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

My Mum told me she had to get written permission from my dad to be sterilised in the 70s.
Let's not turn the clock back in anyway shape or form.

Obviously women's rights are uppermost in our minds on this board, but lets not forget that the EA asserts the rights of other groups too - for instance, what will happen to disability rights if the EA goes?

This is an example of a depressing cycle. Progress > Over reach>Backlash.
All the idiotic DEI initiatives taking over, Critical Race Theory being swallowed whole and the inane trans stuff has provided a climate where we could possibly lose everything.
Well done the left.

Its a cause of huge disappointment to me that many of the parties who's views align with my own in other regards have embraced or not sufficiently rejected TI.
However this doesn't mean I'm blinded to the manipulation of right wing activists who are using the fact right wing politicians are GC to frame them as a better option for women overall. I've been shocked at some of the comments that self declared male posters have felt emboldened to make on the feminist boards in support of these parties because they've established themselves as GC, and therefore 'pro women's rights'.

There has been talk about Reform offering incentives to encourage women to have more children.

But no need for that! Just turn the clock back to the time when you could sack any woman because she might become pregnant! Just take away her options to do anything else!

Worth noting - they have said they are going to repeal the act on day one. No talk of taking the time to consider what might replace it.

Also, no protection for women with gender critical beliefs, no concept that lack of single sex provision is discriminatory.

No they haven't - the guidance is not the law.

To simplify the whole situation...

'Together we stand, divided we fall?'

If they wanted to look at replacing or modifying or even jjsut do some analysis of the effects of this kind of legislation, I think I would support that.

I've overall become much more reticent about the effects of equal rights types of bills, I think they do not always work as one might have hoped. Sometimes they don't really add anything new, but also they can have what seem like perverse effects, or be used by those with evil purposes.

But going off half cocked is never good. You need to have a good idea of what to expect as a result of your action.

I am curious who something like this is appealing to. I don't think there are many people who want to see women fired due to pregnancy, or people not hired due to race, or anything along those lines. Where it appeals, I suspect it is because people are seeing things happen that seem unfair - maybe things like accommodations for workers that hit others negatively?

It's worth understanding where people are seeing problems, I think, and it's not just about trans stuff.

The thing is Suella Braverman has been sacked twice because she is a liability.

There might be a better way to write Equality Legislation, but I don't for one minute think that these clowns would know how to do it.

@Tadpolesinponds Wish you'd put 'Reform' in your title! I was starting to think we needed a thread for all the anti-women stuff Reform promotes. I'm fed up of the somewhat disingenuous (or maybe just naive?) posts along the lines of 'I know they have their detractors/say what you like about Farage/ some people won't agree just because it's a ROC party but...'

I wanted to highlight that Reform's policy of offering tax breaks to large families appears to be an idea that has survived the supposed cull of non-credible economic policies, despite being ruinously expensive if successful. Politico London Playbook says:
'...Farage said he wants to upend the “prevailing economic orthodoxy” of the last few decades — and he pointed vaguely toward the idea he “might” support tax breaks for people who have “quite a few children.” The ability to propose a potentially very expensive tax cut without saying how you’d pay for it does spell out the advantage of not being in government.'

We know how this is supposed to work: women tied to the home, reduced to drudges and childbearers, loss of identity, loss of career opportunities, loss of financial independence and autonomy - which makes women much more vulnerable to being trapped in an abusive or unhappy relationship. It's potentially a massive backwards step.

On the plus side, from what I read, offering financial incentives for large families has failed every time it's been tried in modern democracies. But perhaps the misogynists at the top of Reform plan to make the workplace so hostile to women that producing and rearing children for a breadwinning bloke starts to look more attractive. It would free up jobs for their predominantly male voter base too...

@BeautifulBrackets That's straying into dangerous territory the thee get behind me woman type attitudes cannot be allowed to prevail.
What Reform say they will do and what's actually feasible money wise and legal are two different things.

I only drop in to make factual corrections, not have opinions.

Worth correcting a point being made upthread: Reform’s stated policy isn’t “repeal the Equality Act and leave nothing”. Their own 2024 “Contract” explicitly says “Replace the 2010 Equalities Act” and then explains the direction of travel: “The Equalities Act requires discrimination in the name of ‘positive action’. We will scrap Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DE&I) rules…”

So yes, they (and Braverman in recent interviews) are using “scrap/repeal” language, but the actual policy claim on paper is replacement, not a legal vacuum. The argument to have is what they’d replace it with and what protections would be weakened, not “they’ll repeal it and leave us with nothing at all.”

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf?1718625371=

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/17/nigel-farage-unveils-reform-uk-frontbench-team

It does nobody any favours when you kick off an argument with only half the facts.

this:

"Sex discrimination and all the other unlawful discriminations to become lawful"

Is hyperbole.

Post Trump, I think it is unwise to dismiss anything as 'hyperbole', even if just because incoherent ramblings make incoherent policy.

It's not up to anyone to read between the lines. If Braverman says Reform will repeal the Equality Act on Day one, she is not owed the benefit of the doubt.

The argument to have is what they’d replace it with and what protections would be weakened

That is their job, not ours.

I mean even there I would want to point out the difference between what Trump says, and what Trump does, are two very very different things. The man is clearly full of shit but on the ground, concrete action, much thinner and more measured.

I would say the reporters reporting this are the ones at fault, Reform have published their policy in some detail, reporters should show the whole picture, not just some left/right punch up, after all they are responsible for this polarisation we face every day in the media.

In terms of being politically homeless, it really is going to be trying to sort out the least worst and dangerous option, and quite possibly voting to keep the worst ones out.

At present the best of a very bad field seems the Tories. Who do nothing useful but at least aren't rushing towards insane and divisive ideas at top speed.

Thank you but no thank you to anything resembling Trump.

"Reform have published their policy in some detail"

Links? Any explanation of what happens between the repeal of the act and new legislation being introduced. One assumes that they must have some legislation ready to go, given Braverman's announcement?

It is not up to anyone else to 'show the whole picture' if Reform can't do that themselves.

I think it will appeal to those people who are prepared to take their chances they will never need its protection because the prize of removing protections from other people on the grounds of race makes the gamble worthwhile.

I linked them in my first comment.

And - we are here discussing articles written by reporters, thats literally their job to show the whole picture in an unbiased a way as possible? (not that they do)

Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the explanation of what happens after the Equality Act is scrapped - which page is it on?

I never said there was one, I said they use the phrase "Replace the 2010 Equalities Act", not "Sex discrimination and all the other unlawful discriminations to become lawful". (page 22)

My one and only point is that the policy is not, even if you squint, to make sacking people for being black or pregnant, legal in any way shape or form, and to say so, is hyperbole.

My one and only point is that the policy is not, even if you squint, to make sacking people for being black or pregnant, legal in any way shape or form, and to say so, is hyperbole.

It is if they are going to repeal the Equality Act on day one.

Maybe they just don't understand how legislation works?

MRA/TRA argument - we don't want women to have any rights that are inconvenient to men, but we also refuse to accept that this means women have fewer rights.

Plus ca change.

The Equality Act 2010 gathered together all the different previous Acts regarding equality/discrimination (such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) and put them all together in one Act.

Does anyone know if these older acts were ever repealed?
Would they come back into force if the EA2010 was repealed?
So, would we go back to using, for example, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975?

NB. Repealing the EA2010 is not something that I want to happen.