Last month we reported that Iain Cockburn was taking the government to court over the fact that he received less pension because he was a widower than if he had been a widow.
While the government admitted it was discriminatory it still challenged his claim and it has won!
Yes you are right to read it. The judges said the discrimination is fair as it was "objectively and reasonably justified".
Mr Justice Supperstone,said : ‘in my view the absence of the non-dependant widower’s pension prior to the 1989 regulations was objectively justified.
‘There is no evidence that overall female members in the scheme were in any different position to that of women in society and in the workforce as a whole.’
That is such sexism.
Such is the disdain the judiciary and establishment has for ensuring that equality applies to men too. Silence from the Minister for Equalities, as ever.
The Department of Health has said it would cost £4 billion to rectify. That shows the cost of the discrimination against men and also the discrimination against those poor women in the NHS who had died as they would not want their widowers to lose out because they were men.
When there were campaigns against women being unfarily paid less than men on the same grade at councils, if the same logic applied, then this would have been acceptable before 1988, and therefore they would not be entitled to have back their 'missing' pay before that year. Rightly nonsense, but the judges think it is OK if you are a man.
Posted by Skimmington
Media coverage: Result covered in Professional Pensions (original story on Professional Pensions) and GP online plus background coverage in Daily Mail, Birmingham Post, Daily Telegraph
The High Court ruling is an affront to justice. This case needs to go to the European Court of Human Rights.
The injustices of the past cannot be put right by create reverse injustices now - it just becomes a pendulum. If this situation is allowed to continue, how long will it be before it's acceptable to treat women less favourably to correct the current injustices?
The £4bn is just a red herring. It needn't cost anything like that, in fact the DoH could be better off. Widowers' pensions do not need to be increased in line with widows', equality can be achieved by reducing widows' pensions in line with widowers'. If the pension a widower receives is considered fair, it's sufficient for a widow too.
Posted by: Jenny | Friday, 05 August 2011 at 23:38
An absolutely ridiculous ruling, made even worse by the fact the media decides to ignore such an injustice.
Feminists whine on and on about pay gaps misleading everyone and pretending they are down to discrimination. Here we have a genuine gap where discrimination has even been admitted yet nothing happens and no one even bothers to say anything.
Hopefully Dominic Raab will take a look at this as I think he'd be more than interested.
Posted by: John Kimble | Saturday, 06 August 2011 at 01:06
Silence from the EHRC and silence from the media silence from the feminist 'equalitarians'.
If is wasn't for sites like this one they would be almost completely invisible to carry out their misandry. Hats off to you for turning over the rock under which they hide.
European Court of Human Rights is where the EHRC and the gov't should be !
Posted by: Bob | Saturday, 06 August 2011 at 10:09