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

It might have escaped your notice but this is a thread about the conservatives 😂
Unless the intent was backslapping "isn't kemi marvellous?" In which case OP has been a bit disingenuous

The women’s rights debate (or ‘trans issues’ from the captured) damaged Mordaunt that’s why she was so pissed off at the media for it

She was polling higher with members before that. It was a good indication that the topic can harm political careers.

Then Sturgeon got hit.

I find your naivity quite touching but also quite annoying. It's what got us into this mess in the first place.

From the Equality Act 2010, Chapter 2 Section 11:

'in relation to the protected characteristic of sex -
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.'

From the Haldane ruling:

'For all of the foregoing reasons, I conclude that in this context, which is the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, “sex” is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex.'

This means that anyone with a M2F GRC is a woman and has the protected characteristic of woman under the EqA. A refusal to allow them access to a single sex space or service reserved for women would be discrimination and illegal.

So your TW with a GRC cannot be denied intimate waxing by a ladies only beautician.

But it gets worse. The beautician cannot ask if somebody has a GRC so has to assume that any TW who asks for intimate waxing has a GRC and she is legally obliged to provide the service.

The bottom line is that the single sex exemptions in the EqA are useless. But you think that they work.

BTW, do you still think that white, male and straight aren't protected characteristics or that they are but shouldn't be?

No, it's a thread about what a particular Conservative politician has said about issues that are hugely relevant to the way women are treated in society. But you wouldn't care about that. Want to say 'thirteen years' again and look round the room for approbiation?

I find your belief in your own intellectual despite all evidence touching also. Clearly you haven't understood my posts if you think my position is "white, male and straight aren't protected characteristics or that they are but shouldn't be".

I started being active in this debate when the government policy was to move to self ID (conservative incidentally). When they started locking people like Tara Hudson and her 7 inch surprise with women. When the media would say the police were hunting a woman disguised as a man, when it turned out to be a trans woman rapist. When women like me would be socially ostracised and called bigots if we said men can't become biological woman.

My position is very close to JKRs as outlined on her essay.

I'm not so bothered about yhe status quo, as long as governments are using the existing law to protect single sex spaces. You are, that's fine.

I'm very concerned that single issue voters on this will cause us to sleep walk into an even more far right government, with a mandate to remove the already limited protections women have against discrimination. I'd rather keep the statis quo than have my single sex spaces protected but my other sex based rights removed (e.g. right to equal pay, work while pregnant/a mother, and not to be a victim of crime just because I'm female)

But yeah, this is going round in circles. I hadn't realised I was on a "the conservatives are the only party for women #nodebate" thread

Single sex spaces. Single sex prisons. Women's short lists. Women's rights to expect respect when they identify that they are being treated badly. So much.

I said upthread what I think about her. I strongly disagree that the most pressing need is to move to a "new kind of equality". We haven't even got the boring basics of the old kind of equality right yet. Let's do that first.

Labour have clearly said they will use the ea to protect single sex spaces

For me the issue is that re women's rights, the Labour Party is more far right. I get the concerns about single issue voting but any party which can so easily revert to such massive oppression of some of the most vulnerable is problematic. If we look beyond surface level and traditional view of left and right wing, what do we actually see here? The current law is disadvantaging women and Labour are defending it.

But by 'sex' they mean 'legal sex' as well 'biological sex'.

A beautician can refuse to provide waxing to a cock and balls on the grounds she isn't trained in that practice, only vulval waxing. That would be protected by the EA as its legitimate, proportionate and sex based.

It would be entirely irrelevant if the person had a GRC or not. What is relevant is the penis.

Similarly womens prisons - it would be legitimate to restrict a bepenised rapist on the ground they had the means and motivation to rape the female inmates. GRC status irrelevant.

The EA will only protect women if it becomes biological sex by definition

Which Labour oppose

How are people so stuck?

Exactly. A handy GRC and you’re in

You had to go back to the 70s yesterday to find an example of sex discrimination.

Now you posit that ludicrous far fetched examples like The Equal Pay Act being repealed are a likelihood after the next election if we have a conservative government.

What was that about culture wars you mentioned?

What are you talking about???

Your words.

I started being active in this debate when the government policy was to move to self ID (conservative incidentally). When they started locking people like Tara Hudson and her 7 inch surprise with women. When the media would say the police were hunting a woman disguised as a man, when it turned out to be a trans woman rapist. When women like me would be socially ostracised and called bigots if we said men can't become biological woman.

As have many, many women on this Board. In fact some of them were sounding the alarm when the GRA was going through.

Labour have clearly said they will use the ea to protect single sex spaces

No they haven't, what they have actually said is that they will protect safe spaces, no detail as to what these spaces are.

Are you saying there's no sex based discrimination any more???? Odd position on a feminist board

OK fine. What are the other parties proposing?

As we keep saying the Conservatives are proposing to strengthen the EqA which Labour oppose.

The Conservatives talk about single sex spaces not the obfuscating safe spaces that Labour do.

We've reached Cathy Newman meme time

There is no equal pay act hewpo its part of the equalities act. You can't have it both ways and say labour are wrong to say the act shouldn't be reviewed, then say I'm scaremongering about talking about some possible consequences of its review.

I don't trust the conservatives to be fair in an EA review at all. We say ways the act is blocking their implementation of certain policies on immigration and disability all the time. I'm sure they would find it much easier to operate without it.

I also think businesses will be keen to see some sections removed so they don't have to worry about pesky things like maternity leave and old people.

What do they mean by "strengthen" exactly?

Oh, you are an mra? That clears things up! I don't tend to be interested in the Peterson fan club. No common ground with men who think women are there to give them sex and babies.

You know what they are proposing @AdamRyan it has been said often enough on this thread.