The Equality Act (2010) came into law today. It combines and clarifies previous legislation but also introduces new offences.
Whilst much of the Act is quite laudable it also contains sections and offences that are deeply worrying. The two main aspects of the act that should cause alarm are the provisions about harassment on grounds of belief and the responsibility of employers for enforcing the Act where offences are likely to affect the workplace. If you think my alarm is misplaced just read the excerpts from the Act below.
The Act makes it dangerous for most people to engage in the discussion of any sort of belief where a party to this discussion, or overhearing the discussion, might become offended (see excerpts from the Act below). The danger arises because employers are under an obligation not to allow offensive behaviour amongst their workforce or commercial associates in or out of the workplace. The Act makes no limitation to the workplace and harassment can occur at any meeting between staff members, even in their free time, on sales trips, during training courses etc.. The Act applies to the employers of journalists and commentators as well as to ordinary people. The Equality Act is in danger of becoming a general tool for punishing free speech (see Note below).
It might be maintained that a place of employment is not a public place but the "employer's workplace" so people do not have the right to speak freely and never have had this right. If this were the case, if this is truly an issue of employer's rights versus employee's rights, then it would be possible for the employer to say "speak freely" to their staff. In fact what has happened is that the government has subverted the idea of an "employer's workplace" into a place where the government can dictate the types of communication permitted using the employer to police this control even against the employer's will.
The Act imposes this duty of avoiding any possible offence on employers by the use of Tribunals. It makes employers responsible for the suppression of any political, philosophical or religious discussion amongst the staff because any such discussion can be construed as 'harassment' under the terms of the Act. If staff indulge in this sort of 'harassment' then the employer can be taken to a Tribunal where they can be fined onerously.
There are two points here, firstly it cannot be right, if we are to preserve any semblance of free speech in society, to ban all intellectual discussion by members and associates of the workforce. Secondly, if the government wants to impose certain standards of behaviour and thought on the population that are not directly about the way a job is performed they should have the decency to impose this themselves, they should not use the surreptitious method of forcing employers to act like the KGB.
This "Equality Act" is a devastating blow against English civil society and will reduce public discourse so that the motivation for policies is off-limits. It enshrines the way that modern political discussion avoids any of the beliefs that underpin policies.
The Equality Act is also important for having redefined the word "race". According to the Act "race" means a person's colour, nationality, ethnicity or national origins. (Section 9(1)). This change is particularly important in the context of the EU because it makes it illegal to treat the employment of people from other EU countries differently from British citizens.
If The People really believe that religion and belief should be protected then the correct place for determining whether there has been harassment or victimization on these grounds should be in the courts, not tribunals, and the case should be between the person(s) performing the alleged harassment and the alleged victim without the involvement of the employer. Belief is too close to the substance of political and philosophical debate to be protected by Kangaroo Courts.
Some examples:
A garden centre employee upsets the other staff because he is an animal rights activist and they are pro-hunting. He is sacked for offending them. They are taken to tribunal for discriminating against him. See Animal rights activist sacked. Notice that this real case is about political beliefs.
"Harriet Harman's beliefs are a menace to society, and as a result she herself is also a menace to society." - should this statement be banned? Does offending Harman as a Labour politician offend all Labour supporters? The Act suggests it does (Part 2 Ch 1 s 10). If a Labour supporter who is a friend of a colleague overhears this statement then reports it to the boss is the boss exposed if he/she does not ask you in for a "chat"?
"Nick Griffin has been a racist and may still be a racist, as are most BNP members" - should this warning about his pedigree be banned? It could cause offence to people with certain beliefs.
"New Labour and possibly the New Generation of Labour operate by telling the electorate what it wants to hear whilst implementing a 'radical' plan that shifts the country towards a totalitarian state, the widespread surveillance and the Equality Act are clear indications of this plan." - now I have said that the whole Labour Party are intent on totalitarianism, is this offensive?
These are certainly personal attacks that give offence but they are warning us about dangerous people. Beliefs are general, held by groups of people, to hold that any discussion of the group is off-limits is essentially banning political speech. If you or I were to make statements condemning a group in a workplace, school, association etc or be heard to make these statements outside of these places when there are people in the workplace who might be offended we would need to be disciplined by our employer. If the employer fails to discipline us the employer will break the law. An employer or headteacher cannot countenance their staff or themselves making political statements in public anywhere. This is a sinister and nasty way of destroying democratic debate that is likely to be entirely successful - no-one wants to risk their job. It should be stopped. At first it will be used to discipline the BNP and everyone will think "serves them right", but then.....
