Harriet Harman introduces her Discrimination Bill

Tory backbench MPs lined up earlier today to attack Harriet Harman's Equality Bill.  We post two of their contributions below - alongside more qualified concerns from Theresa May, Ms Harman's opposite number.

The Bill does a number of things that many Conservatives will support.  This includes action against discrimination by age.  Such discrimination is clearly wrong when it means an NHS patient gets inferior treatment because of their age but the legislation must be sensible.  Can it be wrong, for example, to allow a travel insurer to discriminate against a very old, frail passenger?

What really worries Conservative backbenchers - reportedly dismissed by John Bercow MP as the "Taliban" tendency* - are the provisions which will allow firms to discriminate in favour of people on the grounds of their gender or ethnicity.  Over at CentreRight Andrew Lilico argues that this right to discriminate will mutate into a de facto requirement to discriminate as firms who prefer the old-fashioned approach of appointing purely on merit are probed for "imbalances".  Harriet Harman made it clear today that the Government is ready  to use public procurement policies to force private firms to be more open about their employment policies.

The Labour benches lapped up Ms Harman's announcement earlier today and her strategy makes sense from her party's narrow interest in shoring up support amongst its base supporters.  We might see a lot of legislation like this coming forward from ministers who recognise that the electoral game is probably up for them but that two years is a long time in government and they might as well use that time to legislate.

Theresa May MP: "Until now, the Government have rightly sought to stamp out discrimination. The Bill takes a different approach. It will include measures to prevent discrimination, and measures to allow discrimination in certain circumstances. It introduces further complexity and confuses the Government’s message. After all these years, this is a huge missed opportunity. The Government could have introduced a revolutionary approach to equalities legislation, promoting fairness and diversity within a positive and sensible framework. Instead, the right hon. and learned Lady has been quoted as using phrases such as “empowering the resentful”. The Bill should seek to unite, not to divide. It has good intentions, but its lack of detail and clarity is disappointing. I am willing to work with the Government on this matter, because the issue of equalities is one that deserves to be looked at above and beyond the emotions of party politics. I hope that the right hon. and learned Lady will join me in endeavouring to ensure that we can do just that."

Philip Davies MP: "This Bill has nothing to do with equality. It is the most politically correct Bill ever, proposed by the most politically correct Minister that this country has ever seen. If she were so bothered about equality, she should have enshrined in law the fact that people should be given a job and candidates selected on merit—irrespective of their gender and irrespective of their racial background. How on earth can she justify in an equalities Bill a provision that allows people to be selected solely on the basis of their skin colour or their gender? That is completely and utterly outrageous. The party that, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, introduced anti-discrimination laws is now reintroducing discrimination into the workplace. How many of the Minister’s hand-wringing white male colleagues have offered to give up their seats in the House to make way for more women and more ethnic minority MPs?"

Ann Winterton MP: "Is the right hon. and learned Lady aware that, despite what she said, what she proposes will be an extremely harsh burden on smaller businesses because of the extra amount of red tape and bureaucracy with which they already have to deal? The Bill will be a further blow. I come from a small business background, so I know that better than some on the Government Benches who have never had any experience of running a small business. May I say that I am completely at odds with my own party because I have never believed in positive discrimination, but it will reassure the right hon. and learned Lady to know that her plans for older workers will perhaps protect me from any retaliatory action?"

* We might send Mr Bercow a copy of The Kite Runner and he will perhaps realise how offensive the term Taliban is.

Comments

[Tony Makara]

How would this law relate to a mixed race person who applies for a 'blacks only' job? After all a person of mixed race is both black and white, so could they apply for a 'blacks only' job? I'm naturally assuming that people won't be allowed to advertise for 'whites only', because that would be racist,...wouldn't it?

[Matt Kellett]

Bercow is bang out of order.

[Paul Oakley]

Bless you Harriet! On behalf of my legal brethren I would like to extend our thanks to you for this proposal for filling our pockets!

It's a shame that the small companies which actually create wealth will be paying for it. However, you can't make an omelette. . .

[Vincent Wall]

In the middle of difficult times is this really what business needs?

PS
Bercow is a disgrace.

[wtf]

Editor, wasn't it Alan Duncan who coined the term "Tory Taliban"?

[Edward]

Unbelievable.

In all honesty, blocking nonsense like this is 30% of the reason I'm a Tory. If we do support it then I'll pack in my membership.

Against discrimination on the basis of age (save where that impacts on ability to perform), sex, ethnicity, religion and hair colour. For equal opportunities.

[Editor]

Yes it was wtf.

[Dale]

Wasn't it Alan Duncan who orginally coined the term 'taliban tendany'?

[Dale]

Damn! someone beat me to it by 6 minutes.

[Imogen Brodie]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

[Imogen Brodie]

Editor...its my opinion and i'm entitled to it....David Davis is fighting for exactly this...FREE SPEECH!!!!!

