Go on, ask me what I think of the new “Equalities” bill.
The Bill also aims to tackle discrimination against the elderly and people from working class backgrounds.
Hey, Harriet. Here’s some ideas for you. Why don’t you devise a National Accent, a new version of received pronounciation based on the Yorkshire accent. Come up with a National Dialect, too, and use the school system to enforce this so that all children emerge from school speaking with the same accent and dialect.
While you’re at it, try to limit the number of words taught to children down to what those in the bottom sets might be reasonably expected to be familiar with by the end of their ‘education.’ This will, of course, mean making it illegal to sell books to children, or to allow children to be exposed to the internet, and children’s books will need to be removed from the library. I’m sure a few children will be resourceful enough to get their hands on books, but if you ban dictionaries and make sure it’s illegal for parents to help children learn non-curriculum vocabulary then, after 16 years, all children will emerge from schooling with roughly the same accent, dialect and vocabulary.
Another advantage the middle classes have is in the ability to pay for better quality clothes for their offspring. No-one wants to go down the Chinese road of a National uniform, but I’m sure Jeff from the Clothes Show could design something really stylish that, if people are reasonable about all this, will see that it takes away a source of pressure and angst for a great many people who can’t dress well, and are unfairly judged because of this.
But, see, I’m an old fashioned totalitarian. I like to bring about equality through taking away the ability to be different, but you Harriet, you’re much more sophisticated and have these new advanced techniques that rely on manipulating people’s perceptions rather than actual reality.
You want to make it illegal to spot the difference. You want to encourage people to train themselves to be blind to difference, to make it a crime to be able to tell that you’re looking at an old person or a young person. I can’t tell the difference. What difference? I thought I was looking at the same person!
See, how did a word like “discriminate” which literally means nothing more sinister or evil than, “to recognise the difference between; distinguish” turn into something sinister and evil?
I dislike people making invalid assumptions about individuals based on the individuals membership of a particular grouping – everyone should be judged as individuals… but they should be judged and people, employers should be allowed to judge for themselves, surely?
What differences are we allowed to notice? Or are we heading for a world where jobs are like school placements – it’s whether you’re in the catchment area, first come first served and a few lottery systems here and there? Obviously that would be madness. Let’s make it simpler – why not have the Government record people’s skills and capabilities and anyone wanting to recruit would go to the State and be sent someone. No interview. No application, just – blam – here you go, there’s your new employee. Standard National Wage to apply, with 40% going to the Government.
Let’s do that, eh? That’ll end discrimination once and for all, and Equality will be achieved.
What could possibly go wrong?
pete said...
28 Apr 09 at 10:46 am
Charlotte, you’re turning into Jeremy Clarkson. We live in a grossly unequal society, where discrimination (leaving aside semantics) disadvantages millions based on gender, race, class background etc.
let me be clear, i don’t think new labour has ever had any intent to make society more equal. but surely that should be the basis of our critique. your article seems to be a variant of ‘political correctness gone mad’ with an a-level.
wayne said...
28 Apr 09 at 11:19 am
Charlotte,
Given the propensity for Labour to mistake ironic warnings for political blueprints (I’m thinking “Nineteen Eighty Four” here in case it isn’t obvious), I’m concerned you’re giving the bastards ideas.
@pete,
I think outside of the idealogue’s garret (or taxpayer funded manor, as the case may be), there is overwhelming agreement that political correctness has indeed gone mad.
What seems to be lost on many “Liberals” is that equality (except before the common law) is an authoritarian concept, therefore illiberal. There is much to be said for trying to make society more meritocratic; this is a truly liberal value, but trying to legislate people onto the same rung of some imagined ladder is more a Soviet concept.
In the same way you can’t legislate morality, you can’t legislate fairness. It merely creates another unfairness… somewhere.
Nick said...
28 Apr 09 at 11:21 am
Leaving aside the issues of freedom to hire who you damn please, there is the unintended consequence that “protected” groups end up being more discriminated by potential employers because they are such a risk of regulation and litigation: http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/archives/2009/04/harriet_harman.php
Charlotte Gore said...
28 Apr 09 at 11:23 am
Yeah, but Pete, it’s the prejudice that’s the problem, not discrimination. There’s cause and effect, and the Government is determined to stop the effects in the most clumsy, hamfisted way possible.
It further reinforces the idea that there are special favoured polictical groups deserve special status, while ‘gingers’,the ‘goofy’, the fat, the smokers, the too tall, the too short, the stupid… they’re all fair game for as much ‘discrimination’ as you like.
As someone how believes in individualism, how can I stand to watch people treated differently because of membership of a particular group, either negatively or positively? They’re both horrendous.
Prejudice is the problem. Stupidity. Irrationality. Fear of the unknown. What’s the answer? I don’t know.. but you can’t legislate against the ability to see difference between people, and that’s why I’m critical of such pathetic legislation.
Roger Thornhill said...
28 Apr 09 at 11:26 am
If people want to make things more equal, then they should go out and create, fund, volunteer or at least spread the word about such things and take a stand for themselves. By consent.
What does this government (and the Tories and LibDems, for that matter) do? Legislate. Use force. Coerce.
Charlotte is right. Such things are the spawn of Authoritarianism, which is just a warm-up for Totalitarianism.
wayne said...
