Kemi Badenoch: Diversity obsession has led to Kafkaesque madness (KB for PM?)

[IwantToRetire]

Another really straightforwarded down to earth practical commentary of where chasing the rainbow has led us. And ideas on how Government cant, without being dictatorial help solve the mess.

The root of the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Equality Act 2010, often exploited by those with a separate agenda. The Equality Act is a shield, not a sword. It is about preventing discrimination, not social engineering. There are no protected groups in the act, only protected characteristics. A white man is just as protected on the characteristics of race and sex as a black woman, yet many believe the act is there just to protect minorities, when in reality it protects us all.

Many companies’ diversity and inclusion activities are falling foul of the law; for example by confusing legal positive action and positive discrimination, which is illegal — except when selecting political candidates (a handy get-out-clause Labour devised to use all-women shortlists). Encouraging people from underrepresented backgrounds to apply for a job or go for a promotion is positive action, and legal. Restricting applications for a position to a certain group is positive discrimination and most certainly isn’t. This has led to increasing calls for the Equality Act to be scrapped. The act is 13 years old and could be improved but the issue is not the law. It’s bad actors misrepresenting it to suit their agenda.

Many of these laws were written at a time when institutions knew how to self-regulate. Someone proposing a terrible idea would be checked by colleagues in the organisation. Today, those colleagues are scared of being called bigots for disagreeing, so they say nothing. What the Farage and Sawers cases have done is show that this problem is getting worse. Long-held tenets of liberal democracy — freedom of association, freedom of conscience, the presumption of innocence — are being tossed aside in favour of dubious inclusion strategies that themselves fall foul of the law. In some cases they’re cancelling people before any wrongdoing occurs, leaving them with no way to prove their innocence.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kemi-badenoch-banking-scandal-natwest-niigel-farage-wdp3mmq0w
Also available via archive.ph

I care about democracy and I can't see much sign of that in the current Labour Party. Without it, nobody's rights matter. I feel incredibly let down by Labour. I fear they are a lost cause.

I don't believe for a moment that anyone who really Cared about the rights of women would actually consider voting Tory.

As a paid up Labour party member I don't believe for a moment that anyone who really cared about the rights of women would actually consider voting Labour as they currently are. I certainly won't be if they don't have a massive change of thinking in the upper echelons of the party. And if that means I have to put my cross next to the Tory candidate when it comes to it then I will. This is the first time in my life that I'm a one issue voter and I will vote for whichever party is going to fuck over women the least.

So rude. mrsbennett is fully entitled to support a different party than you
I agree with her by the way. Can't actually see how anyone who is a feminist could vote Conservative, on account of their policies which disadvantage women across the board.

Maybe rather than calling people names for holding an entirely uncontroversial point of view, you could engage with her points.

And....why are we talking about labour on a thread about KB, who is conservative? It's not a 2 horse race, other options are available.

Not rude at all 🤷‍♂️

They brought baseless insults to have a go at women on FWR.

I much prefer those progressing the GC argument and am extremely glad posters like the pp and you don’t put people off.

Tg people don’t just stop because of your criticism.

I love that FWR just keeps going on. Sod those who plop in just to criticise women.

Bloody love how much has been achieved despite them.

Still a fair bit to go. But some small but good wins lately.

Really? Who? The lib dems who don't know what a woman is? The greens who don't know what a woman is?

We haven't had a political left or right wing government since the 1990's. We have had subtle versions of managerialist government that may be slightly left or right of dead centre. It would be very easy to argue that the Johnson government was the most left wing government since Harold Wilson..

Vote for the party that you believe will do the best for you and yours.

What I do have a problem with is the leap from that acknowledge to a statement such as "Kemi for PM"

For heaven's sake pay attention. If you actually bothered to read other people's comments you will see I have said it was a joke and more in reference to her jostling for power.

Leaping in with your preconceived non sequiturs is what makes so many threads totally circular.

And where has anyone said it is enough to know what a woman is to be qualified to be PM.

So basically you are just making stuff up which has nothing to do with this thread, but is just endless whatabouterry.

If you know how awful FWR and is now right wing it has become why dont you start your own thread and clearly illustrate how you can prove your point.

And if you go on making up stuff as you have done, you do realise the inclination is just not to bother to read what else you have written.

As to women not speaking up about being GC because it implies you are right wing only indicates that they are mixing with the wrong people, or are so deferential to left wing misogynists they cant speak honestly.

Hardly a scenario to inspire other women to bother to engage with the left.

