make announcements to that effect.

Also wouldn't trust any changes to the EA initiated by the tories to be helpful and practical,rather than simply throwing red meat to people who claim to be disgusted by 'woke' (and then define woke as whatever it is they happen to be disgusted by).

But it does seem that the languge in the EA is incredibly lax, in ways that undermine womens' rights by creating confusion ( and scope for manipulation) regarding the duties that employers, service providers and public bodies have under the act.

If case law isn't enough to iron out those confusions, there does need to be some parliamentary clarification of the act. But in the current toxic and polarised context, and with the tories seemingly concerned only to exploit these issues rather than solve them, I think there is fuck all chance of any legislative improvment.

I think it very heartening that these two politicians have continued to bring the rights of women and children to the front of the campaigns.

What it actually means is that other politicians have to take notice now where as before they either lied and said no one in their constituency had raised it as an issue, or kept pushing it to the back burner as not being a ‘priority’ high enough to pay more than lip service to when enough pressure was applied.

It also removes the stigma from wanting/initiating/and having the discussion using plain language and acknowledging the issues.

Yes, I cringe at the use of the term ‘woke’ but you can be assured that plenty of research has been done and the usage is deliberate. It may not (quite likely not) be feminists who his team are targeting with that language.

Either way, the floodgates have been opened. Labour continue to look like they are beholden to lobby groups in their lack of engagement with the issues. And their strictly controlled language around the issues. The more these two candidates discuss the issues, the more other politicians will feel free or be forced to join the discussion.

Compared to where we were in the ‘nodebate’ climate in 2019, or even last year, we at least have the opportunity to debate as much as we want.

And frankly, if extreme trans rights activists want to protest the discussions, let them fill their boots because it only shows them up for what they are. Extremists who will allow no thinking outside of the allowed lines.