UKIP

[TangerineSteve17]

There should have been outrage and politicians hanging from lampposts the day these so called "Equality" laws were passed, it is they that discriminate against everyone because its those that define there IS a difference...

Any employer who gives a job to someone other than the best candidate is only damaging his own business, yet many have been forced to do just that to meet some target percentage, our local services loaded with people who would not have got the job other than their gender or skin colour, thus causing resentment and division in the workforce.

That`s NOT equality, and passing laws can never make things so.

Although well meant, it is a shallow-minded view. What you propose would be perfect for people without sensitivities/sensibilities, who all understood as you say, that there is no difference. But we don't, so it's not right yet. I see these types of actions as small social changes on the road to total equality.

 

[Damocles]

Because equality already doesn't exist in society for minorities. Selecting them based on a standardised system is reinforcing the societal inequality that already exists.

It's a simple thing really and to paraphrase I think Ben Franklin;

Fair applications are 3 wolfs and a sheep deciding on who to eat. Positive discrimination is deciding the sheep should go last.

Thats how things change isn't it? If you wanna live in a fair society there has to be proportional representation. Because although we're all the same species, some of us are different! There will be a time when gender, colour, sexuality, age, nationality etc will be of absolutely no relevance whatsoever I am sure. You are just 'person' People will be chosen/employed just for their qualifications and ideas. Are we there yet?

I believe we are. Does anyone have any evidence, or recent anecdotes, to support the claim that without equality laws people would be overlooked for jobs because of their gender, colour, sexuality, etc?

Four thousand years of world history?

 

[Rascal]

, our local services loaded with people who would not have got the job other than their gender or skin colour, .

Factual evidence of this would be helpful towards your argument. Anecdotal evidence will not suffice.

 

[CityStu]

Thats how things change isn't it? If you wanna live in a fair society there has to be proportional representation. Because although we're all the same species, some of us are different! There will be a time when gender, colour, sexuality, age, nationality etc will be of absolutely no relevance whatsoever I am sure. You are just 'person' People will be chosen/employed just for their qualifications and ideas. Are we there yet?

I believe we are. Does anyone have any evidence, or recent anecdotes, to support the claim that without equality laws people would be overlooked for jobs because of their gender, colour, sexuality, etc?

Four thousand years of world history?

Again, I'm talking present day. If the equality laws were abolished tomorrow, do you really think people would revert back to middle age views on women, race and homosexuality?

 

[whp.blue]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ss-lgbt-rights-in-its-manifesto-10179496.html

It's also in their party manifesto that they want to repeal equality laws.

Why should LGBT people be treated any differently to those that aren't LGBT?

And are those the equality laws that put less qualified people into jobs ahead of others because they're from a minority? Doesn't sound very equal to me...

I was impressed that UKIP had all of their costings independently checked. Would be very enlightening to see what an independent body would make of the Labour or Conservative promises.

I feel this needs addressing because it's a common argument on here about all minorities and positive discrimination.

Let's say that you want to be a football manager. You're a talented person who is well qualified and a professional. However you've never played the game at any sort of level. When you go for interviews, you sit in a room full of ex-players many of which are far less talented or qualified than you. Not always, though quite often, the Chairman will appoint the less talented ex-player purely because they're an ex-player and the fans will be happier with the reputation rather than an unknown.

This is an example of status working against talent and qualification. They didn't not hire you because you aren't an ex-player, but because the ex-player was the "easier" pick and seen as less of a gamble.

Now move this into a normal work office and think about a transexual female vs other females.

Positive discrimination is very useful for minorities because it removes the "weirdness" of working side by side with them and allows the system to judge by talent alone. By removing the stigma, it sets up a society where in future years people won't get a job because they're a transexual female but instead because they're not good enough in front of other candidates.

Essentially you can think of it as a form of long term investment into society so that the next generations have no issue with this type of stigma. Sort of how like getting a normal career in the 80s was difficult if you were an out of the closet homosexual but now very few people really care.

Fancy words indeed but "positive discrimination" is still discrimination you just chose a different group to discriminate against.
I'm sure the new group that is discriminated against don't see it as a long term investment.

