Positive Discrimination Equality Bill

[Richardw]

I was following a discussion on a students forum (as can be seen at the link below) regarding the new equality bill which will apparently allow employers to practise positive discrimination.

Harriet Harman pushes positive discrimination equality bill - The Student Room

Firstly, I don't personally agree with positive discrimination, although I do agree with removing barriers that hold certain groups back. And secondly, I am sceptical that this Bill will truly bring equality. For example, will it mean that female candidates will be discriminated against in favour of male candidates in professions which are 'female dominated' such as teaching or nursing? I am doubtful.

Judging from the online discussions I have seen about this bill it is not so popular with the wider public.

[JAMC]

Positive discrimination is a terrible idea because it formalizes and entrenches racial inequality within society, rather than genuinely eradicating it.

[LA]

You cannot legislate against the views of the many.
The only way are for these ethnic minorities to prove there worth, and for a Government not to discriminate against the populace in favour of minorities.

[Marxist Nutter]

I really like the term 'positive discrimination' can anyone think of any more that are s funny...

optimistic genocide?
Cheerful oppression?

[LA]

Oxymorons

I have a good one

Conviction Politician

[Marxist Nutter]

Oxymorons

I have a good one

Conviction Politician

New conservatism

[LA]

New conservatism

Liberal Democrat Government

New Labour

They are all oxymoron's...


The Liberal Democrats won't become the Government in my lifetime I am sure.
The only thing about New Labour is that they have a new way of wrecking the economy.

[Marxist Nutter]

Liberal Democrat Government


The Liberal Democrats won't become the Government in my lifetime I am sure.

I'd be very surprised if they don't, especially judging on voting trends among students. I, in fact think that budding career politicians such as yourself should seriously consider joining them - it's easy to be selected as a PPC, they seem to be on the increase and they have a very strong student group.

[LA]

I'd be very surprised if they don't, especially judging on voting trends among students. I, in fact think that budding career politicians such as yourself should seriously consider joining them - it's easy to be selected as a PPC, they seem to be on the increase and they have a very strong student group.

There is one thing fundamentally wrong with the Liberal Democratic Party. They are very very very Pro-European. That is something I cannot accept.

However, in terms of radicalism and reform, I believe I would be best placed in the Liberal Democratic Party.

[Marxist Nutter]

There is one thing fundamentally wrong with the Liberal Democratic Party. They are very very very Pro-European. That is something I cannot accept.

However, in terms of radicalism and reform, I believe I would be best placed in the Liberal Democratic Party.

Tbh I am not 100% on the party line toward the EU, however talking to Lib Dem MEPs I get the impression they take a pragmatic view to it. They are very very pro the idea of the EU, I agree, however thy recognise it has problems and think the best way to procede is through constructive engagement with the EU and presure from within. Sounds very sensible to me

[Midas]

I was following a discussion on a students forum (as can be seen at the link below) regarding the new equality bill which will apparently allow employers to practise positive discrimination.

Harriet Harman pushes positive discrimination equality bill - The Student Room

Firstly, I don't personally agree with positive discrimination, although I do agree with removing barriers that hold certain groups back. And secondly, I am sceptical that this Bill will truly bring equality. For example, will it mean that female candidates will be discriminated against in favour of male candidates in professions which are 'female dominated' such as teaching or nursing? I am doubtful.

Judging from the online discussions I have seen about this bill it is not so popular with the wider public.

Does 'positive discrimination' mean that I can tell my HR Director to positively discriminate for white British employees only then

[LA]

Does 'positive discrimination' mean that I can tell my HR Director to positively discriminate for white British employees only then

No, it only works for the ethnics.

[Midas]

No, it only works for the ethnics.

That's discrimination though, can't be having that!

[LA]

That's discrimination though, can't be having that!

All anti-discrimination bills do, is move the discrimination from one group to another. In this case, the much larger white male group...

[Midas]

All anti-discrimination bills do, is move the discrimination from one group to another. In this case, the much larger white male group...

I think that perhaps I should point out that I did post my question with my tongue very firmly in cheek......

[angelcountry]

I was following a discussion on a students forum (as can be seen at the link below) regarding the new equality bill which will apparently allow employers to practise positive discrimination.

Harriet Harman pushes positive discrimination equality bill - The Student Room

Firstly, I don't personally agree with positive discrimination, although I do agree with removing barriers that hold certain groups back. And secondly, I am sceptical that this Bill will truly bring equality. For example, will it mean that female candidates will be discriminated against in favour of male candidates in professions which are 'female dominated' such as teaching or nursing? I am doubtful.

