The Rights Of Man

MEN-ONLY BOARDS ARE A NIGHTMARE EVEN IF THEY ARE THERE ON MERIT

Picture the scenario, some young lads from a mixture of ethnic backgrounds and all in single parent households living on a council estate in Camberwell and Peckham in South London. They work hard at school, excel in Maths, go onto university and after graduating get back together and set up a hedge fund or work their way up through an investment bank and eventually all sit to together on the Board.

Picture another scenario, some young girls from well off backgrounds go to the all-girl public school, St Paul's, in Fulham. Again, all do well, go to university, set up their own finance company in The City or work their way up an investment bank and eventually all sit together on the Board.

According to Harriet Harman and her views on men and the City, the former scenario is a "nightmare", yet, the latter is not.

On Tuesday, as part of Parliament's and Equalities Commission's witch-hunt on the City and men in general, Harman declared to the Treasury Select Committee that men-only boards were a nightmare.

This of course is all part of the current Government's anti-male agenda where anything can be said against men and where there are more men in a position than women that this is due to sexism and there is no need to prove this, because if the politically correct say its true, it has to be true. So few of course, stand up to it (of course, if you do, then according to the Coalition on Men & Boys, you are anti-equality and are ignorant).

In addition, she said that the Government would withhold Government contracts for City or financial organisations if they did not have enough women on the Board and she also did rule out quotas (a scenario in Norway where all Boards must have 40% women - so much for meritocracy in Scandinavia)

This witch-hunt is on top of the Equalities Bill which should finish going through Parliament in the next month which is the most anti-male piece of legislation probably ever entered into Statute.

The issue is simply that no longer will be people be judged on their merits or talents but on their gender. The latter is all that counts. It is sexist by its very nature as gender becomes the dominant factor rather than the individual. It is the end of liberalism in the UK.

Furthermore, there will be sexism at the individual level because if one single man who is more talented, adds more value and has more to offer than a woman both in competition for a place on the Board and she is chosen. That man, and his wife/girlfriend/male partner/sister/daughter and mother have been sexually discriminated against.

Harman and her acolytes forget, men and women do not live in isolation. If you discriminate against a man then you discriminate against the female members of his family.

  

Google News Coverage plus excellent Daily Mail article

EQUALITY BILL CONSULTATION DATES

For anyone interested (we all should be!) in the travails of the Equalities Bill, the Government's Equalities Office has announced some dates for open consultation meeting.

Details available here.

Hattip - John Kimble

CRUCIAL EQUALITY BILL CLAUSE 153 WIDE OPEN TO ANTI-MALE JOB RECRUITMENT

As previously commented upon, the Equality Bill will allow companies and public authorities to discriminate against candidates of equal merit when considering offering people a job base on whether they are 'under-represented'. We all know what that means in the real world - discrimination against men.

A crucial part of the debate took place on 30th June 2009 when there was a debate in the House of Commons' Committee Stage on the crucial clauses - 152 and 153 (clauses near the bottom).

Mark Harper MP (Cons) put down an amendment on clause 153 because it was too vague and too open to 'interpretation'.

The crucial point is that the clause says  

(a) A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted.

What Harper said was that the wording should be ‘equally qualified to’ because the current clause in the Bill meant it narrow the remit where positive action could take place. Leading businesses and also the Law Society said it would this would provide a narrower meaning.

He also wanted clause 191 amended which will stop a Minister from making provisions and amendments based on what he/she thinks but on a basis where they can demonstrate.

The crucial part of the debate centred on an example (column 605) where Harper gives an example between people being 'as equally qualified' to do a job which is different to their ability to be 'qualified to' do a job (hard to follow I know). The difference is that two candidates could have an equal degree but there could be a difference in their aptitude.

His amendment would have narrowed the remit in law. He has particular experience in this as a number of his constituents were involved in one of the UK's most scandalous examples of anti-male discrimination ever perpetrated in the UK (Gloucestershire Police 2006).

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the amendment did not gain support from either the Labour Government or the Liberal Democrats. Harper withdrew the amendment.

What it means though now is that even though organisation have raised their concern about the interpretation of 'as qualified as', it leaves it wide open for abuse and wide open for the systematic discrimination of men in employment. Just at a time when more and more men are losing their jobs.

 

Note 1

Look at the attendance list for evidence gathering at this meeting - any group missing?

Note 2

Look at the debate (column 604) where it is mentioned that Equalities and Human Rights Commission use the fact that primary schools could take positive action to recruit a male teacher because they have so few. The thinnest of fig-leafs and blatantly used as a smokescreen for the Bill's real intention. 

Note 3

Not sure why the text layout changed but it still readable (I hope)

MEN NEED NOT APPLY: HAVE YOUR SAY ON CLAUSES 152 AND 153 IN EQUALITY BILL

By Adrian  Ashby

As part of the passage of the Equality Bill the parliamentary committee looking at the Bill invites evidence and comments. It does this through invited oral evidence sessions and written submissions. This is during June and July. A glance at the invitees for the oral sessions shows a line up of the usual representatives of the equality industry.

