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

Exactly they are adding more and more categories etc so the whole thing will collapse.It intersectionality gone mad.
Will white working class boys trump black middle class women.
They are already trying to enlarge hate crime category instead of abolishing it, while still claiming to be in favour of free speech.
I think we should be scrutinising what Labour's doing now rather than speculating about Reform.

No, but they are boys and they are white and the action is likely to be area and situation specific.

Do you want class to be a PC or not?

I think you might be misunderstanding the scope of positive action. It's training and mentoring, not giving people jobs.

The socio-economic duty is already a provision within the EA. The call to add class as a PC isn't LP policy, it generally comes from unions or other bodies. As for "will working class boys trump black middle-class women", well that's where the work of GC women will be useful. The acknowledgement that sometimes rights may be in conflict, and that should be recognised. I don't think anyone's stopping you starting a thread scrutinizing what Labour's doing though.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/ehrc-publishes-new-research-socio-economic-duty-implementation-ahead-introduction

So the current DEI agenda of the last few years has destroyed single sex spaces, we're just getting them back, that's with the EA in place. So people have ignored the law for years and just done what they wanted.

I've not been offered a job because they thought I'd get pregnant and I was made redundant after my first maternity leave and that was under Labour.

I have a disabled friend who was sacked for being disabled when they could have easily adjusted her job. About 10 years ago.

For these laws to be meaningful, they have to be enforced and they're not and particularly not for people at the lower end of society who cannot afford to bring court cases.

The current situation is that people with money can afford to pursue employment tribunals and therefore have their rights more generally respected. If you're poor you're generally fucked and these laws do nothing.

I don't know what the answer is, but at the moment seemingly some people are getting very rich off defending 'human rights' cases for the most evil people in society and people like the grooming gang victims never have even the slightest concern shown or resources directed at protecting their human rights.

Edited to add: Human rights law when applied in UK courts at the moment seems to not consider the impact on others. E.g. grooming gang rapists allowed to stay in the UK to protect their human rights with no thought of the impact on the human rights of people in the society they are living in. Like their victims. Some of whom it now seems have actually been trafficked abroad, with no-one seemingly blinking an eye at the human rights abuse this is. Nor doing anything about it.

There does seem to be some confusion.

No protected characteristic trumps another. All are equal.
PCs are not intended to spark competition between different protected groups, but to afford the individual with the PC protection against those who have the power to discriminate against them because of it.
Adding in class just means people get protection from another previously unacknowledged discrimination. It doesn't impact the protections people get for other things.

No, I don't even think we can accurately define it for a start. As I said earlier we've hit the over reach stage and the backlash will be inevitable.
In fact I'm depressed because I don't see anyone with the judgement and integrity to approach the whole thing rationally. Certainly not either Farage or Starmer.

That's in theory but is actually what all the gender critical cases are about. Rights conflict.
I remember David Lammy criticising all women shortlists because it meant women were being advantaged over black men.

Rape is illegal in law but basically it's more or less -in reality - legal in many cases for reasons such as this thread demonstrates

Hampshire police ignore own officer enabling serial rapist to attack more women | Mumsnet

So why the hell should we care about equality law which only protects the bullies on top? Because that's what it does. You have to have money for laws like the EA to apply to you.

And funnily enough, nurse Jennifer Melle was not protected from racist abuse from a convicted paedophile. The bits of the EA 2010 that don't suit their agenda totally ignored by the NHS yet again

Obviously whatever Reform do may not be any better, but anything's got to be worth a punt given the current situation and simply 'not better but wasting fewer millions of taxpayers money' would be a huge plus. Given our roads and rail and water and sewage and waste systems are all falling apart.

Absolutely. He’s telling the sort of people who think women have too many rights that he’s on their side.

Women would be fools to vote for Reform. They’ve not supported us on single sex spaces, either - remember Nige talking about “case by case” decisions?

They really think we’re stupid.

Its very rare that rights between protected groups conflict as they do with women's and trans rights/wishes.
Typically equalities measures should be to address disadvantage, not give advantage. So with a short list, work should be done way early in the process and embedded in the culture, to make sure both women and black men have no barriers to competing equally to get on to the short list.
The Problem with women's rights and what is framed as trans rights, is that in key areas they are mutually exclusive. There is no squaring the circle of women's rights to be a sex class that doesn't include men, and the wishes of some men to be treated as part of our sex class. Unlike every other percieved clash of rights, in this case only one group can possibly have true claim to the rights, because TIM are either women or they're not.
If it had been decided in law that they were, they'd have won the right to be treated as such and women would have lost the right to single sex spaces. As it was, it went the other way. Women's claim to the rights confirmed, TIM claim to the rights denied.
I know there's a reluctance to accept it, but the law was clear, so once accepted there should be no further grounds for conflict.

So women shouldn’t have rights because on occasion rights conflict?

I'm no fan of Lammy, but that doesn't seem to be what he said.

https://labourlist.org/2014/08/david-lammy-latest-mp-to-call-for-all-minority-ethnic-shortlists/

What he said and it's from memory (so is not a direct quote) was that black male activists were complaining because All Women shortlists prevented them from standing in their constituency. It hit me at the time that the successful candidate could be a black woman.

You're putting 2+2 together and making 5. I haven't said that, please read what I said.

