Britain embraces 'positive action' to abolish workplace discrimination
Calling it 'action' is most likely a move to avoid all those nasty connotations which unfortunately attach themselves to the word 'discrimination' - connotations which remain even when you deem it 'positive'.
Perhaps when men are beaten in the street, it is 'positive violence'?
When men are killed, is it 'positive homicide'?
I am sure that feminists think so; after all, it is precisely the same logic behind calling discrimination 'positive' when it targets men.
Miss Featherstone said recruitment and promotion decisions, especially in big firms, were still made on a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink basis", before women had the chance to apply.
If these decisions really were made in such a clandestine matter, how exactly would Miss Featherstone - barred entry to the old boys' club because she is a victimised woman - know this to be the case?
I highly doubt it's the case at all - most companies are falling all over themselves to prove that they genuflect at the church of Equality. But, to turn profits, they also need to hire the best candidates.
Who are, for our cultural guardians, all too often male.
Ministers said that in practice this would mean that a primary school with no male teachers could hire a man of equal merit to a woman.
It will also mean that a manager will be able to hire a black man over a white man, a woman over a man, or a homosexual man over a heterosexual man, if they have the same skills and qualifications.
This is an attempt to play down the ramifications of the Equality Act. All those things listed above can and do already happen - when two equal candidates have applied, the employer has to choose between them. If this was all the Act implied, there would be no need for it; it would be completely superfluous.
Miss Featherstone said the reforms were “absolutely not about political correctness” but aimed to give employers “the choice to make their workforce more diverse”.
Again - employers already exercise full choice over who they hire. If they want to create a more diverse workforce, they are currently free to do so without requiring the help of government.
So, what's really going on?
Companies with more than 150 staff will be encouraged voluntarily to disclose whether they pay women as much as men.
Miss Featherstone told business leaders in London’s Docklands that she hoped the voluntary approach would work. However, if too few companies signed up, ministers would consider whether tougher action “including a mandatory approach” was needed.
So disclosures will be voluntary - unless nobody volunteers, then they will be mandatory.
So essentially, disclosures will be mandatory.
business leaders said the new rules would lead to a rise in the number of companies being sued by potential employees.
This is undoubtedly one of the primary reasons for the new legislation - the terms of the Act are so broad that anybody can sue for virtually any reason, so long as they belong to a 'protected category' of person.
The effects will be for disgruntled or bored women to cripple businesses, in order to fund their own lavish spending habits and luxurious cruise trips.
David Green, a director of the think-tank Civitas, said the new law imposed “illiberal requirements on employers”. He said: “The Government is now to require employers to discriminate on grounds of 'group identity’ not personal qualities.”
Spot on. I would add that ideologies such as feminism explicitly aim to divide people by putting them into little 'group identity' boxes then treating them differently.