Judging from the online discussions I have seen about this bill it is not so popular with the wider public.

I like a country that pay cognizance to their citizen while paying little or no care about what foriegners suffers in the hand of their bloody racist that believes in fraudulent ways to achieve their racism, whether you falling off or sleeping rough on the street caused by their white race they seems not to care, well their always a higher appellate authority to redress it accordingly, can you stop that process ? .

[LA]

Angel, I am not entirely sure of what you said, but if my interpretation is correct, you are as bad as the "racists" who attack.

[angelcountry]

Angel, I am not entirely sure of what you said, but if my interpretation is correct, you are as bad as the "racists" who attack.

Oh come on, did you ever win me ?

[LA]

Sorry, but I am not sure what you mean... Can you take up a different writing style please... i.e. normal writing.

[SussexWithLove]

I like a country that pay cognizance to their citizen while paying little or no care about what foriegners suffers in the hand of their bloody racist that believes in fraudulent ways to achieve their racism, whether you falling off or sleeping rough on the street caused by their white race they seems not to care, well their always a higher appellate authority to redress it accordingly, can you stop that process ? .

Interesting considering that a "white" modern day (western) country is science fiction.

If you are referring to Britain, I think you have the wrong country. Britain loves giving free money to “non-white” countries.

[Nicholas]

Positive discrimination is just another tool by the equality zealots to club the already much maligned white male into submission. The more the left push with the equality agenda , the more votes will fall to the BNP. Maybe it isnt such a bad idea after all. What white Male in their right mind would vote for diversity and equality?

[Midas]

What white Male in their right mind would vote for diversity and equality?

If you mean diversity in the sense of the increased knowledge and capabilities that a wide variety of backgrounds and cultures bring, and equality in the sense that racially all people are born the same, even if they don't subsequently develop similarly, I'd say that the vast majority of people, let alone just white males, would vote for them. Do you have any evidence to the contrary or is this just you own take on the subject?

[Richardw]

If you mean diversity in the sense of the increased knowledge and capabilities that a wide variety of backgrounds and cultures bring, and equality in the sense that racially all people are born the same, even if they don't subsequently develop similarly, I'd say that the vast majority of people, let alone just white males, would vote for them.

If the equality bill did bring this, Midas, it would be a step forward. But as yet I am unsure whether females will be discriminated against in favour of male candidates in 'female dominated' careers such as teaching or nursing. If not then there seems something unequal and dubious about these proposals, since males will be discriminated against in 'male dominated' professions.

[Midas]

If the equality bill did bring this, Midas, it would be a step forward. But as yet I am unsure whether females will be discriminated against in favour of male candidates in 'female dominated' careers such as teaching or nursing. If not then there seems something unequal and dubious about these proposals, since males will be discriminated against in 'male dominated' professions.

The problem with any legislation affecting the status of people, especially of different social, racial and religious groups, in both society as a whole and in the workplace is that however well intentioned it might be, it always has the very opposite effect of leveling the playing field. The moment any one group sees legislation in their favour, it elevates them above others in their own eyes, causing resentment in other groups not so favoured.

As has been said in several other posts, by far the best thing that could be done would be to wipe away every scrap of existing human rights, equal opportunities, race relations and similar legislation and enact a bill of rights declaring everyone, regardless of sex, race or religion as being equal under the law in all respects. There's plenty of other legislation on the books to deal with any flagrant breaches of people's rights.

Once we have a true level playing field in opportunities we might see some more recognition being given to people who achieve more in life as a result of their own determination and ability rather than by using discriminatory legislation as a ladder to elevate themselves solely because of their colour or race or religion!

[Comrade Dirk]

Interesting considering that a "white" modern day (western) country is science fiction.

If you are referring to Britain, I think you have the wrong country. Britain loves giving free money to “non-white” countries.

Yeah, the Make Poverty History. I have no problem giving a lot of money to people who really need it. It's only fair. But it's not fair to give 10 times the amount to the capitalists who put the economy in the state it's in today.

With positive discrimination, i'm against it. I'm for meritocracy. It's ability that should be looked for, not race or gender. Equality goes two ways, you know?

[Midas]

With positive discrimination, i'm against it. I'm for meritocracy. It's ability that should be looked for, not race or gender. Equality goes two ways, you know?

The problem with thinking that we should have a meritocracy comes if you're basing the concept on the idea that everyone is equal in all respects. True enough that everyone should have equal rights under the law, something I fully support, however once you get beyond that, people are not equal and can't be treated as such. If you look to forming a meritocratic society where cognisance is given to the innate differences in people, it's a very different matter, however IMO there are far too many liberals (with a small 'l') and adherents of political correctness who will try to oppose such an idea as to make it unworkable.