[Mark Hudson]

Since the UK is over 92% white caucasian according to the 2001 census, does this mean that we shall be seeing a massive reduction in the active pandering to ethnic minorities?

Really, this is the most God awful Bill. I have spent the last 14 years making pay decisions for companies and I can tell you that such alleged discriminatory cases are very few and far between.

If the Conservative Party ever wants to be seen again as serious about business, it will commit itself to repealing this Bill when in Government.

[David Lindsay]

It is notable that, although certainly having room both for upper-class people and for QCs, Old Labour governments felt no need for an "Equality Minister". They were too busy getting on with creating the NHS, clearing slums, and such like.

I didn't hear Woman's Hour this morning, but after Harman's fawning "interview" on Today, there was nothing about this on Jeremy Vine (despite an hour on other aspects of this Bill, including an interview with Harman), nor even anything on Martha Kearney's World At One. I wonder why not?

It is women who physically give birth, and on whom small children are most dependent. Get over it. In egalitarian terms, the "pay gap" does not exist. What Harman is seeking is not equality, but special privilege.

[Common Sense]

Positive discrimination is immoral in principle and counter-productive in practice. If the Conservative Party follows the more-socialist-than-thou posturing of John Bercow then it will certainly not deserve to form the next government.

Let's hope Theresa May gets stuck in to Harman, a Labour figure whose politics cannot really be distinguished from those of Ken Livingstone.

[A.Viewer]

Having recently annoyed you all by wholeheartedly agreeing with Bercow on the Abortion issue, you may be pleased to learn that I consider this bill almost criminal in its intent and that only the retarded or malevolent could support it.

Has anyone heard Peter Hain comment on this bill? Having spent so much of his time opposing apartheid in South Africa, I would have thought he would be outraged to see his own party introduce anti-indigenous legislation in Britain.

[Man in a Shed]

Most people who work for blue chip companies, especially in the Engineering and IT sectors will know that anti-white male discrimination already exists. This will just make it worse. (I have seen plenty of examples in my time.)

But the real reason for it is to ensure that Labour can be forced to bring in more women MPs ( they will go for 50% in opposition ), once the sisterhood gets that sort of support then no one will be safe.

Its phase one of a wider long term plan.

Hearing talk of Tory Taliban is ironic as its the fundamentalists in the anti-male feminists who are pushing this.

I hope it turns out to be illegal under the human rights act. But in the mean time we must think of how the consitution can be changed to stop such unjust moves in the future - regardless oif the government.

[RichardJ]

"The Labour benches lapped up Ms Harman's announcement earlier today and her strategy makes sense from her party's narrow interest in shoring up support amongst its base supporters."

I imagine Labour's core working class supporters will view this as middle class feminist poncing around.

[Shaun Bennett]

I liked the reference in the headline to Harriet Harman's "Discrimination Bill".

Would this be her Discrimination Legalisiation Bill (2008)?

What a very sorry country we live in where discrimination that a large minority (i.e. the left) 'like' is not only thought to be ok, but where if you disagree you are branded a racist/bigot/homophobe etc by the liberal elite media.

[Man in a Shed]

I hate to quote the European convention on human right - but desperate times require desperate measures.

The key phrase looks like "there is an objective and reasonable justification for those measures". Is there a reasonable and objective justification ? If so then the convention isn't worth very much when Harriet Harman can use it to take away your career and livelihood.

Not only must we repeal this but we must ensure it can *never* be reapplied.

See below:

Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms
Rome, 4.XI.2000

The member States of the Council of Europe signatory hereto, Having regard to the fundamental principle according to which all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law;
Being resolved to take further steps to promote the equality of all persons through the collective enforcement of a general prohibition of discrimination by means of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”);

Reaffirming that the principle of non-discrimination does not prevent States Parties from taking measures in order to promote full and effective equality, provided that there is an objective and reasonable justification for those measures,
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1 – General prohibition of discrimination
1 The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without
discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association
with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
2 No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any
ground such as those mentioned in paragraph 1.

[HF]

We need to tread carefully here.

We have a potential time bomb that could explode within Labour.

Ideally we would be best letting Labour debate it within themselves and have the print media tear into Labour over their "anti white man" law.

Can we really see the Labour MPs atht are in touch with the working class, like Frank Field, remaining quiet on this?

What about pushing polls in the marginals on their reaction to the "anti white man" parts.

Let the polls and newspapers kick up such a stink that Harperson retreats.

This could be worth millions of votes to us, but it needs to be handled carefully.

[Andrew Woodman]

This is madness. Has Harriett Harperson ever visited the real world. What happens if an eomplyer has an above average quota of women or ethnic minorities, do they equal it up with white men. This policy really is meat and drink to the BNP but Labour just don't get it. I'm sure women and ethnic minorities will be appalled at the idea that they will never know if they got their job on merit or because of a quota. We must oppose this.

