Sex discrimination and all the other unlawful discriminations to become lawful

[Tadpolesinponds]

...if Reform wins the next general election.
Politics latest: Reform would scrap Equality Act, says Braverman | Politics News | Sky News

Would you argue with a professional taking into the account the evidence that women are disproportionately in prison for crimes against their abusers when it comes to dealing with an abuse victim who's hurt their partner in self defence or is it just because that story was a black guy? Just because that person turned out to be a danger (and crucially was actually detained 4 times despite the initial query over doing) doesn't mean that there isn't a real issue with black men being over represented for being detained. You can't take one singular story and suggest we should otherwise dismiss other evidence of discrimination.

You are continuing to miss the point, and in fact you are continuing to illustrate the point. You don't seem to want to understand what is bothering people to the extent that they would vote for Reform and favour abolishing the Equality Act.

When people don't think something is fair( and white people who are male also have a sense for what they feel is fair too - even if you think what they think is irrelevent) and that the use of social enginering and political correctness ( ideological implementation and impositions) is prioritising others unfairly they will feel as much of a sense of injustice as you do.

I'm really not the one missing the point when you're the one insisting people feel an act is unfair while failing to misunderstand that the act protects them themselves from the unfairness they're worried they are / will experience. Should we repeal their protections against unfairness because they can't be bothered to read and understand them?

I don't agree with abolishing the act---it would have negative unintended consequences and contains all sorts of protections which have taken a long time to implement; though I do understand that a lot of people feel that they are being treated unfairly because of a perceived political correctness and mis-applications and mis-uses of the act.

The act could maybe be better communicated and also there could be a reduction in the number of times 'positive action' is utilised.

It takes an effort to listen and understand what is at the root of the reason why
many people are flocking to Reform, and then to do something to address these issues rather than dismissing them.

Positive action is limited to mentorship and help somebody to apply for a job, and the section you have quoted warns that positive action may be illegal if the consequence is a worsening position for other individuals or groups.

The root of the reason why is misinformation being perpetuated by people such as reform who want to repeal the EA

Why, for example, must there always be a fixed percentage of women, for example, in any given role? Who says so, and why?

There is no law that mandates that there must always be a fixed percentage of women.

You seem to be arguing that of course you know the Equality Act isn't to blame but that "people" don't know that and can't be expected to understand.
I know it's not your intention but it comes of as a smidge patronising. In reality the main "people" who seem confused over what the Reform Act is or that positive discrimination isn't legal in the UK are specifically Nigel Farage and some other Reform MPs. Maybe Investment Banks don't hire on intellectual merit after all.

Yes, but organisations do mis-use the act and have been found guilty of discrimination; and that is just the ones that have been taken to court.

And part of the reason for that is people who hold to fixed positions...who show no understanding and no willingness to listen or to understand.

Just finished watching the three part Tony Blair documentary on Channel 4.....When Gordon Brown came in do you recall that infamous moment when he dismissed the woman who approached him in the street, and rather than have the political instinct and sense to understand the issues that were leading to her complaint...he dismissed her as " an awful woman".

Not quite! I do think aspects of the act have been over-used...especially the 'positive action' bits. And that just adds to the sense that everyone apart from the average white working class person is prioritised for just about everything. Politics is just as much about perceptions and feelings as anything else.

You seem very much focused on Nigel Farage as an individual actor; whereas I'm more focused on Reform's more working class constituency, and those, for example, that became radicalised during covid. -when the Labour party was busy shaming people for non conformity and calling for longer lockdowns in schools etc

Ok, so maybe give some examples of where "positive action" as described/mandated by the act has been overused/misused. (Specifically caused by the Act not just someone deciding to do a bit of corporate responsibility seperate to it)

Sorry ifthe tone of my last post sounded rude its just (Im assuming) we are all "people" on here. That phrase is somewhat overused.

My point is not so much about the act itself.....but the perceptions that surround it. Diversity, Equality and Inclsuion type policies and actions. These perceptions cannot simply be dismissed as ignorant, misunderstood or manipulated American imports.

Yes but "there is too much immigration" "there is too little immigration" are both subjective views. No-one is necessarily wrong for holding either of them and one might move between the 2 positions. What an Act of Parliament specific says/doesn't say isn't really the same. I can sincerely argue it mandates people to paint their faces bright purple on Tuesdays. But that's just wrong. You can read it online and see that it doesn't say that. So if pointy things tells me I'm wrong, she isn't patronising me or callíng me a bigot. It's not a matter of emotional interpretation in the same way some areas of politics are.
Saying "well thats just what I feel the act says" in the face of that is showing rigidity of position and isn't a very good argument.

I do think aspects of the act have been over-used...especially the 'positive action' bits.

Which bits?

They haven't 'misused the act' - they have broken the law and been taken to court because of the Act.

Precisely. As so often, the legislation is not the problem, the problem is far downstream of the law & in the UK, as we have seen so often at ET, is usually the fault of straight, white, middle class midwits who exemplify the Peter Principle.

BTW, @Shortshriftandlethal, removing the EqA would make positive discrimination entirely legal. Be careful what you wish for.

Where oh where do you believe this is actually happening?! It's rather odd that you keep making the point that people are misinformed about the EA while you keep throwing out misinformation yourself. Can you post one example of any of the claims you keep repeating?

When you're talking about something like legislation, if you're gonna keep stating wrong information about it are you suggesting that I should show a willingness for you to interpret it wrongly and not correct you? No idea what you think that anecdote has to do with this conversation, it would still be much more useful if you demonstrated your argument with examples. If people have perceptions about the EA based on how it's "misused" it would be really helpful to see any actual cases of that to discuss specifically.

What you are calling " misinformation" appears to be how your frame any disagreement or points you disapprove of. You might be totally unaware of how people outside of your bubble think and talk, but I'm not.

There's no point in engaging with you any further on this issue. We are not achieving anything constructive or helpful at all. Just going round in the same old circles. I've no interest in doing that any more.

Which bits @Shortshriftandlethal ?

Time for that "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" quote?

@Shortshriftandlethal Vibes & feelz make for shitty politics. History has many lessons to that effect.

I'm disagreeing or "disapproving" as you put it on the facts of the legislation. If you're going to keep saying without evidence that the EA demands a 50% representation of women or demands that they hire a less qualified person but then refuse to provide where the act actually requires that when people are telling you it doesn't then that's misinformation to keep repeating it. What the law says isn't about bubbles or personal opinion. I understand your point that many people disagree with the EA because they believe it says something that it doesn't, I'm just disagreement with you that we should accept people's misunderstanding of it as a reason to repeal it. It's the spread of misinformation of what the acts says that is leading this perception you keep talking of.