[Comrade Dirk]

The problem with thinking that we should have a meritocracy comes if you're basing the concept on the idea that everyone is equal in all respects.

Apart from gender (where women are biologically superior), name me one example, in which one ethnic group is inferior to another!

[Midas]

Apart from gender (where women are biologically superior), name me one example, in which one ethnic group is inferior to another!

Where did I mention that one ethnic group is inferior to another? I said that "people are not equal and can't be treated as such", no differentiation beyond that. To quote you from your previous post - "Clearly, you should try reading the point before answering......"

[JAMC]

The problem with thinking that we should have a meritocracy comes if you're basing the concept on the idea that everyone is equal in all respects.

The true problem is that a meritocracy cannot exist within a free market environment in which the monetary value of a person's skills are determined on factors other than merit.

The world's best footballer will be paid much much more than the world's best nurse.

[LA]

We are talking about inferiority in races...

Well I may be wrong, but it seems to me white people are inferior to black people in terms of athletic ability (running) whereas it appears white people are more curious, intellectual (overall).

[Midas]

The true problem is that a meritocracy cannot exist within a free market environment in which the monetary value of a person's skills are determined on factors other than merit.

The world's best footballer will be paid much much more than the world's best nurse.

But short of ensuring that virtually all the best brains and talent left the country at a stroke if a scheme which dictated the pay level for each and every single type of job was introduced, including that of people who were self-employed or working on commission - and just who would determine what job was worth what level of pay? - what would you suggest? The free market is by far the best way of determining pay levels, or at least broad pay bands, because it works on supply and demand and thus regulates itself.

The world's best footballer gets paid vastly more than the world's best nurse for the same reason, supply and demand, and the fact that those very few people at the top of their profession who attract an immense amount of media attention due to their skill can capitalise on it and cut all sorts of other lucrative deals. I'm pretty sure you would if you were in that fortunate position.

[angelcountry]

But short of ensuring that virtually all the best brains and talent left the country at a stroke if a scheme which dictated the pay level for each and every single type of job was introduced, including that of people who were self-employed or working on commission - and just who would determine what job was worth what level of pay? - what would you suggest? The free market is by far the best way of determining pay levels, or at least broad pay bands, because it works on supply and demand and thus regulates itself.

The world's best footballer gets paid vastly more than the world's best nurse for the same reason, supply and demand, and the fact that those very few people at the top of their profession who attract an immense amount of media attention due to their skill can capitalise on it and cut all sorts of other lucrative deals. I'm pretty sure you would if you were in that fortunate position.

What ?

[JAMC]

But short of ensuring that virtually all the best brains and talent left the country at a stroke if a scheme which dictated the pay level for each and every single type of job was introduced, including that of people who were self-employed or working on commission - and just who would determine what job was worth what level of pay? - what would you suggest?

My personal view is that currency as a representation of abstract value is no longer required if the economic system in question isn't based on the concept of profit, and as such the question is probably based on assumptions that may be worthy of their own thread.

The free market is by far the best way of determining pay levels, or at least broad pay bands, because it works on supply and demand and thus regulates itself.

I suppose it depends whether you view the notion of a truly uncentered system to be beneficial. Could, for example, the outcome of such as system be considered 'good' if the pay levels for 90% of the population were set so low as to result in widespread destitution?

The world's best footballer gets paid vastly more than the world's best nurse for the same reason, supply and demand, and the fact that those very few people at the top of their profession who attract an immense amount of media attention due to their skill can capitalise on it and cut all sorts of other lucrative deals. I'm pretty sure you would if you were in that fortunate position.

The crux of your statement there is 'media attention'. The distribution of skill levels within the two given professions is likely to be similar, or comparable at least.

[Midas]

My personal view is that currency as a representation of abstract value is no longer required if the economic system in question isn't based on the concept of profit, and as such the question is probably based on assumptions that may be worthy of their own thread.

Yes, this could be reminiscent of a similar discussion with MN on the applicability of theory in the real world, although on a different subject! Probably unsurprisingly my views are firmly reality based; we're stuck with the present system for all its vagaries and I don't think any amount of theorising about it, or alternatives, will change that.

I suppose it depends whether you view the notion of a truly uncentered system to be beneficial. Could, for example, the outcome of such as system be considered 'good' if the pay levels for 90% of the population were set so low as to result in widespread destitution?