However anyone can submit written evidence to the committee. I’m sure few will know about this opportunity. Chapter 2 "Positive Action" should be commented on as it is the first two clauses (152 and 153) that will actually result in discrimination against men in getting jobs or promotions.

I hope readers individually, or through organisations, will make their views known to the committee as they are amending the Bill. The links below tell you how to do this.

Equality and Diversity Forum

Government Equalities Office

These clauses once enacted as currently drafted will effectively mean quotas in employment and promotions.

Editors Note

The Equalities Bill is one of the most anti-male pieces of legislation ever as the intention (even though hundreds of thousands of men are losing their jobs) is to discriminate against men. This has been well documented on the site (1 and 2) . An example of this in practice and with more to come to make this legal.

 

 

 

EYES STARTING TO OPEN OVER THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF HARMAN'S EQUALITY BILL

Now that our favourite Government Minister, Harriet Harman, has got her Equalities Bill (link) up and running in the UK Parliament, the practical impact of its policy to stop men from being treated as equals in the workplace is starting to be shown.

It is not helped of course, that she is now off the leash and gone into full-on male-bashing mode. You see, she blames maleness, for the collapse of the banks and as now so many are nationalised she wants to use the pro-women laws in the Bill to, as the Daily Mail put it, 'put women in charge of the banks'. No problem in theory with having women (or anyone) in charge of banks so long as they are suitably qualified.

But Harman's Law is not about this, it is about letting someone from one gender (women) being able to leapfrog above other people (men) up the career ladder solely based on gender. Just how fair it is for a man who has dedicated himself to a career to then be denied that opportunity because he is a man? It is wrong and morally so.

Also having been found out to be misleading everyone with her previous campaign saying the recession affected the employment of women more than men, she has turned her attack more generally. She said "because women generally remained homemakers, the recession caused them to fear not only for their own jobs, but also for their husband's, for their children's futures, and for elderly relatives. We have to worry more than men and we are definitely worrying more about the recession than men are."

There is not single shred of evidence to base this on and if she thinks that men are not worried to the same extent (or more) than women then she is just wrong. Patronisingly and desperately wrong.

Harriet Harman will do anything she possible can to attack at men. Why does she dislike us so much?

Other coverage is here:- Daily Mail, This is Money, Express, Telegraph

MEDIA CONDEMNATION FOR HARMAN' S EQUALITIES BILL

A week since the ironically named Equalities Bill was published and covered here (link and previous links here, here and here), there seems to be universal condemnation (especially from women) on a number of issues. The additional coverage is listed at the bottom but the issues are:-

(1) It is anti-male and unashamedly so;

(2) It is anti-business;

(3) The gender pay gap is down to lifestyle choice and not down to discrimination.

Harman's colleagues in the UK Government, which seems to be rotting further each day, seemed to be able to resist her when she put this forward. It is interesting to note none of them seemed to be rushing to support her publicly. Is it because they are embarrassed, do they support it or they so in hock to the anti-male PC brigade to say anything?

What will the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats do? Will there be enough labour MPs who could help to vote it down like they did on this week's Gurkha Bill.

There is no way any sensible person could possibly vote for this swingeing anti-male legislation surely? Thank the Lord the laughable Fawcett Society do not run Parliament, they don't think it goes far enough! (link)

Progress will be analysed as it wends its way through Parliament.

Further Coverage:-

Express 1, Express 2, Express 3, Express 4, Express 5, Express 6

Mail 1, Mail 2, Melanie Phillips Mail 3, Edwina Currie Mail 4

Telegraph 1, Charles Moore Telegraph 2, Telegraph 3, Telegraph 4,

Minette Marrin Times 1

Guardian 1, Guardian 2

HARMAN'S EQUALITIES BILL MEANS OPEN SEASON ON MEN AND THEIR LIVELIHOODS

Harriet Harman introduced the Equalities Bill (link, link, briefing) into the UK's House of Commons today.

The main areas of concern and ones raised on this site a number of times is around the gender pay gap (employment section) and the positive action (link) proposals (no such thing as positive action as it means negative action for someone else).

With male unemployment higher than female unemployment (link, link) pressure on businesses and a willful abuse of the gender pay gap statistics, what in reality Harman has done is declare an employment war on men.

Her intentions are clear.

Companies will be forced to publish their gender pay statistics and this is with the sole intention of shaming employers, no matter what rational explanation.

British Aerospace (BAE) for example, said at the weekend that they have a large gender pay gap because their highest paid employees are engineers who are predominately male. They have female engineers but fewer of them so their gender pay gap will be large but this is not down to discrimination especially when they want more female engineers. BAE, according to Harman and her acolytes though, want to place BAE in the stocks and put them through some grotesque Stalinesque show trial.

She said "You have got to believe that either women are 20 per cent less intelligent, less hard-working, less committed to their job, less experienced, less qualified, or you have got to believe that there is structural pay discrimination. We believe there is structural pay discrimination."

