|
 Well. The world just got so cartoonishly evil that Garth Ennis would call it over the top.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:Alright, outside of assault or violence, has there ever been a systematic push to deny things like employment, education or services to armed forces personnel, especially on the same level as disabled people, or LGBT people, or any other currently protected class? No, but that's not the argument I'm making. Let me say this again. I don't care about soldiers (within the scope of the equality act). If adding soldiers removes protections from LGBT, disabled, BAME etc then yes this would be loving terrible, but my whole argument is that adding one more class (soldiers or UKIP) makes no difference to the already protected classes, their protection remains. HortonNash fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:
Do remember that Saatchi literally wrote a book called 'Be the Worst You Can Be: Life's Too Long For Patience and Virtue'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Do remember that Saatchi literally wrote a book called 'Be the Worst You Can Be: Life's Too Long For Patience and Virtue'. "I'm literally Satan. All those who come before me will bow in fear and beg for mercy: A conservative manifesto."
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Last sentence of the Saaatchi selling pictures of throttling Nigella story, "Anyone can upload their work to Saatchi Art, and will received (sic) 70 per cent of the sale price with 30 per cent paid to the company for commission." So i)while a veritable monster they are suggesting he may not have asked for/wanted these specific images, and ii)what are you all waiting for? Paint/draw/crudely scratch some images of Saatchi being disemboweled by a paring knife/choking on caviar/etc. etc. and load them up. You might even make some money!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Interesting use of Homer Simpson there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
I know a guy who left the army due to loosing a hand in a roadside bomb where he saw his friend killed, and I know that he's struggled to find work since. He seems to think it's because a lot of people worry they would be employing someone who was emotionally unstable or prone to violence due to their past work/experiences. I don't really want to be drawn into this argument, but I did want to contribute that tiny view point. Ilyich posted:Interesting use of Homer Simpson there. And Bart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Putting a lot of effort into troop rehabilitation would be a great idea if they actually gave a poo poo about soldiers like they say. Instead they go for silly bullshit like "make it double illegal to beat up a troop" because that gives the appearance of giving a poo poo about troops without actually doing anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:No, but that's not the argument I'm making. Well, why have protected classes at all? If adding to that group makes no material difference, why not just say it applies to absolutely everyone? That way you're guaranteeing legal equality for all! Thing is, it's not about plugging some unforseen equality loophole, it's a focused tool for tackling very real, specific social problems. By broadening it arbitrarily you're not only watering down its remit, you're undermining the purpose for its existence - strong, visible protection for vulnerable groups and minorities, necessary because they've historically been victims of discrimination and prejudice. Diluting that doesn't help to change society, it power to effect change is weakened if you add reactionary 'tolerate my intolerance' ukippers and 'white racism' types to the platform. In an ideal world it wouldn't make any difference, but we're not there yet, which is why the legislation exists
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:I know a guy who left the army due to loosing a hand in a roadside bomb where he saw his friend killed, and I know that he's struggled to find work since. He seems to think it's because a lot of people worry they would be employing someone who was emotionally unstable or prone to violence due to their past work/experiences. More than likely it's because he has lost a hand and not because of any perceived trauma. Employers are dicks and any kind of perceived disability that may affect work makes the candidate 'not suitable'
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Alecto posted:None of that is a reason for why the Conservatives would get a greater share than in 2010. The UKIP voters didn't come out of nowhere, they did exist in 2010 and I don't see any of them that didn't vote Conservative then voting Conservative now. The Conservative fall in the polls also pre-dates the main of the rise of UKIP, suggesting what they lost in the main was centrists rather than fruitcakes. Yes UKIP will bleed to all the parties in the run up, overwhelmingly the Conservatives, yes Labour will bleed to the Conservatives in the last few months, but who's voting Conservative in 2015 who didn't in 2010? It'd be an extraordinary hold to not lose any net votes after 5 years of government, possibly a first ever (would have to check the data on that one to be sure). Working from that principle the chances of the Conservatives being the largest party with these boundaries is very small. The problem is that Labour are doing sweet gently caress all to increase their lead and seem to be doing everything in their power to make their core lefty vote not want to turn out. You can see it today in Jon Cruddas' comments in The Times. Labour is going for a strategy of austerity-lite and standing in the Tories' home turf on Welfare where they are certain to get outplayed, shelving progressive ideas so not as to spook conservative-sympathetic voters in the home counties, and then they are hoping that they drift into government due to simple dislike of the coalition. They will be going up against an extremely hostile media landscape, some awful polling figures on economic competence (and the existence of Ed Balls), Milliband has a lower approval rating than Clegg, and they don't have a confident answer on things like the EU because they can't have one which doesn't alienate a group they need to win. Maybe I'll put some money on Labour getting the most seats/Tories most votes. In any case I don't see either of them getting a majority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Yeah, holy smokes, that Saatchi thing:
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Well, why have protected classes at all? If adding to that group makes no material difference, why not just say it applies to absolutely everyone? That way you're guaranteeing legal equality for all! It's not that it makes no difference, it's that it makes no difference to already protected groups if you add another group. The fact is that the following are protected characteristics: Age Disability Gender reassignment Marriage or civil partnership Race Religion or belief Sex Sexual orientation You can no more discriminate against middle-aged, straight, able-bodied, white, Christian males, than you can against teenage, black, transgendered, disabled, Hindu women, when it comes to access to employment, education and services. (Except where accommodations are "unreasonable" or the post is exempt, eg a rape crisis centre at the top of a grade-1 listed lighthouse might have a case against employing a wheelchair bound man). Adding ex-service personnel to the list makes no difference to the people protected on the list, because it protects pretty much everyone from discrimination on the grounds listed above. Adding one more characteristic doesn't mean any of the others has less weight. As far as I can see, the equality act was never about righting historic wrongs (in the way that the US' affirmative action is), but ensuring that everyone can access the benefits of modern British society. It just so happens that the people who face discrimination most in everyday life are the disabled, BAME, LGBT etc. Now if you want to talk about positive discrimination, in favour of minorities, then that's a different discussion, and I would absolutely object to ex-service members being on that list, because they have not been historically discriminated against, nor do they face significant discrimination today (in fact they are largely lauded). On the "reasonable accommodations" front, that is one thing I think needs to be taken out of the legislation, having myself run into that weasel excuse (over of all things, the size of a washbasin).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
twoot posted:The problem is that Labour are doing sweet gently caress all to increase their lead and seem to be doing everything in their power to make their core lefty vote not want to turn out. You can see it today in Jon Cruddas' comments in The Times. Labour is going for a strategy of austerity-lite and standing in the Tories' home turf on Welfare where they are certain to get outplayed, shelving progressive ideas so not as to spook conservative-sympathetic voters in the home counties, and then they are hoping that they drift into government due to simple dislike of the coalition. They will be going up against an extremely hostile media landscape, some awful polling figures on economic competence (and the existence of Ed Balls), Milliband has a lower approval rating than Clegg, and they don't have a confident answer on things like the EU because they can't have one which doesn't alienate a group they need to win. Certainly couldn't agree more with this. I'd be very surprised to see a Labour majority, but it's really astounding how ineffectual and generally crap Labour can get away with being now. There's an argument to be made that the Conservatives still have a significant lingering amount of unelectability; they couldn't get a majority against a hugely unpopular Labour party that'd been in power for 13 years with an extremely unpersonable leader that was being pilloried in the press every day. With fair-ish boundaries they probably would've got a majority, but still only 37% of the vote against Gordon Brown's Labour is staggeringly bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Is the equality act actually executed fairly now? If not I can see the cases of soldiers being discriminated against being investigated more favourably than the complaints of ethnic minorities, and then it's just another example of the inequality that the act should be stopping.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Adding ex-service personnel to the list makes no difference to the people protected on the list, because it protects pretty much everyone from discrimination on the grounds listed above. Adding one more characteristic doesn't mean any of the others has less weight. So why have the list at all, if everyone's covered? Why explicitly list certain attributes, that everyone has some variation of, and not others like eye colour or favourite food? What's the point of it? HortonNash posted:Now if you want to talk about positive discrimination, in favour of minorities, then that's a different discussion, and I would absolutely object to ex-service members being on that list, because they have not been historically discriminated against, nor do they face significant discrimination today (in fact they are largely lauded). All of the characteristics on that list are each a basis for discrimination that has historically occurred, and that still exists as societal prejudice (even if it's now illegal to actively discriminate on those grounds). By your own logic there's no reason for ex-services to be on there, so it sounds like you don't actually agree with it, you just don't think it's important or has any meaning. But for a lot of people it absolutely is important, because it's the result of decades of struggle to be recognised - as groups that should no longer be officially persecuted, as socially persecuted groups in need of some official protection. And it's not a done deal by any means, but progress has been made and it was hard-fought. It's protection, but also validation and an official recognition of the problems, that discrimination has existed against some groups, and that it's a bad thing that's being actively redressed by society. This is what the 'political correctness gone mad' crowd rail against - the force for change and the push against their lovely attitudes. Mixing in other groups that haven't faced the same discrimination, so they can be elevated to the same importance (or weaken the importance of everything else by association) is harmful in a lot of ways - possibly legally (in terms of watering down legislation and tying up resources), but especially in a social sense. I mean it's a common tactic - look at gay marriage, and how a lot of the arguments against weren't 'this shouldn't be allowed', but 'well if this is allowed then I should be allowed to marry my son for tax reasons, or a dog'