The thing about the equalities act is that it ws really important in a lot of the push back against the erosion of women's rights via gender ideology. It would be very ironic if a right wing party were to tear it up and in so doing destroy all the work women put into protecting single sex services etc.

Its why, although it seems a bit naff, parties caring about procedure/the law/the courts does matter. They aren't perfect but they are the best protection against crazy people on both sides of the spectrum. Labour might not LIKE the recent rulings on single sex rights, but they have to grudgingly follow them (even if dragged kicking and screaming) because they do sign up ideologically to the rule of law. And they are scared of the electorate. As they should be.

My worry is parties like Reform/Restore who are quite gleefully open to ripping up existing conventions open up women's rights to attack- first from them but further down the line from any party which comes after them since in politics "the other guys did it first" is an acceptable argument (much like small children).

An extreme "progressive" party in power after a reform government would be much more dangerous than an extreme "progressive" party before them would be

I'm inclined to agree. My worry is Labour are tinkering with laws outside the Act.
Eg the crime and policing bill.

Disability and LGBT hate crimes set to become aggravated offences - BBC News https://share.google/VyW1XtwkfLGtPQ6vI

Hate crimes which target people on the grounds of their sexuality or gender identity, or a disability, are set to become aggravated offences under a proposed new law.An amendment to the Crimes and Policing Bill will mean a crime is aggravated if a victim is targeted because of those characteristics, and will carry a higher penalty.The LGBT+ anti-abuse charity Galop described the amendment as a "landmark moment" for equality.

He's suggested tax breaks for women or families with children. Which has been tried in a few places, not particularly successfully in terms of increasing birth rates, but it is something that might be appreciated by those putting off having kids due to costs.

In fact there are quite regularly people on MN and even FWR who are asking for just that, a tax break to make life for families easier.

The thread in AIBU on this was actually nuts, with people saying all kinds of completely made up, speculative stuff about things like forcing women to have children.

That's very vague, and no, I don't think those are the only kinds of things people worry about with regard to this stuff.

. What kinds of policies do people see being pushed by the government that they don't life? What, specifically, are the things they see around them in their eighbourhoods, schools, or jobs that pisses them off.

Off the top of my head - Maybe people are concerned about the way ideas about hate crime have been used. Maybe they are concerned that kids that belong to designated groups have to be accomodated in schools even if it means kids who don't fall under a special group get fucked in terms of their education. Maybe they are upset because, like a woman yesterday on MN, she called an organisation looking for MH support for her child and was told they only have programs open to diverse patients.

Or something else.

I think it's very strange to assume that people unhappy with the way this legislation is working are just upset they aren't "getting the good stuff" whatever that is supposed to mean.

It's obviously bollocks about them actually enacting anything on day 1, or repealing anything (which requires enacting something to repeal the previous law anyway). They're mimicking Trump and his executive orders, where day 1 comes 3 months after the election win. We don't have executive orders, and day 1 is immediately after the election win, the victor is still busy for some days saying hi to the king, getting sworn in, having state openings of parliament etc. They don't have access to civil servants who draft bills until after they win the election.

They could include changing equality law in the speech the king gives at the opening of parliament. It would still need to go through the whole readings and debate and sending to the house of Lords process. Nothing is happening in one day.

Sincerely hope we are never in a position to find out.

The meaning is clear. Its simply a distilled way of saying all the things you're projecting on to people yourself.
People who aren't getting the things they want and need have been led to believe its because they're being given away to immigrants. Or in the case of the MH referral you mention, white people, egged on by right wing activists, being led to erroneously believe white children are not getting something from a charity that black and brown citizens are.
That disgraceful thread maligning a charity that does so much good, was an excellent example. Started with misinterpretation, swiftly jumped on by activitists drowning out facts with misinformation to convince people there is a problem with 'racism towards white people' rather than a problem with a shortage of MH services for children and young people.
Our society has problems. 'The good stuff' is not available to those who want and need it because of wealth inequality and decades of neglect of disadvantaged WC people so that the privileged can further feather their nests. Now people are rightly fed up and right wing racists are capitalising on this to convince them black and brown people are to blame.

I would think that as more reform policies like this one are stated, they will likely change their mind about voting for them.

People can do that - change their minds when situations change.

Yes,
I really don't like some of the things Labour are doing and I think that if they thought it through and were genuinely worried about reform getting in in the next election they would be more careful. That's the whole sticking point about laws/freedom. Any tools you use to push one agenda could be turned on you by the next person to get in so you'd think they would be more sensible. So why wouldn't an authoritarian right wing government use the principles of aggravated offences to make eg crimes against straight white men carry a higher punishment (because straight white men are the most discriminated against)

But at least, under Labour, they do have to follow the normal rules around debate etc in parliament. I think people talk about the first Trump term as not being that bad but it really eroded a lot of norms especially around how the truth works, which then (personal theory) amplified the crazy in the Democratic party, which then really set the ground for the second term. And now every "political analysis" type show has the same format "ahhh, Trump hits a roadblock a court ruling won't let him do X,YZ" followed by "Trump is doing the thing anyway". I don't think it's going to be easy for America to come back from that, even if they do elect someone else because he's proven what is possible if you just ignore all the conventions and make up your own reality.