Its like one of those mad plays where the actors all sit a littel bit apart from each other and appear to be having a conversation but are in fact that having a monologue with themselves and have no interest in what any one else is saying.

And yes, I do speak up as a left wing GC woman, but I know quite a few women on the left who hesitate to do so because the GC position has come to be associated with the right wing and they don't want to be tainted by that. I agree that more need to speak up, and I think a greater diversity of views on threads like this would help empower people to do so. I can see that I am in the minority on this board though, so will bow out now and leave you all to it.

Honestly these people who are worried about being "tainted" need to grow up. It's rooted in a blind assumption that people with different political views are bad and evil, with selfish motives.

I've posted on this board/FWR for years. Because I am a radical feminist as opposed to a GC non-feminist.

I haven't insulted anyone and neither has mrsbennett. I've been insulted a fair bit however.

"Gender critical" is not a right wing position, it's cross cutting.

"Gender affirming" is similarly not a left wing position, it was held by all parties until recently. Most GC feminists are left leaning, hence why the refusal of Labour/Lib Dems/Greens to listen to us has been so hurtful.

I don't want to see this board becoming an echo chamber of right wing voices thanks.

Oh, actually i take that back. I did call Nigel Farage a frog faced fucker, with no idea if he's one of the posters here.

Independent?
Abstain and write why?
Ask your local candidates for their explicit views and vote for any who say "woman = adult human female, no self ID"?

Really voting conservative as a feminist is like a turkey voting for Christmas. Yes the Tories know what a woman is. And they use that to shaft us.

OK OP I have questions for you about the article you linked:

Many of these laws were written at a time when institutions knew how to self-regulate. Someone proposing a terrible idea would be checked by colleagues in the organisation. Today, those colleagues are scared of being called bigots for disagreeing, so they say nothing. What the Farage and Sawers cases have done is show that this problem is getting worse. Long-held tenets of liberal democracy — freedom of association, freedom of conscience, the presumption of innocence — are being tossed aside in favour of dubious inclusion strategies that themselves fall foul of the law. In some cases they’re cancelling people before any wrongdoing occurs, leaving them with no way to prove their innocence.

1. Do you think it's a problem that the Conservatives aren't "self regulating" effectively and what should they do about that? Johnson lying, his colleagues calling due process a "kangaroo court", numerous MPs being investigated for sexual assault, watching porn in the HoC etc

1. Do you agree with Badenoch that the problem of people not being able to say certain things for fear of being called "a bigot" is getting worse? As a radical feminist, I find it far easier to speak about gender now than 5 years ago. I also see discourse from politicians that would have been unthinkable until recently (e.g. Braverman's Pakistani Males article) . So I think she is incorrect about that.

1. What do you think the answer is? I'm unclear what Badenoch is suggesting....

Independent usually isnt worth voting for,

Why the hell would I abstain

Don't you think a lot of us have asked that very question (the only one of mine in the local tejections that gave the adult human female answer was .. Conservative)

As a feminist voting for Labour would currently given their thoughts on the matter be voting for Women to be shat on from a great height.

It’s not.

And if GC is so left why were most MPs at the WM debate so heavily skewed away from the left, the positions have clear water between them and where is all your left wing media in support of GC? feel free to link the articles.

I know posters here are a mix of political positions even if you and the pp assume differently. That’s why it’s great.

And who are you actually saying is a GC ‘non-feminist?’. The blind arrogance of that.

And the claim posters on this board don’t care about women’s rights. I mean come on, you’re so politically biased you can only attack not support. It’s clear this board is for women’s rights and women care deeply.

And bloody hell posters here are actually getting somewhere, no thanks to you and pp.

Hilarious to abuse someone else about their physical appearance isn't it? Countdown to 'oh, but it's OK in this instance ...'.

@AdamRyan I would vote for an independent candidate if come the election there was a decent independent one to vote for by the way. But having lived in places where the independent candidates in General elections tend to be the complete fruit loops, I have my reservations.

Women here are GC feminists. Obviously pp claiming otherwise is irrelevant. They’ll take the progress whilst doing nothing to help because they are too politically motivated to add positively to the cause. What a distraction for those who care.

I’m glad to have this board, wherever posters sit, many feel disillusioned by Labour / Lib Dems. Tg they can just say it rather than have party advocates override.

I wonder if who consider Kemi Badenoch and Miriam Cates far right, have ever heard of the British National Party, the National Front or the English Defence League 🤔 I think it would be unwise to cause confusion about what genuine far right actually is.