[Jake]

What about the Barnett Rules.

Aren't these the very essence of discrimination based on nationality?

[Tony Makara]

There are implications here for the white man trapped on benefits. Will he now be elbowed out of jobs in the retail sector in favour of women? What about cleaning jobs and the pin-money jobs that were traditionally done by women, but have been taken in recent years by men desperate to work, will white men now be denied all access to these jobs? Will employers take on women in such numbers that certain workplaces won't want to take on male workers at all? This is such a mess, its going to effect people in the real world, something hectoring Harman knows nothing about.

[YMT]

I despise Harman, she's a diabolical old Toad suffering from a severe case of Blepharospasm.
Why Labour seems entrenched in the idea of using central governments legislative force for the manipulation of the demographic make-up of companies just further sinks us into their red tape socialist quagmire.

Companies should be able to hire the person who is best suited and best qualified for a job, simple as that.

[Ben Elford]

Racist, immoral, unfair, bureaucratic, imposing unnecessary costs ...

Evidence that in its long death throes, Labour is capable of causing immense damage to our country. If they were out of office tomorrow it wouldn't be too soon.

[dave]

If Labour want to provoke a nasty backlash from the white working class then they're going the right way about it. Is that what all the anti-terrorist legislation is in aid of?

[Ulster Tory]

This bill probably won't get passed, but if it does Harman may have to wear a stab proof vest in the chamber too.

[wtf]

No, Jake.

[Deborah Thomas, PPC Twickenham]

This is so wrong - we are now legalising racism. I have written a post about this on my blog - http://deborah4twickenham.com/blog/?p=320

This bill must be opposed at all costs.

[Pete]

On 20 May 2008, Leo McKinstry reported thus in The Daily Mail:

"Political ideologues live in a permanent state of denial, refusing to accept any evidence that contradicts them. A classic example of this pattern lies in family policy. For decades, feminist zealots have told us that family structure is irrelevant, fathers are unnecessary for child-rearing and marriage is outdated.

These views have had a disastrous influence, encouraging the state to preside over the breakdown in the traditional family. The results are everywhere - in crime, in benefits dependency, poverty and the rising costs to public services.

Yet, amid all this wreckage, hardliners still cling to their dogma. And none is more hardline than the High Priestess of British Feminism, Harriet Harman. In an extraordinary interview published yesterday, she declared marriage was 'irrelevant' to public policy and described high rates of separation as a 'positive development', as it reflected 'greater choice' for couples - never mind the children.

If nothing else, Harman can be credited with consistency. Neither the facts nor the passage of time have changed her mind. She was preaching this dangerous gospel of feminist fascism when she was first elected to Parliament in 1982.

When I came to work for her as a parliamentary aide in the early Nineties, Harman was questioning whether fathers were necessary at all. In her 26 years as MP, she appears to have learnt nothing from representing the poor South London constituency of Camberwell and Peckham. It not only has one of the highest rates of lone parenthood in the country, but is also one of the most deprived and crimeridden areas in Britain. Yet in Harriet Harman's mind, these two points are not connected.

As a naive young Ulsterman, hailing from a middle-class, two-parent home in Belfast, I was shocked at the complete absence of responsible fathers in the big housing estates that dominated the constituency.

Yet this wilful creation of fractured society in her own midst did not bother Harriet.

'Families come in all shapes and sizes', has long been one of the favourite mantras of the Left.

Research studies have shown, however, that children do better when raised in married families... Research, concluded that a stable background means you are less likely to be out of work, live off the State, become single parents or even smoke. Children of married parents do better in exams, according to other studies, and are less likely to have mental difficulties.

The Commons Home Affairs Committee has shown that levels of family breakdown among the black community are propelling teenagers into a life of crime. This was all too evident in Peckham's phenomenal caseload, arising from an army of constituents who were reliant on the state for all their needs, which meant I found working for Harriet an extremely demanding job.

When I first took up the post, many friends in the Labour party told me I was an idiot to do so. She had a tyrannical reputation, notorious for her unreasonable demands and hectoring manner... There was often an air of chaos about her management - she often struggled to remain on top of her paperwork. And for someone in the frontline of politics, Harman could be strangely ill-informed about current affairs and I would have to brief her strenuously for appearances on BBC Question Time, trying to ensure, for instance, that she remembered the names of key players in the Middle East peace process.

She could also be odd about money. At one stage she decided to employ a media negotiator to enhance her earnings from routine broadcast appearances - unheard of in Whitehall. It was a tactic that backfired when an outraged ITV company leaked to the Press her substantial demand for a fee...