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:because they have not been historically discriminated against, nor do they face significant discrimination today (in fact they are largely lauded). So why add them then, if a) They don't need the added protection, and b) Adding them makes, in your mind, no difference to existing categories? Just because "it does no harm to existing categories" seems like a piss poor reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Alecto posted:With fair-ish boundaries they probably would've got a majority, but still only 37% of the vote against Gordon Brown's Labour is staggeringly bad. How were the lib dems able to block this one? Is the boundary commission not independent enough to force the issue of fair boundaries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Prince John posted:How were the lib dems able to block this one? Is the boundary commission not independent enough to force the issue of fair boundaries? Boundary Commissions make the recommendation but parliament still needs to approve them. The latest one was a mess anyway. Reducing the number of MPs was a naked political move for "reducing the size of government" type Tories.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
twoot posted:Boundary Commissions make the recommendation but parliament still needs to approve them. I guess it's telling that the Tories would rather avoid reform of the House of Lords than give themselves a chance at winning the next election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:So why have the list at all, if everyone's covered? Why explicitly list certain attributes, that everyone has some variation of, and not others like eye colour or favourite food? What's the point of it? Because those attributes are ones that have been used to discriminate, whereas eye colour hasn't. If eye colour became an attribute that was being used to discriminate against people then by all means add it. I imagine the government of the time sat down with various advocacy groups and decided that those were the characteristics that would best be served by equality legislation at the time. I don't know why you're questioning the fact that everyone is covered, it's plain to see that they are as everyone falls into one or more of those characteristics, and anyone is capable of being discriminated against because of them. Why else are there women-only jobs specifically exempted from the act (the one I have seen advertised myself is a rape counsellor). baka kaba posted:All of the characteristics on that list are each a basis for discrimination that has historically occurred, and that still exists as societal prejudice (even if it's now illegal to actively discriminate on those grounds). By your own logic there's no reason for ex-services to be on there, so it sounds like you don't actually agree with it, you just don't think it's important or has any meaning. I don't agree with it at all. What I've been arguing all along is that adding extra categories makes no difference to the existing protections and no one has been able to say why it would, other than hurting the feelings of various groups. TinTower's first post, the one I objected to, was a ridiculous hyperbole about soldiers being as oppressed as LGBT people. The very fact that that was TinTower's objection to it, not that was a stupid vote grabbing ploy speaks volumes as to how some people view equality legislation as a reward for being "most oppressed group". baka kaba posted:But for a lot of people it absolutely is important, because it's the result of decades of struggle to be recognised - as groups that should no longer be officially persecuted, as socially persecuted groups in need of some official protection. And it's not a done deal by any means, but progress has been made and it was hard-fought. It's protection, but also validation and an official recognition of the problems, that discrimination has existed against some groups, and that it's a bad thing that's being actively redressed by society. This is what the 'political correctness gone mad' crowd rail against - the force for change and the push against their lovely attitudes. I have no time for this argument, the equality act is not a reward for "struggle", so shouldn't be limited to those who are most "worthy". The whole idea of comparing different groups "struggles" is building a hierarchy of special needs, when in fact it doesn't matter why you're being discriminated against if you're on the receiving end of unfair treatment or cannot access employment, education or services. Equality legislation isn't meant to reward groups, punish groups, right wrongs or change society, it is supposed to ensure fair access to employment, education and services, and if a group is struggling to access services then they need inclusion whether they're viewed as privileged or not, because it's not down to popular opinion about who gets help, it's about need.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Can we not consult ASAB for a ruling on this "protect are boys" legislation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Prince John posted:I guess it's telling that the Tories would rather avoid reform of the House of Lords than give themselves a chance at winning the next election. Just moved here and recently discovered (and I'm actually amazed it took me this long to find this out) that the House of Lords is unelected. I thought it was just an old name, not a literal House of Lords. It is simultaneously staggering and hilarious to me that a modern nation would have an unelected upper house, and also that people waste time banging on in the Guardian about how the Royal family costs 50p a year or whatever while you have an unelected upper house.