In the US I hear some commentators call the democrats far left or even socialist or communist. They don’t seem to have any grasp at all on political theory or perhaps more likely are being completely disingenuous. I think this is unwise. Definitions matter, as does good faith political debate.

Economically I am quite far to the left, I would like to see full public ownership of public services, by which I mean no more contracting out any of it to private companies who are then making profits out of tax payers. This is where I would disagree with Kemi Badenoch I imagine. I don’t think I would be so far away from Miriam Cates on economic policy from what I’ve heard of her position. The point is that I think both these women are motivated by wanting to make things better for us who live in the UK, I would rather have intelligent politicians of integrity running the government whatever party they are from. I don’t trust Labour to fully nationalise our public services and bring railways and water back into public ownership, scrap public private partnerships etc any more than I trust them with safeguarding women and children, freedom of speech and keeping law and policy based on subjective reality. I don’t see any politicians who strike me as being of a higher calibre, having integrity, courage or other outstanding qualities in the shadow cabinet.

I don’t think Labour will make any of the major economic policy changes I would like to see and they seem to despise women so there is no point at all in voting for them in my opinion. A vote for Labour is a vote for the tyranny of identity politics and critical theories. Identity politics and critical theories create divisions, hostilities and suspicions in society instead of bringing people together.

I also note that Conservatives seem to have more freedom of speech and thought within their party than Labour do. Labour is apparently all about thought control and an atmosphere of fear. The way Rosie Duffield has been treated has been instructive to say the least.

The linked article by Kemi Badenoch demonstrates her clear, rational thinking on equalities and that she has the courage to write it knowing that it is going to make some people brand her as far right because she explains that the protected characteristics apply to everyone, that the protected characteristic of sex applies to men and women, that of race applies those of European heritage as much as those of African or Asian heritage. She is talking about a genuine equality, people who want everyone categorised in a new hierarchy, a new apartheid where the old hierarchy is not swept away but simply turned upside down will not like that and rail against it.

The thing is though, if you are arguing for a hierarchical system at all, if you want to continue that old system but put the old ruling elite at the bottom and place those previously at the bottom at the top you are not doing anything really radical. You are maintaining the system just switching who holds the power (for now) as demonstrated by Orwell’s 1984. This is not building a better society. You may also want to consider the past. When elite minorities hold power over the majority that is called oligarchy, don’t be surprised if at some point the majority have had enough of being told that they must keep silent and submit due to their “privileged normativity” and rise up against the oligarchy to overthrow it and re establish democracy. I am genuinely concerned about what the backlash will look like when it comes.

Kemi Badenoch’s interpretation of equality is what will keep things fair for everyone long term and create a more stable and peaceful democratic society without resentments amongst various groups.

Great post, Poemgranates.

Worth bookmarking.

Kemi Badenoch has spoken with informed intelligence on a number of issues. I recall her speech in parliament on the subject of critical race theory - and how it was informing and motivating many of the sentiments on the Labour benches. It was fantastic. She knows her stuff.

One of the things I like about this board is that I have civil conversations with people who vote differently to me. Crazy idea or what?

Excellent post @PomegranateOfPersephone

Great post @PomegranateOfPersephone

Yup, great post PoP. It really resonates with me too. I am not as much anymore totally for public ownership, mainly because I think it doesn't always work out practically as we'd hope, it's functionally another form of concentrated ownership, at least sometimes.

But what that means really is that a lot of my political ideas don't seem to fit within any of the standard political parties. Which really makes the idea that one party is the answer, and the other is awful, seem pretty simplistic, and it's certainly not motivating to always vote one way or another. These days my main question is, which of these groups seems more likely to maintain the necessary basis for a liberal democracy, and then I look at my local candidates to see who is not a moron, and has some personal integrity.

I still find it really hard to understand the very common claim that anyone on a certain side, (Tories, typically, in FWR) doesn't really care about women, or a certain issue, or whatever. I don't know how anyone knows what KB has done on this issue and thinks she doesn't think it's important. This essay and several others to me indicate she actually really understands the elements at play and is looking to have a solution or response based in sound thinking. Which I sure as heck haven't seen from anyone with any power in the Labour Party who still seem to be looking for a formula that the public will accept without committing themselves to anything.

Plus there are lots of other Conservative women who do great work for women, or on other issues, or just charitable work in their communities. But we are supposed to think they are all being disingenuous, or... what?