I can now see what aggravates so many people about her: the politically correct condescension; smug self-certainty despite a record of incompetence; the whiff of born-to-rule arrogance; the attachment to the shibboleths of multi-culturalism and feminism. Harman is the embodiment of so much that is wrong with New Labour. Born into affluent privilege herself, Harman is that classic socialist type that regards the robust British working class with suspicion. But Harriet's greatest vice - and there are many - is her hypocrisy. She is now the Deputy Leader of a party that, in its latest by-election campaign in Crewe, has descended into the gutter of class warfare, deriding its opponents as 'toffs'.

Yet few figures in modern politics have enjoyed greater privilege than Harman. Her father was a Harley Street surgeon, her uncle the Earl of Longford. She was educated at the exclusive St Paul's Girls' School, before going on to York University and legal training. And like so many of the New Labour elite, she has never had a real job... Before she entered Parliament, she worked as the legal officer for the radical pressure group, the National Council for Civil Liberties.

Further hypocrisy comes in the way she is raising her family - Harman's attachment to the socialist ideal of comprehensive education clearly does not extend to her own life. She sent one of her sons to a grant-maintained school, another to a selective grammar, reinforcing the belief that too many Labour politicians refuse to practise what they preach.

Living in the leafy enclave of Dulwich, Harman's detachment from her constituents' lives was further reflected when she wore a stab-proof vest for a tour of Peckham, even though she was escorted by three police officers...

In 11 years of Labour rule she has no significant achievements to her name. She was sacked from the Cabinet by Blair in 1998 for making a hash of the policy of welfare reform. Since then she has used a succession of jobs, first Solicitor-General and now Minister for Equalities and Leader of the Commons as a platform to propound her dated brand of feminism.

Her mix of incompetence and cash problems was again demonstrated when she was embroiled in the Donorgate row recently, having accepted money for her Deputy Leadership bid without checking the source and then failing to make a proper declaration to the Electoral Commission...

Harman is fond of talking about equality, but her policies move in precisely theopposite direction.

So she has called for the introduction of US-style positive discrimination for job candidates, where female and ethnic minority candidates are favoured over white males. This is in direct contradiction of equal opportunities. Nothing could be more unjust, patronising or discriminatory than awarding jobs on the basis of skin colour or gender. The same is true of her scheme to promote all-black shortlists in elections to increase the number of non-white MPs.

But then Harman has never had time for the British public, preferring to patronise rather than listen. She wants to shape society instead of serving its genuine needs.

Her entire career, based on the elitist belief that she knows best, represents a betrayal of the traditional working class - the very people Labour was founded to represent."

Harman has a deal of form in the marriage-wrecking, absent-dad-is-best book.

As long ago as 1990, she co-authored a report entitled The Family Way, which criticised the family unit and mothers who stay at home. In fact the booklet went so far as to wonder whether:

"... the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion".

Erin Pizzey described the work as a:

"... staggering attack on men and their role in modern life".

So, "why does Harriet Harman hate marriage"?

Perhaps because she is a member of a New World Order elite that despises the British working-classes and wants them gone?

Lord Longford was Harman's uncle and the writers Thomas Pakenham, Rachel Billington and Lady Antonia Fraser are her cousins. Fraser is married to the Jewish playwright, Harold Pinter.

Harman is great-granddaughter of Arthur Chamberlain and Louisa Kenrick.

Arthur was the brother of Joseph who served under Gladstone and Salisbury. Louisa's cousin, Harriet, married Joseph and they were the parents of Austen, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary. Louisa's sister Florence married him after Harriet's death. They were the parents of Neville, Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940.

Another Harman great-grandfather was a wealthy paper merchant.

Harman’s sister, Sarah, was caught passing confidential papers to her when she was Solicitor General.

Sarah Harman was, subsequently, found guilty of "conduct unbefitting a solicitor" and forced to resign.

Harriet Harman, MP for Camberwell and Peckham, voted for war with Iraq.

She did not vote for an amendment which sought to prevent the invasion of Afghanistan. She also voted for the military action which led to led to the widespread bombing of Iraq in 1998.

Twenty two EDMs were introduced into Parliament, since New Labour came to power, which were critical of the government's use and sale of cluster bombs, land mines and artillery shells containing depleted uranium.

Harman signed none of them.

At least sixteen EDMs were introduced into Parliament, since New Labour came to power, which sympathised with Armed Forces personnel who have been seriously damaged by: deliberate exposure to radiation at nuclear test sites; chemical and nerve gas experimentation at Porton Down on unsuspecting volunteers; Gulf War Syndrome and other wholly preventable illnesses.

Harman signed none of them.

She voted to allow the adoption of children by homosexual couples and to lower age of consent for gay sex to 16.

She voted against the motion which opposed government plans to cut student funding and voted for student top-up fees.

She voted for the establishment of Foundation hospitals (privatisation by the back door) in all four of the most important Commons divisions

Of the seventeen EDMs (and their amendments) which were explicitly or implicitly critical of the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe, Harman signed none of them.