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Just moved here and recently discovered (and I'm actually amazed it took me this long to find this out) that the House of Lords is unelected. I thought it was just an old name, not a literal House of Lords. It is simultaneously staggering and hilarious to me that a modern nation would have an unelected upper house, and also that people waste time banging on in the Guardian about how the Royal family costs 50p a year or whatever while you have an unelected upper house. There's actually quite a jumble of different people in there - the Church of England get a slice, various peers are now appointed by political parties, so only a minority (92) are now actually hereditary. Some peers are specialists in particular fields. No doubt it's a view that will get me pilloried in here, but I'm actually a fan of an unelected second chamber. They don't have the power to permanently block legislation (the Parliament Act allows a government to force legislation through after being sent back twice) but the fact they can bounce it back usually results in sensible amendments to often hasty and ill thought-out laws. The standard of debates are often more thoughtful and considered than those in the House of Commons. There have also been several occasions where the Lords, as they did not have to bow to public pressure, protected us from government excesses - the detention without trial amendment here is one example. Having a second elected chamber would just create another shower of politicians pandering to the same whims of tabloid pressure and wouldn't result in any significant restraint against bad government legislation. Having said that, for those who'd like a good laugh at the noble Lords, you'll enjoy the mice debate from Hansard. If you keep scrolling down though, I think you'll find some more representative samples of 'typical business' with some relatively thoughtful and well-informed comments. Prince John fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Just moved here and recently discovered (and I'm actually amazed it took me this long to find this out) that the House of Lords is unelected. I thought it was just an old name, not a literal House of Lords. It is simultaneously staggering and hilarious to me that a modern nation would have an unelected upper house, and also that people waste time banging on in the Guardian about how the Royal family costs 50p a year or whatever while you have an unelected upper house. The UK is not a modern nation though! That's part of our charm  . The K in the name should give it away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Equality legislation isn't meant to reward groups, punish groups, right wrongs or change society, it is supposed to ensure fair access to employment, education and services, and if a group is struggling to access services then they need inclusion whether they're viewed as privileged or not, because it's not down to popular opinion about who gets help, it's about need. But you've admitted that soldiers are not such a group, HortonNash posted:ex-service members being on that list, because they have not been historically discriminated against, nor do they face significant discrimination today (in fact they are largely lauded). So why are you going through all the trouble of defending the expansion? If they don't need it why do it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
If the House of Lords baffles you freebooter, you'll have a meltdown when you realise that the hereditary peers - the Earls, the Dukes, the Viscounts - actually have relatively better democratic legitimacy because they've undergone an election process whereas the life peers are all just direct appointees.  As Prince John says though, as a technocratic chamber whose purpose it is to assist the democratic legislature and scrutinise, review and refine legislation the House of Lords does its job quietly and competently and with surprisingly little controversy. There are occasional half-hearted attempts to impose further reform, more from vague and fuzzy appeals to "progress" than any demonstrable benefit, but I suspect that although they may not admit it on-record most MPs do not want an elected Lords because it would undermine the supremacy of the Commons. In any case I'd say that having a House of Lords is certainly preferable to two rival chambers rejecting each other's legislation and throttling government in a perpetual deadlock like you get in the U.S. Congress - we'll never have to worry aboutParliament failing to make a Budget. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Lords are conservatives, proper conservatives. Not reactionary right wing pieces of poo poo. So while they might slow down or attempt to block a lot of progressive reform, they've utterly shut down a lot of alarmingly undemocratic poo poo the tories have tried to pull, and the tories know that forcing through violations of human rights against public will and legislative process is a step they can't take. The ASBO reforms were terrifying and swept through commons with ease, before Lords decided to tell everyone to gently caress off and let them have tea. Downside: they spend government time and money arguing about how they havent got enough free food.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Because those attributes are ones that have been used to discriminate, whereas eye colour hasn't. If eye colour became an attribute that was being used to discriminate against people then by all means add it. I imagine the government of the time sat down with various advocacy groups and decided that those were the characteristics that would best be served by equality legislation at the time. Well they were rhetorical questions - I pointed out that everyone is covered by those attributes, because they're universal ones. Eye colour is also something everyone has (obviously excepting an unlucky minority, which goes for all of these). And, as you agree, the reason those characteristics have been specifically protected against being the basis for discrimination, is because they historically have been the basis for it. That's the whole reason the need for special protection arises, whereas for eye colour - another thing we all have, as a varying