The Act is an interesting insight into the minds of the governing classes. When politicians refuse to explain themselves they really do believe that their motivations and intentions should be beyond inspection by the voters. The Act marks the end of rationalism, when English people were engineers, factory workers, farm hands and craftsmen there was such a thing as "truth", it was what happened in the physical world but this rational population has gone. The modern population of England is more inclined to say that truth is what you would like it to be and they would elevate religion and philosophy above discussion. I might be a Jeremiah but I can only predict disaster for a culture that has lost contact with reality to this extent.
It is interesting that Labour discovered the power of employer enforcement, with tribunals to keep the employers in line, in their earlier equality legislation and are now using this route as a vicious attack on our liberty.
Link to this article with http://tinyurl.com/kflkc3r
POLITICAL THOUGHTS click here to see the whole POLITICAL THOUGHTS magazine!
The Equality Act 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf
The sections of the Act that deal with Belief and harassment:
10 Religion or belief
(1) Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.
(2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.
so anyone with a philosophical belief or protected characteristic such as fascism can be harassed if:
26 Harassment
(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i) violating B’s dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
(2) A also harasses B if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).
(3) A also harasses B if—
(a) A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex,
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b),
and
(c) because of B’s rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less
favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to
the conduct.
(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each
of the following must be taken into account—
(a) the perception of B;
(b) the other circumstances of the case;
(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
(5) The relevant protected characteristics are—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.
40 Employees and applicants: harassment
(1) An employer (A) must not, in relation to employment by A, harass a person
(a) who is an employee of A’s;
(b) who has applied to A for employment.
(2) The circumstances in which A is to be treated as harassing B under subsection
(1) include those where—
(a) a third party harasses B in the course of B’s employment, and
(b) A failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable
to prevent the third party from doing so.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply unless A knows that B has been harassed in the
course of B’s employment on at least two other occasions by a third party; and
it does not matter whether the third party is the same or a different person on
each occasion.
(4) A third party is a person other than—
(a) A, or
(b) an employee of A’s.
Note:
Two years after this article was written it is evident that the Equality Act is being used to prevent freedom of speech outside the workplace as well as within it (See Equality legislation creating social tension). This problem with the Act is not just limited to Christians. Consider for instance the valid political comment that "after independence all Scots should be sent back home". This is a valid political viewpoint, most countries have laws about foreign residence and if the Scots became independent it would be necessary to develop a policy for Scottish residence in the UK. Under the Equality Act anyone voicing the opinion that Scots should be repatriated would be committing an offence under the Act. Suppose the Argentines were amassing troops to invade the Falklands and an employee said "the Argentines are belligerent swine", if there were an pro-Argentine employee the person saying this could be disciplined. Suppose there were a referendum on the EU, saying "the Germans are always trying to create a European megastate" is an offence. etc... It is even conceivable that future legislation will be framed in the language of "rights" and "races" so that people can be prevented from discussing it. Just the preamble: "English people have the right to enjoy..." may be enough to bring a law under the scope of this pernicious Equality Act, if the English have the right to enjoy a new airport then how dare someone argue against this? Do you have the right to offend the English?
See also:
Diversity in the UK
Posting on the Internet can be an offence - in this case avoided because it was Facebook which restricts access.
Smith v Trafford Housing Trust
"Mr Smith, a practising Christian and occasional lay preacher, posted a link to a BBC article headed, “Gay church marriages to be given the go ahead” on his Facebook page together with the comment, “an equality too far”. Further comments were made by Mr Smith who explained that he was not against civil marriage for same sex couples, just that he disapproved of same sex marriage in a church context. As a result, his employer found that he was guilty of gross misconduct." http://www.rawlisonbutler.com/news/17825
Homophobic comments offend against the Act. After today declaring that Gay people cannot be married is homophobic
Lisboa v Realpubs Ltd and others EAT/0224/10 (2 reports)
Whilst much of the Act is quite laudable it also contains sections and offences that are deeply worrying. The two main aspects of the act that should cause alarm are the provisions about harassment on grounds of belief and the responsibility of employers for enforcing the Act where offences are likely to affect the workplace. If you think my alarm is misplaced just read the excerpts from the Act below.