During the lifetime of the New Labour government, Harman has had plenty of opportunity to sign some of the many EDMs introduced into Parliament which were suspicious and/or critical of GM "Frankenstein food" technology.

She didn't sign any.

She also voted for an amendment to a bill which, according to Stephen Byers, who was a member of the Select Committee which tabled the new clause:

"... would create a new specific offence of racially motivated violence".

She also signed an EDM, introduced by the black Jew, Oona King, welcoming:

"... all-party support that the Race Relations Bill has received throughout its passage in both Houses of Parliament; and calls on all public authorities - the police, central and local government, the NHS and others, all of whose functions will be covered by the amended Race Relations Act 1976, to seize the opportunity provided by this legislation to tackle all forms of racial discrimination".

When Harman signed this pernicious EDM, she will have known that it was designed to bear down upon the native, white population of Britain only.

Harman also voted for criminal behaviour to be punished with more severity if that behaviour be "racially" or "religiously" aggravated.

She also mentioned the murder of Damilola Taylor many times in the House of Commons. She also mentioned the death in prison custody of the black man, Alton Manning. She also signed an EDM commemorating Stephen Lawrence.

However, Harman never mentioned the murder of her constituent, Leslie Watkinson. Leslie, a 66-year-old former Salvation Army Major, was knocked to the ground just yards from his home by three black youths who stole his pension.

Nor did Harman mention the murder of Hilda Ashdown, who was killed by two black men. Nor did she mention the murder of Angela Demetriou, who was killed by her black neighbour.

In fact, Harman has never brought a black/Asian upon white murder to the attention of the British people in the House of Commons. Nor has she ever signed an EDM commemorating any of the many British dead who have been murdered by first and second-generation immigrants.

[mike calarke]

I may have missed something here, not having time to plough through the multitude of comments, but does Bercow still take the Conservative Whip, and if so, why?

[Mark Fulford]

Once balance is lost through *isms it can’t be re-found by just saying “ok, we won’t be *ists from now on”. Positive discrimination is a necessary evil to undo previous decades of negative discrimination.

The Equality Bill allows positive discrimination only where there is currently under-representation and, even then, only between candidates who are otherwise equal. Deborah Thomas, this bill is about reversing the effects of racism, not legalising it. Sadly it speaks volumes that you picked on race as the issue rather than age, for example.

[Thanks for the excessively long quote]

Pete, if I'd wanted to read 2,000 words from the Daily Mail I'd have bought it.

[Sean Fear]

"Positive discrimination is a necessary evil to undo previous decades of negative discrimination."

No it isn't necessary. It's just favouritism.

Andrew Lilico has argued cogently that companies will be expected to discriminate against men and white people, or face government investigation. This will be policy throughout the public sector, and for companies wishing to do business with the public sector.

[Sean Fear]

"The Labour benches lapped up Ms Harman's announcement earlier today and her strategy makes sense from her party's narrow interest in shoring up support amongst its base supporters."

Who are Labour's supporters these days? I suppose, middle class leftwingers, some ethnic minorities, and problem families. So, two of those three groups should be happy.

It certainly won't win back white working class voters.

[Norm Brainer]

Once balance is lost through *isms it can’t be re-found by just saying “ok, we won’t be *ists from now on”. Positive discrimination is a necessary evil to undo previous decades of negative discrimination.
2 wrongs don't make a right.

well, unless they are exactly equal and opposite but it wouldn't be possible to ensure of that.... when would you stop?

Plus that's all theoretical and treating people like racial objects ... like you're saying a black person wasn't employed in the 80s because of a racist so today we have to employ a black person to compensate.
People are people not just products of their race etc.

[Sean Fear]

I could see the argument for it (temporarily) if we'd had slavery, or Jim Crow Laws in this country, but nothing like that has ever happened in living memory. We've had decades of increasingly stringent anti-discrimination laws in this country, and it's fair to say that if there are differences in group outcomes, they reflect the free flow of market forces

[alan]

I have never supported positive discrimination as I believe that will lead to unrest in this country. These proposals are quite wicked.

I am, simply, appalled at the Conservative Front Bench giving their approval to these anti white male proposals.

Have the Conservatives lost all sense of proportion? God Help us we are just handing the BNP an absolute gift.

Oppose. Oppose. Oppose.

[Sean Fear]

To be fair, I'm not convinced the Conservative front bench does support this proposal Alan, although Theresa May has been very mealy-mouthed.

[ACT]

The utter absence of official Tory opposition to this explains *every* single facet of internal, actual Tory opposition to Cameron.

[brian]

If you really want to stick it to Labour, start referring to this bill as the "New Labour Apartheid Bill".

Pushes a lot of buttons.....

[Paul Oakley]

Fraser is married to the Jewish playwright, Harold Pinter.

