I thought I'd create a little example to help explain the perspectives of this blog: To explain why it is not at all adverse to discrimination legislation but constructively critical of it; for the benefit of the greater motives of equality and genuine diversity:
Discrimination law helps define how we are all different but asserts that we should be treated equally (or given equal opportunities).
On a semantic level there are pedantic issues: i.e. the dichotomy is clear:
Equal = alike.
Different = unequal.
In general the law uses the words: less favourable treatment on grounds of the persons [difference].
Sometimes there is a confusion between what the law is for:
On the one hand: If people are less favourably treated they might look for a difference to then structure their claim around - they then seek out a white/ male/ able bodied/ british etc comparator.
Or, on the other hand: A person may spot a difference (due to the overt attempts to define said differences) and then constantly keep their eyes open for the potential of less favourable treatment. i.e. "because I am black/ female/ homosexual maybe people will treat me less favourably so I should probably be on the eye out for discrimination".
Which came first: the treatment or the difference?
Not that either of these perspectives is wrong: It is just evidence of the fact that equality is framed by the legislation: which is forced to provide certainty through rules. This solution is the best we have but, evidently, is by no means perfect: For instance an English speaking Welshman cannot claim against an employer who insists on a Welsh speaking candidate - whilst an English person can (on grounds of nationality).
On the surface this seems bad: but only with regard to the fact that we look at such claims through the eyes of the victim. An alternative might be to see equality from an employers level: the sort of thing that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is there to deal with. This takes the focus away from a "compensation culture" of constructed individual inequalites towards a broader approach of society-wide inequality. However the EHRC is only really active in areas where the individual doesn't have standing to claim in the first place (e.g. adverts for employment etc).
The relationship between the individual and the population as a whole could be crucial to the future of equality and diversity (outside of the law at least). The whole system is more complicated than right or wrong, equal or unequal: it is based on the common mindset which seeks to get 'one over' on others whilst being fearful of someone getting 'one over' them: i.e. behaving contrary to an integrational society which the law may or may not be trying to achieve.
Discrimination law helps define how we are all different but asserts that we should be treated equally (or given equal opportunities).
On a semantic level there are pedantic issues: i.e. the dichotomy is clear:
Equal = alike.
Different = unequal.
In general the law uses the words: less favourable treatment on grounds of the persons [difference].
Sometimes there is a confusion between what the law is for:
On the one hand: If people are less favourably treated they might look for a difference to then structure their claim around - they then seek out a white/ male/ able bodied/ british etc comparator.
Or, on the other hand: A person may spot a difference (due to the overt attempts to define said differences) and then constantly keep their eyes open for the potential of less favourable treatment. i.e. "because I am black/ female/ homosexual maybe people will treat me less favourably so I should probably be on the eye out for discrimination".
Which came first: the treatment or the difference?
Not that either of these perspectives is wrong: It is just evidence of the fact that equality is framed by the legislation: which is forced to provide certainty through rules. This solution is the best we have but, evidently, is by no means perfect: For instance an English speaking Welshman cannot claim against an employer who insists on a Welsh speaking candidate - whilst an English person can (on grounds of nationality).
On the surface this seems bad: but only with regard to the fact that we look at such claims through the eyes of the victim. An alternative might be to see equality from an employers level: the sort of thing that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is there to deal with. This takes the focus away from a "compensation culture" of constructed individual inequalites towards a broader approach of society-wide inequality. However the EHRC is only really active in areas where the individual doesn't have standing to claim in the first place (e.g. adverts for employment etc).
The relationship between the individual and the population as a whole could be crucial to the future of equality and diversity (outside of the law at least). The whole system is more complicated than right or wrong, equal or unequal: it is based on the common mindset which seeks to get 'one over' on others whilst being fearful of someone getting 'one over' them: i.e. behaving contrary to an integrational society which the law may or may not be trying to achieve.
No comments:
Post a Comment