The Act makes it dangerous for most people to engage in the discussion of any sort of belief where a party to this discussion, or overhearing the discussion, might become offended (see excerpts from the Act below). The danger arises because employers are under an obligation not to allow offensive behaviour amongst their workforce or commercial associates in or out of the workplace. The Act makes no limitation to the workplace and harassment can occur at any meeting between staff members, even in their free time, on sales trips, during training courses etc.. The Act applies to the employers of journalists and commentators as well as to ordinary people. The Equality Act is in danger of becoming a general tool for punishing free speech (see Note below).
It might be maintained that a place of employment is not a public place but the "employer's workplace" so people do not have the right to speak freely and never have had this right. If this were the case, if this is truly an issue of employer's rights versus employee's rights, then it would be possible for the employer to say "speak freely" to their staff. In fact what has happened is that the government has subverted the idea of an "employer's workplace" into a place where the government can dictate the types of communication permitted using the employer to police this control even against the employer's will.
The Act imposes this duty of avoiding any possible offence on employers by the use of Tribunals. It makes employers responsible for the suppression of any political, philosophical or religious discussion amongst the staff because any such discussion can be construed as 'harassment' under the terms of the Act. If staff indulge in this sort of 'harassment' then the employer can be taken to a Tribunal where they can be fined onerously.
There are two points here, firstly it cannot be right, if we are to preserve any semblance of free speech in society, to ban all intellectual discussion by members and associates of the workforce. Secondly, if the government wants to impose certain standards of behaviour and thought on the population that are not directly about the way a job is performed they should have the decency to impose this themselves, they should not use the surreptitious method of forcing employers to act like the KGB.
This "Equality Act" is a devastating blow against English civil society and will reduce public discourse so that the motivation for policies is off-limits. It enshrines the way that modern political discussion avoids any of the beliefs that underpin policies.
The Equality Act is also important for having redefined the word "race". According to the Act "race" means a person's colour, nationality, ethnicity or national origins. (Section 9(1)). This change is particularly important in the context of the EU because it makes it illegal to treat the employment of people from other EU countries differently from British citizens.
If The People really believe that religion and belief should be protected then the correct place for determining whether there has been harassment or victimization on these grounds should be in the courts, not tribunals, and the case should be between the person(s) performing the alleged harassment and the alleged victim without the involvement of the employer. Belief is too close to the substance of political and philosophical debate to be protected by Kangaroo Courts.
Some examples:
A garden centre employee upsets the other staff because he is an animal rights activist and they are pro-hunting. He is sacked for offending them. They are taken to tribunal for discriminating against him. See Animal rights activist sacked. Notice that this real case is about political beliefs.
"Harriet Harman's beliefs are a menace to society, and as a result she herself is also a menace to society." - should this statement be banned? Does offending Harman as a Labour politician offend all Labour supporters? The Act suggests it does (Part 2 Ch 1 s 10). If a Labour supporter who is a friend of a colleague overhears this statement then reports it to the boss is the boss exposed if he/she does not ask you in for a "chat"?
"Nick Griffin has been a racist and may still be a racist, as are most BNP members" - should this warning about his pedigree be banned? It could cause offence to people with certain beliefs.
"New Labour and possibly the New Generation of Labour operate by telling the electorate what it wants to hear whilst implementing a 'radical' plan that shifts the country towards a totalitarian state, the widespread surveillance and the Equality Act are clear indications of this plan." - now I have said that the whole Labour Party are intent on totalitarianism, is this offensive?
These are certainly personal attacks that give offence but they are warning us about dangerous people. Beliefs are general, held by groups of people, to hold that any discussion of the group is off-limits is essentially banning political speech. If you or I were to make statements condemning a group in a workplace, school, association etc or be heard to make these statements outside of these places when there are people in the workplace who might be offended we would need to be disciplined by our employer. If the employer fails to discipline us the employer will break the law. An employer or headteacher cannot countenance their staff or themselves making political statements in public anywhere. This is a sinister and nasty way of destroying democratic debate that is likely to be entirely successful - no-one wants to risk their job. It should be stopped. At first it will be used to discipline the BNP and everyone will think "serves them right", but then.....
