KJK is standing against Lloyd Russell-Mole in the General Election

[BoreOfWhabylon]

https://www.youtube.com/live/vHudcvW0bSQ?si=kj-pX6z_ioL6l3nj

Perhaps discussion about the other thread should be kept to a minimum so this thread doesn’t also get removed. Although perhaps that is the plan.

Sorry WhatWillSwingIt I didn’t mean to quote you there.

What's the plan? Tomato juice and with added bricks and wailing " It wasn't juice, it was soup!" ?

It's not been deleted, it's been "hidden until we can take a look at it" or words to that effect.

Probably meaning, it's been mass reported by KJK fans, but those at MN who can make a decision are off having a nice bank holiday somewhere and will look at it when they get a chance.

It's the comparator issue I think. If pregnancy and maternity wasn't a specific PC, just sex, then if your boss sacked you for getting pregnant then you'd have to rely on a sex discrimination claim. Now obviously you could claim that you were being treated worse than the men you worked with, as they can't get pregnant, but presumably they could point to all the other women who are having no such issue as a defence. Having the specific PC included makes the case much more straightforward for you, as you're then being compared to women that aren't pregnant.

I suspect it was deleted* because the OP posted something without verifying the meaning of the selected quote they wanted to draw attention to.

If they were genuinely worred about what the clip appeared to show, they would have taken the time to substantiate instigating a discussion about it, within the context it was said.

*being reviewed - ie dont wont to get sued for libel because OP just went for the dramatic tabloidese rather than a rational approach.

I do think the EA is a bit weird with the protected characteristics. Why isn’t pregnancy and maternity covered by ‘sex’? If marriage and civil partnership are essentially about not discriminating against civil partners over married couples, why isn’t it covered by ‘sexual orientation’?

’Gender reassignment’ is covered by ‘sex’, ‘sexual orientation’, ‘religion or belief’ and it could be argued ‘disability’ because of the high prevalence of ND, so why was GR added when there is no verifiable definition?

This all seems to be a very confused understanding. If a woman is discriminated against because of pregnancy, then the protected characteristic of sex ie a result of a woman's biology is covered. Who told you it wasnt.

Not all civil partnerships are same sex, so not clear why you thought it should be about sexual orientation?? Are you aware of why people of all faiths, sexual orientation campaigned for civil partnerships. Anyway it is a redundant arguement as there can be same sex marriages, which is more relvant to why the GRA hasn't been got rid of as it was primarily to allow same sex people to get married at a time marriage was only for people of the opposite sex. So a GRA meant that one person became "legally" the other person for the purpose of marriage.

Gender re-assignment is covered by gender reassingment (ie one of the actual protected characteristic as some think it is gender identity!)

The only legal interaction between the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment are the SSE.

Have you read the legislation (rather than a stonewall influenced briefing)?! https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/1

@NoWordForFluffy

They love reporting posts / threads. It's really quite petulant and pathetic. It seems they have a different set of talk guidelines agreed with MNHQ too, as a fair few things get deleted which don't breach the published guidelines.

How on earth would you know who reports posts or threads? And then to extrapolate that there is a different set of guidelines for other people is simply ridiculous.

I'd say the thread is hidden due to the amount of transphobic posts. (And before you ask, I didn't report any, nor the thread itself.)

It wasn't literal re the different set of guidelines, but I've often seen posts deleted which didn't appear to break the published guidelines. As have others. That was my point.

You can usually tell who's reporting by what goes too. It's amazing how that works! Also, at least one person has told us that they enjoy reporting. So there's that.

I had a dam good guess at who reported my post. I always mention that I'm reporting a post, and why. But some people don't roll like that. That's how it goes.

Why can’t it belong to a subsection of ‘sex’? It could specifically mentioned in the act, but understood as a form of sex discrimination, which it is.

Are you aware of why people of all faiths, sexual orientation campaigned for civil partnerships.

Why is this relevant?

I remember a couple of goths campaigning for a civil partnership. Why is marriage/civil partnership even in there? The EA was created before the aforementioned goths and before gay marriage, so why not just remove it as a protected characteristic?

I think you didn’t read my post properly or get what I am talking about.

Heterosexual married people are covered by the PC of marriage. The comparator is an unmarried person. They wouldn’t be covered anywhere else.

Re marriage and civil partnership: It isn’t about discrimination of marriage vs CP, it is about marriage/CP vs being single. It wasn’t so long ago women were expected to leave their job when they got married in some professions, or get their husband’s permission. Socially this still exists within some cultures within the UK which suggests there are likely to be employers who still hold that view too. It protects women

Ditto sex vs pregnancy; a pregnant women is the same sex as an unpregnant one so sacking the pregnant one would not be sex discrimination.

No, I’m just someone that knows how to win elections. KJK does not have that skill.

That's an amazing skill to have, I'm sure you're a big asset

I didn’t read that thread but I agree on this. The pattern of deletion is recognisable

Is that you Lloyd Russell-Moyle?

Probably not, they haven't had a meltdown. Maybe works for him?

They're missing the point that KJK knows she won't win, but wants to draw attention to the topic.

I disagree, with sex discrimination, would you sack a man for getting married or only a woman?

Likewise, since only women can get pregnant and not men, sacking a woman for getting pregnant is de facto sex discrimination.

No. You might sack a man for getting married. It’s unlikely, but if you did they would be covered.

Regarding sex, if for example a woman worked in an all-female workplace but was sacked for being pregnant there is no way that could be described as unfair treatment on the basis of her sex.

In all, I think there are too many protected characteristics, which gives the impression these things all deserve equal weight, when some characteristics are actually subcategories of other more immutable and profound ones.

Hmmm. Yet you don’t know that single issue candidates use GEs to promote their issue, not necessarily to win.

It will be interesting to see how much inroad she can make into the LRM vote. In terms of UK constituencies Kemptown is woke central. LRM will be assuming that the left (Labour, Greens and LibDems) support his particular brand of identity politics. We know from this board that a number of formerly left voters feel homeless. Does LRM have the support he thinks he has. Will women, and men, turn up in large numbers and vote for women’s rights. We will find out. In a sane world, if KJK did get a good number of votes LRM and Keir would take note. Instead I suspect they have their fingers in their ears, refusing to listen.

The SDP are standing. They hold a similar position. The Workers Party are standing, they don’t have a specific policy on this, but George Galloway’s position seems to be opposed to identity politics. Reform haven’t said they’re going to stand, but I think their intention is to stand in all English constituencies. So there will be potentially 3 other parties with a broadly GC/sex realist call it what you want position. The difference is they, certainly for the last 2, also have very strong positions on hot button topics - Gaza and immigration. I suspect they’ll make much more of an inroad into LRM’s vote.