THE DISGRACE THAT BRITISH MEN HAVE TO RELY ON EUROPEAN JUSTICE FOR EQUALITY

One of the many conclusions coming from today's European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment on making sure insurance is gender-neutral shows that men have to rely on unelected judges in Europe to get equality.The other is the silence from the self-named 'equality' Industry.

While on balance the decision means there will be equality for men in terms of paying for car insurance (there could even be a cut) and there could be a loss in terms of pension annuities, at least gender equality is being applied.

Without getting into the argument about whether the ECJ should be interfering in UK affairs (that and giving prisoners the vote - an ECHR decision - are arguments for other sites) the clearest argument that the doom mongers, the insurers and others have not been able to answer is the fact that insurers cannot discriminate against race so why can they with gender? There is no answer from them.

Also what can be seen from the many comments in the debates at the end of media articles is the growing ferment of anger men have towards the place in modern society as second class citizens. You can read their joy in the comments sections of newspapers and the BBC about the fact that it proves equality applies to them and allows them to cock a snook to the equalities industry that loathes them so much.

It is also a defeat for the anti-male lobby, like this and the last government, the Guardian/BBC, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities Commission and others like them that who believe women should enjoy special privilege, are untouchable and equality can only be on their terms.

This Cake and Eat It Brigade want equality but only so long as women can keep their perks and extra entitlements like cheaper insurance and early retirement.

Coming back to my opening piece - if the judges had made a pro-women judgment then Theresa May (Minister for Women), Lynne Featherstone (Equalities Minister), Harman/Flint, Equalities Commission etc would have been singing from the rooftops. As it is seen as a pro-man judgment, there is complete silence. Such unsurprising hypocrisy.

The second point is that it is shameful that men have to go through to ECJ on Strasbourg to obtain equality.

The only reason men now have free bus passes, winter fuel allowance etc at the same age as a women is because of the ECJ and the work of Parity. The same is the case for the coming equality in state pension age, a discrimination that men will have suffered for 70 years by the time there is equality in 2018. And now we have equality on insurance.

The shameful fact is that in Britain, men can rely only on European judges to fight their corner for equality. All because British politicians are too weak, too anti-male and too afraid of the anti-male special favours feminist lobby.

Posted by Skimmington 

Media coverage - BBC, Conservative Home, FT, Guardian#1, Daily Mail , Guardian#2,

Comments

[John Kimble]

Couldn't have really put it any better myself. I had EXACTLY the same thoughts about this when the news broke, still waiting to hear the first feminist praise the big improvement in gender equality we've seen today.

You've covered just about every possible point I can think of, all I have to add is o highlight the way teh BBC has covered this.

Note how when say something benefiting women is introduced (eg All women shortlists) it is praised endlessly despite it being sexist.

In this instance we've got genuine equality and their rather negative and misleading headline is "Insurance and pension costs hit by ECJ gender ruling"

Has the ruling impacted on the price of raw materials? Has it somehow made more cars come off the road all at once therefore increasing the number of repairs and claims? No, the COSTS of insurance are exactly the same as they were yesterday, we're just seeing a change in PRICING with a fairer system introduced spreading the exact same costs more fairly based on driver performance rather than sexism.

[Matt]

Insurance rep here...

My problem with this was gender wasn't the reason behind insurance companies charging different genders different amounts.

Statistics were. Everything an insurance company does is based on math, trying to get the best profit margin possible while also offering the most competitive prices they can. This wasn't a gender equality issue. Men are more likely to get in a car accident than women, ESPECIALLY AT A YOUNG AGE. This is a fact supported by data recorded by every single car insurance company in the world, along with EU governments. The greatest differences in price were, you guessed it, for drivers under 25. Not to say insurance companies don't love the idea of being able to charge women the same price as men, I know I will. Thanks to this ruling I'll be getting a pay raise of ~7-9%. So I'm overall happy about this ruling.

(I work mostly on commission, higher prices for women means more money for me.)

[Jon]

Matt, this IS a gender equality issue. Credit agencies are not allowed to calculate credit ratings based on race or indeed gender so why should insurance be able to get away with it? Insurance should be calculated based on how much YOU have cost the insurance company in the past, not on how much on average your gender has. I have never crashed my car and never claimed on my insurance yet it is still higher than a woman who has had many crashes. I am therefore obviously being discriminated against because I am male.

[John Kimble]

Insurance companies will just have to become more intelligent about assessing risk rather than just using sexism as their main method of doing business.

In the long run those who can distinguish between dangerous younger drivers and responsible ones will have the most appropriate prices for each and therefore make the biggest profits.

[John Taylor]

Very pleased you mentioned Parity in your article.... Skimmington

[spray foam insulations]

Couldn't have really put it any better myself. I had EXACTLY the same ideas about this when the information smashed, still holding out to listen to the first feminist reward the big enhancement in sex equal rights we've seen these days.