She also signed an EDM, introduced by the black Jew, Oona King,

She also mentioned the murder of Damilola Taylor many times in the House of Commons. She also mentioned the death in prison custody of the black man, Alton Manning. She also signed an EDM commemorating Stephen Lawrence.

And your point is Pete. . . ?

[Sean Fear]

"We might send Mr Bercow a copy of The Kite Runner and he will perhaps realise how offensive the term Taliban is"

Bercow's just a bad joke.

[Mark Fulford]

... like you're saying a black person wasn't employed in the 80s because of a racist so today we have to employ a black person to compensate.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The reason it's necessary is because imbalance becomes entrenched. Remember, this bill only applies where there is under-representation.

[Norm Brainer]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The reason it's necessary is because imbalance becomes entrenched. Remember, this bill only applies where there is under-representation.

Well that just sounds racist to me.

The whole term 'under-representation' does as it's segregating people based on race (or sex etc) and making choices based on it.

[Dale]

Mark fulford's argument is worrying.

Should I storm into the reichstag and demand to be made president of Germany because people of a particular religion were discriminated against by the nazis?

[Sean Fear]

The thing is Mark, you think it entirely appropriate to discriminate unfairly against individuals simply because other members of their group have benefitted from unfair treatment in the past. That is inherently unjust.

[YMT]

Labour need to be attacked on this, why the front bench seemingly support it I don't know, Cameron needs to clarify his position. From the sound of it Harman is proposing that the government will control who works in a business and this will be legislated by Westminster so business can't choose who they want from the best choices but will be compelled by the law ("forced") to hire people who will allow a firm to hit targets on the racial, gender and age make-up of a company.

Additionally Trevor Philips was giving an Interview for the BBC where he basically said that another idea in the proposal would be to force companies to be totally transparent in what they pay people this will allow "competition" by workers to be able to see who pays what for what positions and allow companies to see what other companies pay their workers, that everyone would be able to know what's going on with a companies in this respect, including a database in Whitehall maybe? This Proposal is mad, will damage British business and scare away even more foreign companies.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Good to see this bill roundly condemned by the audience on Question Time. I got the distinct impression that many of the panel did not really understand it or its implications

[Mark Fulford]

The thing is Mark, you think it entirely appropriate to discriminate unfairly against individuals simply because other members of their group have benefitted from unfair treatment in the past.

The because isn’t as simple as that. The reason I’d take £20 from you is not because your dad took £20 from mine. I’d take it because, when your dad took the £20, he put himself at an advantage that he then hands down to you. That advantage will continue until I get the £20 back.

Clearly this is all a metaphor and your dad didn’t really take £20 from mine. More likely it was the other way around!

[Sean Fear]

Your error, Mark, is to believe that the government can somehow measure what amount of historic advantage given to X's ancestor (or fellow group member) justifies present ill-treatment to X.

And, your argument is basically unjust in any case. You want to punish people for things that are none of their doing.

Society is nothing like as inflexible as you believe. All sorts of groups, like Jews, homosexuals, Irish, Roman Catholics, have been historically unfairly treated, but have got ahead without discrimination in their favour.

[Watervole]

Another crass piece of Labour legislation that they have to rush through like a fading souffle. It's bad for business and bad for women. In all their ghastly legislative poo, Labour never manage to actually achieve anything. Their laws do not protect women from getting less salary than men - the employment tribunals and employment law are a joke. All this will do is foster increasing resentment and I would not be surprised if there were not riots as desperate men wonder what on earth this society has to offer them.

Another knife into the heart of Liberty - still, more fodder for David Davis to go at and more power to him.

[Dale]

"That advantage will continue until I get the £20 back."

So colective punishment is the answer?

[Joe James Broughton]

The proposals about having to employ people from certain groups are appalling, and a further burden of costly red tape.
It also encourages a blame culture etc.

I am, however, sympathetic at doing more about discrimination against older people - who suffer it in a variety of ways outside work. The government does have good intentions on that, and we should work with them to find a solution - except Gordon Brown ruined a lot of private pensions in the 1998 budget (announced 1997), and there are details to work out on that.

[Jon White]

There is no greater oxymoron than the term 'Positive Discrimination'. ALL discrimination is wrong. Mark Fulford's comments are worrying - how can anyone who claims to suppport Conservative principles believe this nonsense? To give a women or a black man or a lesbian a job BECAUSE they are female, black, or gay is JUST as patronising and demeaning to that person as denying them a job for the same reason. This bill is madness. It must be opposed at all costs.

[Mark Fulford]

Your error, Mark, is to believe that the government can somehow measure what amount of historic advantage given to X's ancestor (or fellow group member) justifies present ill-treatment to X.

Sean, if a group is equally able but under-represented, that is measurable and correctable.

