The Bitch and Equality
by: Michael Knell
Equality. It is a simple word. It has a simple meaning. Basically it is the quality of being the same in quantity, measure, value or status. So why don't we have one simple law that says all humankind must be considered equal and treated equally? Why do we need law after law, and titivation after titivation to those laws, in order to achieve something so simple?
Taking the argument one step further, once Equality has been declared as law, how can we have separate laws on different kinds of discrimination? Their very existence makes a mockery of Equality. So why do we have them? Is it to keep thousands of public service officials in employment, finding ways for myriads of legal boffins to earn untold amounts of money? And out of something that should be so simple?
If you thought the general election rid the country of Labour's law-making binge, think again. Pushed through parliament by Harriet Harman just weeks before that election, today parts of the single Equality Act come into force. Simple, it is not.
Some of the Act's most controversial elements have not yet been implemented. One of them is the requirement for large organisations to publish the gap in pay between male and female staff. That obviously does not mean comparing the tea-lady's wages with those of the company chairman, but the difference between the pay of male and female workers when they are employed to do the same kind of work. Another one missing is the right of employers to use "positive action" to recruit more female or ethnic minority staff.
Now pardon me for being silly, but if we had a law that simply said: "Equality Rules - Okay!", where is the need for either of these two additions? In the former case, there must be no difference, and in the latter, I cannot see how any "positive action" has a place in equality.
Harriet's Act is supposed to bring together nine pieces of legislation, and in one make it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of: age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, race, religion, sexual orientation, marriage, and maternity. However instead of simplifying the law, it is a complex hotchpotch which at times strays away from equality into the realms of basic freedoms.
The new ban forbidding questions about a prospective employee’s health, I find mind-boggling. As an employer responsible for the well-being of my company and the staff I employ, I need to know if a candidate might be a liability and endanger all our futures. The fact that I may now be hauled up in court for something as innocuous as greeting the person with a "Hello, how are you?" makes my blood boil. It is a claimant's charter!
From today, shopkeepers and restaurateurs may not request a mother to stop breastfeeding, move somewhere more private, or leave the premises. But this has nothing at all to do with equality. It is all about freedoms and common decency, and though views on it may differ greatly, they need to be covered elsewhere. I accept breastfeeding is natural. I am not against it in public when it is unavoidable, but having to suffer it at my table BY LAW while I masticate my Aberdeen Angus upsets me! Go to the washroom!
Whenever possible, laws should be kept simple, and interpreted with common sense. Laws on Equality need simplifying, not made more complex! We are fast heading towards a time when, unless costly legislation is passed to exempt or clarify it, by law we shall all have to be painted the same colour, wear the same clothes, pretend we're the same age, with women provided with penis implants, and men given a womb and forced to give birth!
About The Author
"The Bitch!" column, written by the author Michael Knell
by: Michael Knell
Equality. It is a simple word. It has a simple meaning. Basically it is the quality of being the same in quantity, measure, value or status. So why don't we have one simple law that says all humankind must be considered equal and treated equally? Why do we need law after law, and titivation after titivation to those laws, in order to achieve something so simple?
Taking the argument one step further, once Equality has been declared as law, how can we have separate laws on different kinds of discrimination? Their very existence makes a mockery of Equality. So why do we have them? Is it to keep thousands of public service officials in employment, finding ways for myriads of legal boffins to earn untold amounts of money? And out of something that should be so simple?
If you thought the general election rid the country of Labour's law-making binge, think again. Pushed through parliament by Harriet Harman just weeks before that election, today parts of the single Equality Act come into force. Simple, it is not.
Some of the Act's most controversial elements have not yet been implemented. One of them is the requirement for large organisations to publish the gap in pay between male and female staff. That obviously does not mean comparing the tea-lady's wages with those of the company chairman, but the difference between the pay of male and female workers when they are employed to do the same kind of work. Another one missing is the right of employers to use "positive action" to recruit more female or ethnic minority staff.
Now pardon me for being silly, but if we had a law that simply said: "Equality Rules - Okay!", where is the need for either of these two additions? In the former case, there must be no difference, and in the latter, I cannot see how any "positive action" has a place in equality.
Harriet's Act is supposed to bring together nine pieces of legislation, and in one make it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of: age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, race, religion, sexual orientation, marriage, and maternity. However instead of simplifying the law, it is a complex hotchpotch which at times strays away from equality into the realms of basic freedoms.
The new ban forbidding questions about a prospective employee’s health, I find mind-boggling. As an employer responsible for the well-being of my company and the staff I employ, I need to know if a candidate might be a liability and endanger all our futures. The fact that I may now be hauled up in court for something as innocuous as greeting the person with a "Hello, how are you?" makes my blood boil. It is a claimant's charter!
From today, shopkeepers and restaurateurs may not request a mother to stop breastfeeding, move somewhere more private, or leave the premises. But this has nothing at all to do with equality. It is all about freedoms and common decency, and though views on it may differ greatly, they need to be covered elsewhere. I accept breastfeeding is natural. I am not against it in public when it is unavoidable, but having to suffer it at my table BY LAW while I masticate my Aberdeen Angus upsets me! Go to the washroom!
Whenever possible, laws should be kept simple, and interpreted with common sense. Laws on Equality need simplifying, not made more complex! We are fast heading towards a time when, unless costly legislation is passed to exempt or clarify it, by law we shall all have to be painted the same colour, wear the same clothes, pretend we're the same age, with women provided with penis implants, and men given a womb and forced to give birth!
About The Author
"The Bitch!" column, written by the author Michael Knell
Comments
Post a Comment