The Impacts of Protected Characteristics on the Simplicity and Strength of UK Discrimination Law - Essay Example

The Impacts of Protected Characteristics on the Simpli and Strength of UK Discrimination Law The reform of the United Kingdom’s discrimination law occurred in 2010 with the hope of facilitating its applications in stemming the instances of discrimination in the country. However, chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Section 4 of Equality Act 2010 referred to some “protected characteristics” that are basis for the interpretation of the Act. Two of these protected characteristics that would be discussed here are; (i) sex and (ii) race (Ruebain et al, 2010; The National Archives, 2010). Sex inequality issues in the United Kingdom By assigning the recognition of “protected characteristic” to sex as a criterion for maintaining equality in the United Kingdom, the Equality Act 2010 complicates issues in several ways. The history of inequality with regard to sex in the UK has spanned decades, and still evolving. It is such a complex matter that could not be easily rectified through the mere reform of the UK discrimination law. The following examples demonstrate why sex inequality is such an endemic crime in the United Kingdom. Though progress has been recorded recently in every facet of UK public life, however, the society is still largely dominated by males (Coveney et al., 1984). There are reports of gender inequality in education all across the UK (Riddell and Salisbury, 1999). 2 Male dominance has become ingrained into the UK society that it seems it is just the natural thing to do. It is a known fact that discriminating against women in terms of education (as it was done many years before) has a far-reaching impact on the womenfolk. First, it makes women to be unequal with men in knowledge acquisition and subsequently turns them into unqualified people. This trend had made it impossible to find women who were as qualified as men to take up challenging positions in both private and public offices. Although things have changed drastically in this modern dispensation, but there are still disheartening reports that sex discrimination is still a viable problem in UK labour practices (Perlman and Pike, 1994). Employers look down on women and consider men for jobs based on different reasons. It is believed that most women do not maintain continuity in their jobs because of other responsibilities that include marriage, children-bearing and other domestic concerns; men, on the other hand, are regarded as strong and more professionally minded. Using these reasons to discriminate against women is not appropriate, but employers are mainly concerned about the success of their businesses. If they are eventually employed, women still face serious issues of discrimination in their workplaces. There are indications that some UK companies offer better pensions and insurance benefits for their male workers than those given to their female employees (Perlman and Pike, 1994). Similarly, wages for male and female workers are not the same, even though they do the same amount of job at their respective workplaces. This 3 preferential treatment of male workers over female workers stems from the fact that United Kingdom’s industries were founded with a focus on males as the viable workforce (Mosley et al., 2002). And this perception has not changed much in this modern day as employers still dismissed female workers because of flimsy excuses like dating a fellow worker or getting pregnant during the peak work period (FL Memo Ltd., 2005). An interesting case to illustrate the tediousness of the male versus female tension in UK labour markets is Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd, where Ms Webb was seeking claims for unfair dismissal based on her pregnancy. Those she was chastised for using the argument that if male workers could be allowed to treat themselves when they fell sick, why shouldn’t a pregnant woman be allowed to go for child-rearing; her employer (Air Cargo (UK) Ltd was criticised for firing her based on pregnancy, an action that was illegal and contravened the United Kingdom labour law (Collins et al., 2005). This and other related factors have restrained female workers in UK from realising their full professional potential; and these issues have made it difficult to have many female CEOs in the country. Since there are fewer women in the management positions, it invariably impossible to influence the decision-making processes in many UK companies to establish policies that would support women in their attempts to be professional (Thompson et al., 2005). Hence, looking at the points raised in this analysis, it is clear that reforming the UK law with sex being one of the “protected characteristics” will only create 4 more awareness about unfair labour practices and other malpractices against women as detailed above. Politically, women have also been marginalised: how many women are members of the House of Lords? How many women are chosen as cabinet members every time a new British government is inaugurated? The absence of women in such strategic places makes it impossible to fight against some masculine laws (labour or otherwise) that are made by UK lawmakers. Incidentally, if many women are members of UK political class, there would have been strict laws against rapes, sexual harassment and other grievous crime that target women as the soft targets (Zippel, 2006). Instead of alleviating the problems against women highlighted above, the Equality Act 2010 has only publicised the pains and headaches British women go through daily, both in their private and professional lives. However, the reform has helped many women to come forward to complain about the injustices they had been suffering. Before now, most victims of sexual harassment or sex discrimination had often kept the unpleasant experience to themselves. The Equality Act 2010 would only bring the matter under spotlight but offer little to help the victims of these unfair demonstrations of power from their male counterparts. In an extreme circumstance, this could force the British women to adopt a new dimension of feminism that would see men as their sole enemies that worth fighting to any length. However, this condition would lead to more breach of human rights rather than proffering solutions to the serious but often neglected sex discriminations. 5 Race discrimination in the United Kingdom As the United Kingdom becomes more and more multicultural, it is hard not to imagine that the problem of racial inequality will surface someday. The problem of racial discrimination in the UK has grown to a level that it creates tension among all the ethnic nationalities in the country (Bamforth et al., 2008). Mentioning race as one of the “protected characteristics” in Equality Act 2010 has only increased the awareness on this dangerous issue that had divided people along racial lines (The National Archives, 2010). As the number of immigrants increases in the UK there are countless complaints of racial discrimination in the areas of jobs, social benefits, education and health services. Institutional racism has been described as any attempt to frustrate actions of the minorities by the refusal of some governmental bodies to offer national services for foreign residents based on the wrong perception that they are stretching the national resources that were meant for the citizens (Troyna and Williams, 1986). The question is: in what way can the Equality Act 2010 resolve the problem of institutional racism? There have been some discussions about the complete eradication of institutional racism in the UK; however, the current economic crisis has only worsened the situation. It is right for the UK government to institute policies that would cut expenses in all its national expenditure—but this circumstance would increase the competition for the limited resources available at the governmental service centres. So, how could the reform in the Equality Law help solve this problem? 