 No one as ever said this, it is down to lifestyle choices and career decisions. 

The other issue is that the positive action issues are clearly designed to discriminate against men. The legislation will be gender neutral but its interpretation by the courts, lawyers and HR staff will not be. The intention of the bill is clear - it is discriminate against men.

The bill says that companies can choose one person above another because of their gender when the two candidates are equally qualified. Quota's will also be introduced for companies bidding for public sector wo.

Firstly, it is virtually impossible for two candidates to be equally qualified especially after interview and any other testing. It is mischievous to suggest differently.

Secondly, in the current climate with more men on the dole queue they could be denied a job solely on the basis of their gender. This is discrimination.

Lastly, if a man is discriminated against (and could be from a working class background and studiously made his way up the ladder), it will not just be him who loses out, it could be his daughter, his wife/girlfriend and mother. That will go down well as those women will be equally discriminated against but it is being done in their name.

The Bill, if it passes, and it is likely to, is open season on men and will enshrine discrimination in law against them. Don't anyone think differently

It is the culmination of three decades of anti-male propaganda and male bashing. The nightmare is coming true.

Media Coverage so far (Daily Mail 1 plus debate, Melanie Phillips, BBC, Metro, Telegraph) and more will emerge over the week.

EQUALITIES BILL OPENS UP NEW FRONT IN ATTACK ON MEN

As was feared, in the streamlined package of Bills announced in Wednesday's Queen's Speech, Harriet Harman's Equalities Bill made the cut. This will be a disaster for men and will embed anti-male legislation into the establishment even if the Government loses the next Election.

The Bill (link) which has been covered here before (link) will lump all discrimination legislation together into one Act.

However, it introduces new areas.

(1) Positive Action - If a man and a woman have equal skill, an employer who believes one gender is under-represented will be able to give a woman, for example, the job if the employer thinks they have too many men. Because of the criticism made when the Bill was announced that this would lead to widespread discrimination against men, the Government have laughably tried to say that it will allow head-teachers to pick male teaching applicants above female ones.

As stated in the previous post about this Bill (see above), this is a laughable sop.

We know, because of the previous tone of Harman et al and the rest of the anti-male establishment when the Bill wasfirst announced. It will be used to systematically discriminate against men when used in practice. This will especially be the case when it comes to the public sector and will be used to allow women to bypass men in the management chain because that is where they are supposedly under-represented.

With so many boys leaving school uneducated, the last thing they need is another brick wall placed in front of them solely because of their gender. Trevor Phillips (Equalities Commission Chairman) previously raised this as an issue (link) as did academic Dr Catherine Hakim (link).

(2) Gender Pay Gap/Equal Pay Audits - As covered extensively (link), this is a ruse to attack men, nothing more, nothing less. There is no proof that a woman doing the same job, with the same talent, same experience, making the same profit at the same company gets paid less than a man. Research shows that single women get paid more than single men!

(3) Extension of All Women Short lists/Gender Lists For The Next Five Elections - Parliament is holding a Speakers Conference on how to get more women into Parliament and the political parties will continue to be allowed to 'positively discriminate' against men in selecting candidates for elections (link). This is a clear denial of the political franchise to men and stops men from representing their community and country solely on the basis of the gender.

This Bill is another nail in the coffin of the British male.

It will go through because too many Parliamentarians are supine in the face of the anti-male feminist onslaught to dare resist it.

Daily Mail debate

ACADEMIC SAYS MEN WILL SUFFER UNDER HARMAN'S EQUALITY BILL

As the recession starts to bite and employment becomes tougher, Harriet Harman will be cementing the plans for her single Equality Bill which will allow employers to discriminate against men when it comes to recruiting people to the workforce.

Following on from comments made by Trevor Phillips who declared that such discrimination will provide extra support for the BNP because it will be the white-working class that will be discriminated against, an academic has also hit out at the plans.

Writing for Public Policy Review and covered here (Telegraph), Dr Catherine Hakim, believes that men will become the new victims of sex discrimination if workplace equality laws are strengthened further.

The Telegraph article quotes that she accuses 'feminists of peddling "myths" about the extra hours put in by women and their thwarted career ambitions to justify "futile and perverse" attempts to help them balance work and family life'.

This is important article for a number of reasons:-

Firstly, it is a woman defending men and the Fawcett Society et al cannot deal with it. She understands that the motivation behind this equality law is not equality but a way of legally discriminating against men. If a man is discriminated against it is his wife/aprtner, mother, sister and daughters who will also be discriminated aagainst.

Secondly, it ignores the facts that women are now more great inroads into what would traditionally be termed male occupations. This investigation in the Telegraphshows for example that 61% of trainee GPs are women, 63% of students enrolled into the law society are women and 79% of vets are women. What more help do women need.

Thirdly, Marxist anti-male feminists such as Harriet Harman are hell-bent on destroying men. When boys are seven years behind girls at school (the outcome of which is highlighted in the above), it is men that need help. If this carries on then Harman and her friends will have succeeded.