Again I think that's rather theoretical. If there's a huge over-supply of labour in any one particular area of commerce, wages are indeed likely to diminish, which would be 'good' for those running the businesses concerned, 'good' for their customers since they might be charged less for its products or services, but 'bad' for the workers concerned. However in reality I don't see an extreme situation developing; there'd be revolt in one form or another long before wages diminished across the board to such an extent. In any event it would be self-defeating in the long run; if there were eventually no customers because they couldn't afford to buy anything, no amount of low wages would be 'good' for anyone in any business.

The crux of your statement there is 'media attention'. The distribution of skill levels within the two given professions is likely to be similar, or comparable at least.

Which doesn't really answer the question of whether you, despite your objections to the system, would do exactly the same thing if you had the opportunity, nor does it address the initial subject of meritocracy.

[JAMC]

Yes, this could be reminiscent of a similar discussion with MN on the applicability of theory in the real world, although on a different subject! Probably unsurprisingly my views are firmly reality based; we're stuck with the present system for all its vagaries and I don't think any amount of theorising about it, or alternatives, will change that.

Yes it is theoretical, as was my original point about a meritocracy being impossible in a free market system, assuming that 'merit' is based on 'skill', and 'reward' is based on 'pay'. I wasn't the one that proposed dictating salary levels - you brought that up in your reply. Although obviously you don't support that (and frankly neither do I), my original intention was merely to open up an area of discussion around whether a truly meritocratic society can exist hand-in-hand with the free market. My view is that it can't.

Again I think that's rather theoretical. If there's a huge over-supply of labour in any one particular area of commerce, wages are indeed likely to diminish, which would be 'good' for those running the businesses concerned, 'good' for their customers since they might be charged less for its products or services, but 'bad' for the workers concerned. However in reality I don't see an extreme situation developing; there'd be revolt in one form or another long before wages diminished across the board to such an extent. In any event it would be self-defeating in the long run; if there were eventually no customers because they couldn't afford to buy anything, no amount of low wages would be 'good' for anyone in any business.

I believe this could be summed up as "the steeper the exponential income curve becomes, the uglier things get". As you quite rightly point out, everything is interconnected in some way in the system we currently operate.

Which doesn't really answer the question of whether you, despite your objections to the system, would do exactly the same thing if you had the opportunity, nor does it address the initial subject of meritocracy.

Re: Meritocracy, see above.
As for whether I would do the same, having never been in such a situation it's very hard to come up with an answer. I suppose anything is possible, after all I never imagined until very recently that I'd try to found my own company. I suppose I can only fall back on two things,
1. Participation in a system is an altogether different thing than an evaluation of the system in which you're participating.
2. Perhaps it's not the best idea to determine anything based on what we think we'd do (and particularly what I think I would do) in someone else's shoes. My perception is likely to be way off the mark...

[Comrade Dirk]

Where did I mention that one ethnic group is inferior to another? I said that "people are not equal and can't be treated as such", no differentiation beyond that. To quote you from your previous post - "Clearly, you should try reading the point before answering......"

I take the view that people are different and individuality is pseudo-sacred but we are the same in that we are all human. Different but equal, if you like. However, we are not treated as such. A good question here should be why, incidentally.

Would you mind explaining your point? I appear to be missing something in it.

[Midas]

I take the view that people are different and individuality is pseudo-sacred but we are the same in that we are all human. Different but equal, if you like. However, we are not treated as such. A good question here should be why, incidentally.

Yes, certainly we're all the same in that we're human, and that as such we should indeed be treated as equals in most respects. The qualification being that we're patently not all equals in respect of our individual drives and ambitions and intelligence and leadership qualities...... Acknowledgement has to be given that in those respects people do differ very significantly; a society that fails to give cognisance to this is doomed to failure.

Would you mind explaining your point? I appear to be missing something in it.

Simply that you made a point of emphasising something that I didn't actually say.

[Comrade Dirk]

Yes, certainly we're all the same in that we're human, and that as such we should indeed be treated as equals in most respects. The qualification being that we're patently not all equals in respect of our individual drives and ambitions and intelligence and leadership qualities...... Acknowledgement has to be given that in those respects people do differ very significantly; a society that fails to give cognisance to this is doomed to failure.

Yes, i agree. You're making the point of individuality and different strengths in different areas of ability. And discrimination in that respect.

Simply that you made a point of emphasising something that I didn't actually say.

I know, i misunderstood your first point. I understand it now, but my request was to explain your first point. Which i get now, and agree with.

[Richardw]

Apparently the Bill will allow discrimination in favour of males in certain circumstances.