 

[Rascal]

Again, I'm talking present day. If the equality laws were abolished tomorrow, do you really think people would revert back to middle age views on women, race and homosexuality?

No, because equality laws have changed perceptions to such a degree they are on the whole not an issue i believe, although there are still neanderthals abroad. But abolishing such safeguards would be foolhardy and risk years of enlightment which may encourage the remaining neanderthals to revert to theape like behaviour that most of us now find abhorrent.

 

[CityStu]

Again, I'm talking present day. If the equality laws were abolished tomorrow, do you really think people would revert back to middle age views on women, race and homosexuality?

No, because equality laws have changed perceptions to such a degree they are on the whole not an issue i believe, although there are still neanderthals abroad. But abolishing such safeguards would be foolhardy and risk years of enlightment which may encourage the remaining neanderthals to revert to theape like behaviour that most of us now find abhorrent.

You really believe that it's the equality laws that have changed perceptions? I'd be pretty disgusted in myself if I thought the only reason I'd stopped discriminating against women and ethnic minorities was because the government told me not to do it.

 

[Damocles]

I believe we are. Does anyone have any evidence, or recent anecdotes, to support the claim that without equality laws people would be overlooked for jobs because of their gender, colour, sexuality, etc?

Four thousand years of world history?

Again, I'm talking present day. If the equality laws were abolished tomorrow, do you really think people would revert back to middle age views on women, race and homosexuality?

No but I think the current inequalities would continue to exist.

Most people don't like to talk about this because they think that the idea that they haven't worked for what they have got is insulting, and it is but that's not what anybody is saying. The point is that people of a certain class, race and gender have a societal advantage already built in to the system. This doesn't mean that they're all better off, only that the path to the top is a little easier for them than others and in some cases a hell of a lot easier.

The perfect scenario would be that everybody has an equal chance to get to the top based on their effort and not other things that apply.

Again, let's bring it into a real world scenario - why do we have a massive disproportion of women in IT professions such as programming? Is it because men are inheriently better at engineering than women? Of course not. It's because it is a self perpetuating loop - women were often marginalised in engineering and their achievements given to men because back in the day "they couldn't have figured that out", so the only celebrated pioneers were men. So now we have an industry filled with notable men which women look at and think "there's no women in this field" so don't enter the field. Which nowadays leaves us in a situation where even though there's good candidates out there, most employers will automatically "trust" the man more for a variety of reasons. And of course the employers are all men.

In the programming industry, there are big efforts to equalise the ration of females to males just purely to get a more gender balanced workplace which in term drops the stigma of being a "woman programmer" which in turn leads to more women programmers. Again, think of it as an investment in equality over time to neutralise those stigmas. Because the other solution is to do nothing and allow them to continue as they have done for thousands of years of world history.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Again, I'm talking present day. If the equality laws were abolished tomorrow, do you really think people would revert back to middle age views on women, race and homosexuality?

No, because equality laws have changed perceptions to such a degree they are on the whole not an issue i believe, although there are still neanderthals abroad. But abolishing such safeguards would be foolhardy and risk years of enlightment which may encourage the remaining neanderthals to revert to theape like behaviour that most of us now find abhorrent.

You really believe that it's the equality laws that have changed perceptions? I'd be pretty disgusted in myself if I thought the only reason I'd stopped discriminating against women and ethnic minorities was because the government told me not to do it.

You're a visionary! A pioneer! - No, I don't know how old you are, but being 'not racist' if fairly new on the scale of things. Women iron the shirts and wash the dishes? not that long ago too. Certain laws are brilliant, I would keep them a while longer yet, at least 30 years till the dinosaurs die off.

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

I have the view that it can cause issues and actually lead to more discrimination.

You will find in quite a lot of companies that they will token employ someone who fits the "positive role" and then think that this means they have done their bit.

"What do you mean that our company discriminates on the basis of race and gender? Have you not seen the one non-executive we have on the board is a black women?"

Q. "How many other women or black people do you have on the board or within your company?"
A. "We don't need any more did you not hear me we already have Michelle and she is a board member FFS!!"

It is great in principle but has many issues when put into practice.