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

“A change to the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex’

From ECHR link.

Labour oppose it.

It is imo the only thing we have as a realistic option atm

They have a big majority at the moment. So why not just do it?

But if you think people can change sex, and if you can easily get a grc which 'proves' that, then that's a completely meaningless statement.

What happened to the ignoring bit?

You were very put out by facts before.

A beautician should be able to refuse on the basis that the person is a man. If they've been castrated, the beautician should still be able to refuse. The cock is a very significant relevant factor but it's not the only one.

Similarly, no man should be in a female prison. Whether castrated or not. No man. Not just Not rapists. Every. Single. Man.

Exactly. Biological sex is the key factor.

In which single sex space is it ok to let males in?

Why have that allowance anywhere?

I can’t think of anywhere

Where is turning single sex to mixed sex ok?

Your beautician example isn't protected by the EqA. It's an attempted workaround and would be seen as such by a court. Your view of a prison inmate with a GRC wouldn't survive first contact with reality. A natal male with a GRC is a woman in law which you seem to be happy with.

Also, regarding your view on what is and what isn't a protected characteristic, are you denying that you posted:

By insisting the law should apply equally to white people, men, straight people, non-trans people, able bodied people we are removing protections for people who experience oppression.

Where does men having access benefit women?

Prisons - no
Sports - no
School single sex options - no
Changing rooms - no
Refuge centres - no
Single sex wards - no

So where? Why have such a weak EqA that is giving access to all the above. They don’t need the woolly legitimate aim clause as ALL single sex spaces are legitimate.

Whatever. You are not posting in good faith. I explained afterwards that I don't agree with Badenochs utopia about using the law to protect all equally. I think we need to recognise certain groups need specific protections that the EA currently gives.

It protects all groups. If a male could prove they were being discriminated against for being a man. But that very rarely happens.

I have covered why I disagree with her extensively.

@AdamRyan I agree 💯 that no beautician should be obliged to wax a man's balls and nobody with a penis should be in a women's prison but the EqA has to be changed to achieve this. Labour are opposed to the required changes.

Noone has answered my question about why the Conservatives, with their huge majority, haven't made the necessary amendment to the law yet. What's stopping them?

Maybe because you keep getting upset by facts, revert to ‘ignoring people’ like a toddler and banging on about bad faith bollocks when posters point out your weak arguments.

Look at the date on the ECHR link, it’s recent, it’s this year.

Labour’s talk of “safe spaces” rather than single sex spaces is a massive red flag as is their use of “biological” women. There is only one kind of woman. We are born not worn. The word woman needs no qualification.

@AdamRyan - I will answer your question.

The answer is that this amendment while simple to do, is very contentious. Thus the Government will need to take several steps to avoid being judicially reviewed since the statutory instrument that can be used to make the change can be struck down by the courts. Then conceivably the position is worse than before.

Haldane is also a problem because the general principle there must be clarified. That is what campaigners would say.

There is another argument that says it is not, because Parliament never intended to have the effect Haldane decided was the case and the Equality Act made a sufficient distinction. That issue is also connected with the challenge by the Scottish Government who will say that their legislation does not change the interpretation of the Equality Act.

Issuing guidance based on the Act now would be at best unclear snd carry a high risk of judicial review.

Kemi Badenoch may well want a legal analysis to make sure that the SI and any guidance are not judicially reviewed. But the law is unclear. It's a matter for the Government to clarify it as public policy and then make those changes, not the other way around.

Kemi Badenoch also has to be careful. An incautious statement about these issues can be a ground for judicial review itself, either by irrationality, unreasonableness or fettering of discretion or bias.

It is unbelievably difficult. And the very easiest thing to do is not do it. I would not fancy having to make a declaration about public policy and maintain that position in Parliament in her shoes.

The other reason is that I believe they have run out of time. To make these changes they will need to be at the latest next year. If they are doing this properly then consultation, response, progress case against SG, present legislation in Parliament. That could be a year of work. Unless there is serious political will then it seems unlikely to happen.

Not sure but laws are hard to change. What's relevant to me is who shows the best commitment to creating or clarifying laws which aren't women hating. I don't like the conservatives and I don't trust them but they are hands down winners compared to labour on the 'who gives a fuck about women' front right now. The fact that they're not perfect is not going to make vote for a party led by an overtly misogynistic man who is in fact proud of his anti-women stance.

Kemi Badenoch is leading on this.

First she had to get into the position of Minister for Women and Equalities and now is getting it together by going through process, including with ECHR

People are very naive to how many invested people are trying to stonewall this

Not just that namesake. Labour included

So many TRA ls and captured organisations

Kemi is doing brilliantly but it’s not immediate

(Ignore link googled correct title)

Thank you. I had assumed it was very hard.

So potentially Labour's policy to leave the EA as is, is to avoid this difficulty?

My sense is all the parties will find this really hard and so it's quite hard to believe anyone who says they are going to fix this

Labour are doing absolutely nothing to protect women. The 'single sex' fudge is meaningless. What do you think they're actually doing in any meaningful way? Labour are doing much more than just 'not fixing'. They are making things worse for women.

Labour are committing to halving crime against women and girls. They are committing to bringing rapists and DV offenders to justice. That is not "nothing"

What's terrifying to me is that the only party I can now vote for are the Tories!!!!!!!
I can't do that so I'm politically homeless until something else comes into the debate.

You mean stating the truth. Many men find her very attrcative and cannot seem to see past that.

Words. Placating words.

And also you can't have your cake and eat it. How is possible to halve crime against women and girls whilst simultaneously making it easier for a man to legally 'become' a woman? That's oxymoronic.

You create a hostile anti-woman culture when you as a representative of parliament are asked on national TV and Radio whether women have cervixes and you cannot answer plainly, even whilst being yourself a biological female. Stuttering all over the place like a fool. What message does that give to young women? Potentially some of the most powerful women in the country cannot even name basic biological aspects of the female anatomy for fear of backlash from the menz. Great. How inspiring to young girls concerned about their gender and how safe that makes women feel. We must be afraid to talk about our own bodies now. Brill.

Anyway what will be, will be. People are overall tired of Tories regardless, so you'll get your Labour government. But I do not necessarily see a labour majority due to other hot issues like the increasing awareness of the cost of the green net zero initiatives. So to me, a coalition seems very likely.

((Thanks for the twitter link several pages back though on party political differences between here and over the pond, it was interesting))

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1687459228913446913

This is off course part of the chess game of womens rights being played out politically.

It's in September.

Screen shots