But if, for example, a headmistress wanted to discriminate in favour of a male teacher to balance an all female team that would be allowed too.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Harman pushes discrimination plan

I don't know whether this will actually be used in practise though. As I said earlier I personally do not agree with positive discrimination, including this type, and I share some of the other posters' feelings that discrimination is not positive.

[LA]

If Harman pushes a discrimination bill, you can almost guarantee it will hurt males, and favour ethnics and females... especially ethnic females.

[Opinionated]

If Harman pushes a discrimination bill, you can almost guarantee it will hurt males, and favour ethnics and females... especially ethnic females.

Now why would any anti-discrimination legislation favour those particular groups I wonder? Could it be that in most areas of life white males are not going to encounter discrimination?
As it happens I do not think anti-discrimination legislation is the answer, once again I would favour a codified bill of rights in order to protect everyone.

[Richardw]

Much discrimination that men and boys face is not recognised, such as historically (and to the present day in some countries) being forced into military service. As a pacifist myself I see being forced to take the lives of other human beings, just because of my gender, as one of the worst examples of exploitation.

Regarding other discrimination, one figure I have read is that up to 40% of victims of domestic abuse in the UK are male. Figures can be found at the following website:

domestic abuse

Other figures I saw last year was that men make up 23% of the victims of domestic abuse in the UK. If this is correct then nearly a quarter of victims of domestic abuse are male. Yet, the figures I saw stated that although there are 470 refuges for female victims in the UK there were only 7 refuges for male victims.

It is hoped that new legislation will help address this problem:

Women's refuges have been warned that they must offer help to male victims of domestic abuse, or face losing their funding...

Women's refuges told to help male domestic violence victims or lose their funding - Telegraph

I have also covered other areas of male discrimination in my previous posts on this forum, including discrimination of male prisoners, and discriminatory policies that label all males as a threat to children.

[Marxist Nutter]

Much discrimination that men and boys face is not recognised, such as historically (and to the present day in some countries) being forced into military service. As a pacifist myself I see being forced to take the lives of other human beings, just because of my gender, as one of the worst examples of exploitation.

Regarding other discrimination, one figure I have read is that up to 40% of victims of domestic abuse in the UK are male. Figures can be found at the following website:

domestic abuse

Other figures I saw last year was that men make up 23% of the victims of domestic abuse in the UK. If this is correct then nearly a quarter of victims of domestic abuse are male. Yet, the figures I saw stated that although there are 470 refuges for female victims in the UK there were only 7 refuges for male victims.

It is hoped that new legislation will help address this problem:

Women's refuges have been warned that they must offer help to male victims of domestic abuse, or face losing their funding...

Women's refuges told to help male domestic violence victims or lose their funding - Telegraph

I have also covered other areas of male discrimination in my previous posts on this forum, including discrimination of male prisoners, and discriminatory policies that label all males as a threat to children.

I knew about the unspoken problem of domestic violence. Un spoken in the sense we always hear about the abuse of women by men and never hear of the contrary even tho it goes on. I did not know, however that the problem was that widespread. I guess I had bought into feminist propaganda that the problem was negligible compared with the problem of abuse against women!

[Ronald Reagan]

I was following a discussion on a students forum (as can be seen at the link below) regarding the new equality bill which will apparently allow employers to practise positive discrimination.

Harriet Harman pushes positive discrimination equality bill - The Student Room

Firstly, I don't personally agree with positive discrimination, although I do agree with removing barriers that hold certain groups back. And secondly, I am sceptical that this Bill will truly bring equality. For example, will it mean that female candidates will be discriminated against in favour of male candidates in professions which are 'female dominated' such as teaching or nursing? I am doubtful.

Judging from the online discussions I have seen about this bill it is not so popular with the wider public.

There is no place for a quota system when hiring. It should be purely based on skill, not race or gender. Another example of political correctness gone mad. This bill is made with good intentions but in actual fact it is unfair and racist.

[Richardw]

Conservative MP, Ann Widdecombe, who also campaigns against all-women shortlists in Parliament, is opposed to the idea of the Bill.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581898/White-men-may-miss-out-under-job-plans.html


Chairperson of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, has even suggested that there may need to be positive discrimination in favour of young white people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3270989/Trevor-Phillips-calls-for-positive-discrimination-to-help-young-whites.html

[Ronald Reagan]

Conservative MP, Ann Widdecombe, who also campaigns against all-women shortlists in Parliament, is opposed to the idea of the Bill.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581898/White-men-may-miss-out-under-job-plans.html


Chairperson of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, has even suggested that there may need to be positive discrimination in favour of young white people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3270989/Trevor-Phillips-calls-for-positive-discrimination-to-help-young-whites.html

Thank god Ann Widdecombe has some sense.