28 Apr 09 at 11:32 am
Roger Thornhill said: “…By consent”
Yes indeed!
Stu said...
28 Apr 09 at 11:45 am
pete, your comment seems to be a variant of ‘Just f*** off and join the Tories’ with an A-Level.
Charlotte Gore said...
28 Apr 09 at 11:51 am
Pete and I go way back but I didn’t think he knew about this blog which makes me think Twatdeck has sent a notification to the wrong facebook account. Whoops.
Charlotte Gore said...
28 Apr 09 at 11:55 am
Ah, I did. Shit!!! Neat compartmentalisation of life FAIL!!!
Joe Otten said...
28 Apr 09 at 12:16 pm
I think it was Harriet Harman talking about this bill on the radio, who mentioned that women have a greater life expectancy than men, in passing on the way to some point about pay or pensions I think.
However for a giddy moment I thought she was about to suggest a diversion of healthcare resources away from women, towards men, in the name of equality.
Charlotte Gore said...
28 Apr 09 at 12:22 pm
Yes, turned out she just meant “but horribly this isn’t true if the woman’s poor and the man’s rich!! OH NOES!”
Which is true, but it’s also true that rich people live longer than poor people, full stop. I don’t think it’s ‘worse’ when poor women are dying before rich men.
Matthew Huntbach said...
28 Apr 09 at 12:39 pm
I have a lot of sympathy with Charlotte on this one.
I haven’t looked at what the Bill actually demands of people, but it sounds like the sort of thing that has good intentions but in reality means more pointless bureaucracy, form-filling and box-ticking.
Tristan said...
28 Apr 09 at 12:48 pm
@Pete
Prejudice cannot be eradicated at the barrel of a gun however, which is what government seeks to do.
Prejudice can only be fought through voluntary means. It is through hard work of non-state actors that prejudice against most ethnic groups is unacceptable to the majority, the same goes for sexuality and gender – although we still have a long way to go.
The only place government comes in is through repealing legally sanctioned prejudice (of which there is a significant amount still in existence) as was the case with the illegality of homosexuality and many other aspects.
Today we still have state sanctioned prejudice against immigrants, gypsies, the ‘mentally ill’, homosexuality and others, yet the government insists on tying us up with regulation which will only hurt those its meant to help.
Laurence Boyce said...
28 Apr 09 at 2:05 pm
“Prejudice can only be fought through voluntary means. It is through hard work of non-state actors that prejudice against most ethnic groups is unacceptable to the majority.”
Hmm, I don’t quite agree with that Tristan. Can only be fought through voluntary means? Who says so? I would be happy for prejudice to be fought from every direction. And state actors have a major role to play, surely – not merely through legislation, but also in showing personal leadership.
If you’re telling me that this particular piece of legislation is bollock-brained, then I believe you. That said, I’m hoping for an amendment regarding faith-based school selection. Let’s see if parliament can go where Lib Dem conference feared to tread.
Andrew Hickey said...
28 Apr 09 at 3:00 pm
Prejudice is the cause and can’t be eradicated (within any reasonable timeframe at least) within any reasonable timescale, but government *can* take action to ameliorate the *results* – which may not help long-term but will help individuals short-term.
I’ve not read through the bill, because I’m at work, but from what I can tell from this (that link may well break, as it’s stupidly got spaces in…) the class-discrimination thing actually applies to Local Authorities providing services. The examples they give are things like:
“A transport authority could review how accessible its services are. It finds residents from deprived neighbourhoods find it difficult to travel to the local hospital because of infrequent public transport, low car ownership rates and high parking costs.The authority decides to work in partnership with the hospital to develop a strategy to tackle this, which could include introducing a free or subsidised shuttle bus service to the hospital from pick up points around town.”
I’m in two minds about the positive discrimination aspects of the bill – I don’t like it in principle, but in practice I work in an office with fifty-odd people working in it, of whom three are women, so I can see that it might be an idea sometimes, though on balance I’m against. But as far as local authorities having a duty to try to improve access to services for those who might need them more but have more difficulty accessing them, I really can’t see a problem there.
Costigan Quist said...
28 Apr 09 at 4:19 pm
To quote Tom Lehrer
Discrimination is good if it’s relevant. Looking for an actor to play the part of an 18th century African slave? Please discriminate on skin colour. I really don’t want to see Jeremy Clarkson blacking up to play the role. Looking for an accountant? Probably best not to worry about skin colour at all, if we’re being honest.
Michael Cole said...
28 Apr 09 at 8:57 pm
Bravo. Finally some sense. This blog is excellent. I’m amazed it’s being written by a lib dem
Aisling said...
29 Apr 09 at 1:48 am
You should try writing a job advert these days it’s an absolute minefield. The amount of bullshit involved in what you can or can’t say is ludicrous, and it is directly due to legislation such as this. It misses the point, and instead of helping leaves people like me more worried about leaving myself open to legal trouble than finding the right people for the job.
Tim W said...
30 Apr 09 at 10:13 am
Spot on.
This Bill won’t stop discrimination, only seek to blame firms for paying people different wages – there are a very wide range of factors leading up to that wage which will go utterly unrecognised, and the company will be blamed for any discrimination/different choices before they were involved.