The Act is an interesting insight into the minds of the governing classes. When politicians refuse to explain themselves they really do believe that their motivations and intentions should be beyond inspection by the voters. The Act marks the end of rationalism, when English people were engineers, factory workers, farm hands and craftsmen there was such a thing as "truth", it was what happened in the physical world but this rational population has gone. The modern population of England is more inclined to say that truth is what you would like it to be and they would elevate religion and philosophy above discussion. I might be a Jeremiah but I can only predict disaster for a culture that has lost contact with reality to this extent.
It is interesting that Labour discovered the power of employer enforcement, with tribunals to keep the employers in line, in their earlier equality legislation and are now using this route as a vicious attack on our liberty.
Link to this article with http://tinyurl.com/kflkc3r
POLITICAL THOUGHTS click here to see the whole POLITICAL THOUGHTS magazine!
The Equality Act 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf
The sections of the Act that deal with Belief and harassment:
10 Religion or belief
(1) Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.
(2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.
so anyone with a philosophical belief or protected characteristic such as fascism can be harassed if:
26 Harassment
(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i) violating B’s dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
(2) A also harasses B if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).
(3) A also harasses B if—
(a) A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex,
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b),
and
(c) because of B’s rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less
favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to
the conduct.
(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each
of the following must be taken into account—
(a) the perception of B;
(b) the other circumstances of the case;
(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
(5) The relevant protected characteristics are—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.
40 Employees and applicants: harassment
(1) An employer (A) must not, in relation to employment by A, harass a person
(a) who is an employee of A’s;
(b) who has applied to A for employment.
(2) The circumstances in which A is to be treated as harassing B under subsection
(1) include those where—
(a) a third party harasses B in the course of B’s employment, and
(b) A failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable
to prevent the third party from doing so.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply unless A knows that B has been harassed in the
course of B’s employment on at least two other occasions by a third party; and
it does not matter whether the third party is the same or a different person on
each occasion.
(4) A third party is a person other than—
(a) A, or
(b) an employee of A’s.
Note:
Two years after this article was written it is evident that the Equality Act is being used to prevent freedom of speech outside the workplace as well as within it (See Equality legislation creating social tension). This problem with the Act is not just limited to Christians. Consider for instance the valid political comment that "after independence all Scots should be sent back home". This is a valid political viewpoint, most countries have laws about foreign residence and if the Scots became independent it would be necessary to develop a policy for Scottish residence in the UK. Under the Equality Act anyone voicing the opinion that Scots should be repatriated would be committing an offence under the Act. Suppose the Argentines were amassing troops to invade the Falklands and an employee said "the Argentines are belligerent swine", if there were an pro-Argentine employee the person saying this could be disciplined. Suppose there were a referendum on the EU, saying "the Germans are always trying to create a European megastate" is an offence. etc... It is even conceivable that future legislation will be framed in the language of "rights" and "races" so that people can be prevented from discussing it. Just the preamble: "English people have the right to enjoy..." may be enough to bring a law under the scope of this pernicious Equality Act, if the English have the right to enjoy a new airport then how dare someone argue against this? Do you have the right to offend the English?
See also:
Diversity in the UK
Posting on the Internet can be an offence - in this case avoided because it was Facebook which restricts access.
Smith v Trafford Housing Trust
"Mr Smith, a practising Christian and occasional lay preacher, posted a link to a BBC article headed, “Gay church marriages to be given the go ahead” on his Facebook page together with the comment, “an equality too far”. Further comments were made by Mr Smith who explained that he was not against civil marriage for same sex couples, just that he disapproved of same sex marriage in a church context. As a result, his employer found that he was guilty of gross misconduct." http://www.rawlisonbutler.com/news/17825
Homophobic comments offend against the Act. After today declaring that Gay people cannot be married is homophobic
Lisboa v Realpubs Ltd and others EAT/0224/10 (2 reports)
Comments
Not a new idea of course; employers and pub landlords have already been pressed into enforcing the smoking ban, against their own wishes, and those of their staff and customers.
How long before our leaders follow the Japanese in holding companies responsible for employee fatness?
How much more of this will the British people take!?