We are trying to decide which is worse: self-perpetuating discrimination (from historical causes) or positive discrimination. In either case, one of our two equally able candidates is going to be discriminated against. I think it’s right that the discrimination should be calculated to reduce the problem so that, eventually, it goes away.

Your argument is that time is the universal healer and these problems will fix themselves. Looking at the discrimination that still exists, I don’t find that a convincing argument.

...how can anyone who claims to suppport Conservative principles believe this nonsense?

I think I've written more sense on this than you ;-)

[Simon Chapman]

Sorry Mark, your premise is wrong. It is simply not the case that in individual cases it is inevitable that "one of two equally able candidates is going to be discriminated against".

At best you can say that it is possible that candidate X might be discriminated against on the grounds of gender or ethnicity. That will depend on the prospective employer. There is already a legal remedy to challenge such discrimination. Against that you are introducing the certainty that candidate Y will be discriminated against, on grounds of gender or ethnicity, with no legal remedy whatsoever.

It's vital to look at this from the point of view of the individuals concerned. What you are arguing is that, because other individuals have been the beneficiaries of victims of discrimination in the past, it is appropriate to discriminate against somebody else.

This contravenes every rule of natural justice. We must fight it, and if it passes, pledge to repeal it.

[passing leftie]

Well, it's hardly a surprise that you lot would hate this legislation. The Daily Mail hates it too.

On average women doing exactly the same jobs with exactly the same experience earn less money. Across the country, people in minority groups with identical qualifications are going without jobs, all else being equal. If there was no historically entrenched prejudice, there would be no need for legislation - large companies employment patterns would reflect the demographics of qualified individuals in their area. That is simply not the case.

Prejudice is often subconscious, and it's only by careful study of statistical evidence which brings it to light. Point at an individual case and it's very hard to say. Statisitical problems require statistical solutions. For example, studies have shown that non-white minicab drivers are likely to get lower tips than white ones. This is very unlikely to be people consciously thinking "I'm not tipping him as much because he is black" than a socially constructed perception of a minority.

So, this bill allows companies to overcome sexism, racism and ageism on a corporate scale, by allowing HR to pick between equal candidates based on their sex, race or age. It doesn't lessen the quality of the workplace, and is not "prejudiced" against white people - it merely goes some way towards creating a balance which for historical reasons has never existed.

[Michael McGowan]

Mark, your argument is authoritarian nonsense on stilts. In the example you gave, you have no evidence at all that the advantage was handed down. You'e simply assumed that it is. It's just a flimsy pretext to shore up your argument. You don't fight discrimination by creating a form of apartheid. And even if your entrenchment argument is correct, which it isn't, what is "underrepresentation" under your approach? Who decides this entirely arbitrary question of balance? Presumably you....the all-knowing-one who "knows" that God doesn't exist.

[Mark Fulford]

Simon, to clarify, I’m giving a choice between self-perpetuating and positive discrimination and asking which is worse? In that choice it is inevitable that one will be discriminated against. If you see the choice as a false one then you have to be able, hand on heart, to say that there’s no self-perpetuating discrimination in our society.

It seems to me that there’s a good amount of exaggeration about how this part of the Equality Bill would apply. It’s specifically "so that employers can take under-representation into account when selecting between two equally qualified candidates".

I completely disagree with the proposal "making it unlawful to discriminate someone because of their age when providing goods, facilities and services or carrying out public functions". Without an unlimited budget the NHS does have to make hard choices about the cost-effectiveness of treatment. Treating a mother of young children does more to reduce harm than treating a father of old children.

...the all-knowing-one who "knows" that God doesn't exist.

Wow, next you'll be throwing the kitchen sink at me!

Michael, you’ve just shown why you will never understand me. To claim that God doesn’t exist would require divine knowledge. My actual view is that the likelihood of God existing is vanishingly small. It’s a subtle but important distinction that recognises the importance of evidence.

The evidence is that in some occupations under-representation is so great that even you may acknowledge it. Having done so, surely the next questions are why has this happened, is it good and can it be fixed?

BTW, how well are atheists represented in government? How about lawyers?

[Benjamin Gray]

First things first: Oona King isn't Jewish, not that it's particularly relevant.

Second, people should be going on all-out attack on Harperson's anti-family, anti-male credentials. Of all the people to bring in a bill about "equality", she may well be the worst on the Labour front bench.

If she uttered half of the rubbish she did but replaced "white" and "man" with "black", "jewish" or "woman", she'd be exposed for the divisive figure she really is.

[Michael McGowan]

Mark, I have no idea what your last comment is meant to convey. You assert that there is "under-representation" but have so far failed to come up with an effective measure of what this means and what it signifies. Surprising really given the arbitrary and penal effects of what you propose. Take the medical profession in this country which for much of my lifetime has relied heavily on the services of Asian male doctors. As a consequence, white female doctors may be "underrepresented" relative to the % of the population which they make up. So what?
Should we sack/not promote some Asian doctors so we meet an arbitrary % which bears no relevance to efficient healthcare delivery?