6 Racial inequality has also been fingered as one of the factors for unequal employment opportunities in the United Kingdom (Van der Linden et al., 1995). This accounts for the highest number of unemployment among the minority population. The effects of unemployment could be traumatic, as jobless people could cater for their primary needs—they would have to depend on their family members or friends to survive. This is why poverty level among the minority groups is becoming quite intensive. The danger of this is that many youngsters would take to crime to fend for themselves whenever they could. Or desperation from unemployment could cause them to nurse bitter hatred towards the local Britons. One could not exactly prove that poverty is not the sole reason why some youths from the minority groups are taking the path of militancy against the British public to register their displeasure about their poverty and uneventful lives, which they strongly believed was made worse by institutional racism (Levy, 2007). As racial issues pull Britain apart into sections, the youths on both sides of the groups are showing hatred to one another, and this has led to many street fights, gun battles and gang actions (Bailey, 2008). Sometimes, these actions led to death and destruction of private property. This circumstance reveals how dangerous racial problem is in the United Kingdom. And with the London Bombing many years, the public has grown suspicious of certain ethnic group because of their religious affiliation (Levy, 2007). It is pertinent to ask: how could the reform Equality Act 2010 help resolve the dangerous and delicate issues of sex and racial discrimination? 7 How Equality Act 2010 could help The Equality Act 2010 itself could not do anything to resolve all the issues highlighted in the foregoing because it popularises the sex and racial discrimination in a way that people would pay more attention to them. And this will definitely create two groups of people: those who are against it, and those who strongly support it. Although, the Equality Act 2010 would empower some people to stand up for their rights and fight all forms of sex and racial discrimination in the United Kingdom. Although, since all these issues involved human elements, it will be helpful to hold constant consultation with all stakeholders in order to seek their understanding on why individual human rights must be recognised and respected. When people began to respect the rights of one another, this will create an environment of tolerance and communal harmony. This will remove internal hatred and cause people to see one another as friends and neighbours, forging peaceful co-existence (Bamforth et al., 2008). The fact is that making race and sex “protected characteristics” has actually removed the sacredness about these issues and bring all legal proceedings against such practices into recognition for ordinary people to have knowledge of. Hence, this has removed the simplicity at which such issues could be addressed and resolved. The opportunity to conceal and settle issues about sex and racial discrimination has gone as people are now aware of the rights and the power Equality Act 2010 gives to them to challenge every act of inequality meted against them. 8 Conclusion Two importation observations stand out in all this analysis: (i) before the reform of Equality Act, most of the people in the United Kingdom did not understand the level of protection they could receive from the state in case their fundamental human rights are breached by the others—most victims of sex and racial discrimination had kept their suffering secret while comforting themselves; (ii) the enactment of Equality Act 2010 just opens the eyes of so many people to the rights they did not know that they had had before—now more and more people would not tow the simple way of enduring discrimination, but they would quickly seek legal recourse whenever their rights have been trampled upon. In this light, the simplicity of handling sex and race discrimination at the law courts and other judiciary avenues would now be monitored closely by the legal watchdogs to make sure that justice is granted to the victims of these abuses. In the course of litigation, this may create much noise and public outcry if victims are not awarded their claims or given favourable judgment. It is safe to state that Equality Act 2010 has made this unique system happen, and many victims would breathe a sigh of relief for finding the lasting solution to their problems. Without doubt, the effects of Equality Act 2010 will help to improve many inter-personal relationships in the United Kingdom—there will be better labour conditions as employees will be fairly treated; gender will no more be a divisive thing in the UK! 9 References Bamforth, N., Bindman, G., Malik, M., and O’ Cinneide, C., 2008. Discrimination law: theory and context; text and materials. London: Sweet & Maxwell. Bailey, J., 2009. Taking action against youth crime. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. Collins, H., Ewing, K.D., and McColgan, A., 2005. Labour law: text and materials. London: Hart Publishing. Coveney, L., Jackson, M., Jeffreys, S., Kay, L., nad Mahony, P., 1984. The sexuality papers: male sexuality and the social control of women (explorations in Feminism. London: Hutchinson Educational. FL Memo Ltd., 2005. Employment 2006: law and practice, human resources. London: FL Memo Ltd. Levy, J.A., 2007. Terrorism issues and developments. New York: Nova Publishers. Mosley, H., O’Reilly, J., Schmid, G., Schomann, K. eds., 2002. Labour markets, gender and institutional change; essays in honor of Gunther Schmid. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. Perlman, R., and Pike, M., 1994. Sex discrimination in the labour market: the case for comparable worth. Manchester: Manchester University Press, ND. 10 Riddell, S., and Salisbury, J. eds., 1999. Gender, policy and educational change: shifting agendas in the UK and Europe. London: Routledge. Ruebain, D., Wadham, J., Robinson, A., and Uppal, S. eds., 2010. Blackstone’s guide to the Equality Act 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The National Archives, 2010. The Equality Act 2010: protected characteristics. [Online] Available at [Accessed 18 January 2010]. Thompson, P., Graham, J., and Lloyd, D., 2005. A woman’s place is in the boardroom. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Troyna, B.,and Williams, J., 1986. Racism, education and the state. London: Croom Helm. Van der Linden, M., Lucassen, J., and Van Arkel, D., 1995. Racism and labour market: historical studies. London: P.Lang. Zippel, K.S., 2006. The politics of sexual harassment: a comparative study of the United States, the European Union, and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More