characteristic - or any other millions of attributes, it's unnecessary and muddies the clear basis for the legislation in the first place. Think about it - we all share those attributes, sure, but in different ways. The legislation is in response to discrimination on the basis of these characteristics, but what kind of discrimination actually results in this kind of legislation being necessary in the first place? Discrimination against white people? Straight people? Men? The law is written universally, so it applies to everybody, but it wasn't created in response to a universal problem. What it's saying, in historical and social context, is that minorities in each of these categories have been discriminated against for it, and this legal hammer was necessary to stop it the gently caress from happening, and to force society to treat people in something approaching a decent manner. It's like a firm hand reminding everyone that people should be treated equally, as an ideal, but that in reality the firm hand is still needed. HortonNash posted:I have no time for this argument, the equality act is not a reward for "struggle", so shouldn't be limited to those who are most "worthy". The whole idea of comparing different groups "struggles" is building a hierarchy of special needs, when in fact it doesn't matter why you're being discriminated against if you're on the receiving end of unfair treatment or cannot access employment, education or services. It's not a reward, it's a hard-won historical record of what it took to get where we are today. Remember gay people used to be arrested (and worse, unofficially), now there's official protection against any kind of discrimination. Surely you can see how that's a huge step, and how it's still important because prejudice still exists? If you start adding in groups that don't face discrimination, it erodes the importance of the legislation. It ends up being a collection of all people, with a toothless 'be nice to each other' generality where some of the groups genuinely need focus on protection and others don't at all - the opposite in fact. And it becomes legally more complicated - instead of being a fairly clear and focused set of protections against the most pervasive forms of discrimination in society, you easily get conflicting claims because everything is a protected group. Some more popular than others
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:
No it's not. It's a piece of legislation that ensures everyone, where possible (because there are exceptions), can access employment, education and services. The historical record is elsewhere, where it belongs. baka kaba posted:Remember gay people used to be arrested (and worse, unofficially), now there's official protection against any kind of discrimination. Surely you can see how that's a huge step, and how it's still important because prejudice still exists? No. There's protection against discrimination when interacting with government, employers and service providers, not against any kind of discrimination. There are other laws for other types of discrimination. baka kaba posted:If you start adding in groups that don't face discrimination, it erodes the importance of the legislation. It ends up being a collection of all people, with a toothless 'be nice to each other' generality where some of the groups genuinely need focus on protection and others don't at all - the opposite in fact. Nope. The equality act is deliberately all encompassing because it is about equality, not special protections for certain groups. baka kaba posted:And it becomes legally more complicated - instead of being a fairly clear and focused set of protections against the most pervasive forms of discrimination in society, you easily get conflicting claims because everything is a protected group. Some more popular than others Nonsense. Your protected status is not eroded because of my protected status, and just because everyone is protected doesn't mean no one is. It's just as lovely for an employer to discriminate against a white man (for being white and male) as it is for them to discriminate against a black woman (for being black and female). It's orders of magnitude less likely to happen, but it is illegal discrimination, and the white man could bring an action under the equality act because of it. Does the discrimination protection for the white man mean that the more necessary (due to the frequency of discrimination, not worthiness of subject) protection for the black woman is lessened? No, she can bring exactly the same action. The equality act doesn't make people be nice, it only effects the interaction between government, employers and service providers with individuals. It can't stop racism, classism, homophobia, religious bigotry or any of the other discriminations, and has no effect on the kinds of abuse that some people face day to day in the street/playground/shop, there are other laws designed to deal with those. It ensures that everyone can access employment, education and services and therefore it needs to cover everyone, from the straight, white, able-bodied cis male, to the black, lesbian, disabled trans woman, because they all need to interact with government, employers and service providers. The equality act is not redress for past crimes, nor a badge of honour, nor a historical record, nor a list of worthies; it's there because otherwise some people would be hosed for myriad reasons outside their control and that's not fair. HortonNash fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