I don't believe your point about self-perpetuating discrimination, for the reasons Sean has set out. My own family, poor Irish Catholic immigrants, are living embodiments of the ability of initially disadvantaged immigrant groups to progress in this country. Ugandan Asians are another good example. The main obstacle in their path is lying politicians of both parties destroying meritocratic state education.

[passing leftie]

Posted by: Benjamin Gray | June 27, 2008 at 11:09

If she uttered half of the rubbish she did but replaced "white" and "man" with "black", "jewish" or "woman", she'd be exposed for the divisive figure she really is.

This shows your complete ignorance about the nature of prejudice. If there was a one-to-one mapping of those nouns, there wouldn't be any need for legislation. There is an imbalance of representation against certain groups, and this act addresses that problem.

[Norm Brainer]

of course God as man-shaped Lord doesn't exist... but God as a useful concept to represent the collective consciousness and actions of man is valid.... and in this case the if the "under-representation" isn't defined in law, and you aren't allowed to decide for yourself (ie. are you allowed to decide white men are under-represented?) then that only leaves God!

To make it work, you have to pigeonhole everyone (which you can't do with mixed race) and then stereotype them.

Any person may have been disadvantaged because of their parental history or maybe a child of a king - but you seem to want to treat people of a different sex or race as if they are some sort of underclass that deserve pity because they aren't strong enough to do it on their own, whether they have or not.

[Mark Fulford]

Mark, I have no idea what your last comment is meant to convey.

Like I said, you will never understand me.

[Peregrine]

I certainly don’t understand you, or rather I do but not as a Conservative. I accept that the effects of past discrimination are carried forward into future generations, just as successful escape from it is also passed on.

Where I disagree is in the approach in changing society. It is quite clear that the levels of two sets of discrimination being discussed, gender and race, are decreasing naturally and that anti-discrimination legislation has played a part in this. I believe a Conservative view would be that this natural decrease should be encouraged and in time things would balance themselves out. Your view, and one shared generally on the left, is that this move to balance should be forced. Of course, there is then the risk that the pendulum swing too much the other way, which is when parties like the BNP come into play.

Also I do not believe that any two candidates are ever going to be equal. They may have the same qualifications and similar job experience but one is going to have something over the other, whether it be attractiveness, a more mellifluous voice, smarter clothes or just general keenness. These intangibles are what will sway the instincts of the recruiters and guide them to who would best fit into a team.

As with so much else introduced by this awful government, the “equality” will not include the intangibles but purely the paper-based tangibles, thus forcing companies to recruit someone they may not actually want.

[Dave]

So how exactly does one apply to be black ?

Will there be an Apartheid style system of anatomical measurements and pigmentation charts ?

[Dave]

So how exactly does one apply to be black ?

Will there be an Apartheid style system of anatomical measurements and pigmentation charts ?

[Mark Fulford]

...thus forcing companies to recruit someone they may not actually want.

Peregrine, my understanding of the bill is that it would allow, rather than compel, employers to use race, gender, disability, etc as valid reasons to pick between two candidates. Categorically, for the reasons you've given, I wouldn’t support compulsion.

[Peregrine]

The compulsion is in giving companies that use this "option" more access to government tenders than others.

It is a feature of this government that preferred suppliers have pieces of paper showing that they meet certain criteria and targets; however, too often this is treated as just a tick box exercise and the value that can be gained from the standards is lost. It also offers the procurers a way out of their failure to choose wisely.

[Mark Fulford]

Companies operating at odds with public policy can’t expect to benefit from public money. I don’t accept that it’s impossible to deliver the value in this policy.

[Sean Fear]

"Your argument is that time is the universal healer and these problems will fix themselves. Looking at the discrimination that still exists, I don’t find that a convincing argument."

If your argument was correct then one would still expect this country to be dominated economically by a feudal aristocracy, on the ground that the advantages bestowed on their ancestors at the expense of my ancestors (and in all likelihood yours) would entrench their economic dominance for all time.

In fact, capitalism has made their economic advantages irrelevant.

[Sean Fear]

Companies operating at odds with public policy can’t expect to benefit from public money. I don’t accept that it’s impossible to deliver the value in this policy"

My view is the Conservative one that public contracts should be awarded on the basis of price and quality, and shouldn't be dependent on the willingness of the contractor to comply with left wing social engineering.

[Mark Fulford]

In fact, capitalism has made their economic advantages irrelevant.

I thought it was inheritance tax ;-)

[Sean Fear]

The rich don't pay inheritance tax.

[Steve Garner]

I'm self employed and this loony bill is just another reason why I would not employ anyone else, even though I know I could significantly increase my turnover if I did. Too much hassle - nuff said.