You also have to consider the feelings of people who were forced to join the armed forces and hated every minute of it. My grandad would be outraged at the thought of the same UK government who forced him to join the royal navy now forcing everybody to treat him differently, even if only legally. He thought the navy contained as many nasty, utterly horrible bullies as the waffen ss. He also said he escaped the worse of it because he was a made an artificer chief petty officer straight away because of his trade. Conscription lasted from 1939 to 1960. Most of them are dead now or quite old. But I imagine there is a fair amount of white males in that demographic who would laugh at the idea that they needed to be a protected group in society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:The equality act is not redress for past crimes, nor a badge of honour, nor a historical record, nor a list of worthies; it's there because otherwise some people would be hosed for myriad reasons outside their control and that's not fair. And are some of those people military service personnel, for the reason of them being in the military? As in are there structural inequalities in employment/housing/education/welfare that need to be addressed in order for these people to take a full par in society? If not I can understand the instinctive reaction against a gimmick being applied to something you think is being important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:The equality act is not redress for past crimes, nor a badge of honour, nor a historical record, nor a list of worthies; it's there because otherwise some people would be hosed for myriad reasons outside their control and that's not fair. HortonNash posted:Equality legislation isn't meant to reward groups, punish groups, right wrongs or change society, it is supposed to ensure fair access to employment, education and services, and if a group is struggling to access services then they need inclusion whether they're viewed as privileged or not, because it's not down to popular opinion about who gets help, it's about need. HortonNash posted:ex-service members being on that list, because they have not been historically discriminated against, nor do they face significant discrimination today (in fact they are largely lauded).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Your protected status is not eroded because of my protected status, and just because everyone is protected doesn't mean no one is. It's just as lovely for an employer to discriminate against a white man (for being white and male) as it is for them to discriminate against a black woman (for being black and female). You're not getting my point - everyone is protected universally, regarding specific attributes. Those specific attributes aren't randomly picked, they represent (some of?) the most pervasive types of prejudice that people face. They're responses to major, important problems that need to be forcefully addressed. That's what the legislation was created for in the first place, that's what it represents. If you start adding more protected attributes in there, that don't represent major problems, then the point of the legislation (and the gravity its existence lends to those issues) is eroded. Here, I'll add to your list, the new Equality Act HortonNash posted:The fact is that the following are protected characteristics: I mean, that doesn't affect the Equality Act, its scope, its influence on policy, its public perception, its integrity etc. at all, right? And all of these new protections (and why stop there, let's take Twitter suggestions) are all universal of course. They're literally increasing equality! baka kaba fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Could someone please explain how legislation isn't used to change society, because I'm pretty sure it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:Could someone please explain how legislation isn't used to change society, because I'm pretty sure it is. Well a good deal of the time it's used to prevent change in society, so there is that much! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Just moved here and recently discovered (and I'm actually amazed it took me this long to find this out) that the House of Lords is unelected. I thought it was just an old name, not a literal House of Lords. It is simultaneously staggering and hilarious to me that a modern nation would have an unelected upper house, and also that people waste time banging on in the Guardian about how the Royal family costs 50p a year or whatever while you have an unelected upper house. The Canadian Senate is also unelected 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Pretty sure the nodding in ~£300/day including the expenses works out as cheaper than many other upper houses, and that's assuming they've turned up every day to claim max expenses. I have a close family member in the Lords and in my personal (albeit anecdotal) experience it performs it's role very well. These are, by and large, people with a huge breadth of experience in a field or multiple fields, who don't have to worry about pandering to an electorate or even pandering to a party half the time, so can really rip apart legislation if they like. People point to the Parliament Act as a win button vs the Lords but I think it's been used about four times total... Elected Lords would be complete and utter wank. Look at the level of apathy and political disconnect we have already, I dread to think what the turnout would be for a new unfamiliar election. Also it would massively politicise the upper house in an unecessary way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
 You heard aarrrr boys
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:People point to the Parliament Act as a win button vs the Lords but I think it's been used about four times total... Seven: the Church in Wales Act 1914, the Government of Ireland Act 1914, the Parliament Act 1949, the War Crimes Act 1991, the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, and the Hunting Act 2004. Clegg also threatened to use it for the House of Lords Bill 2012, and Cameron is threatening to use it if the European Union (Referendum) Bill 2014 clears the Commons in a few months time. The problem for Cameron on that front is that Clegg won't allow it parliamentary time as a government bill, and a private members' bill on the issue is going to get talked out by both Labour and the Lib Dems; the previous attempt only passed because Labour and the Lib Dems didn't vote on it because, you know, it was a PMB they didn't expect to pass. In my mind, the debate over an elected Lords ended a hundred years ago, as the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 that a House of Lords will eventually be elected by the popular principle. It's just a lack of political will (and fear from the Lords they'll lose their retirement home) that it's not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 08:03
|
|
