Paul Crofts' Blog: Views from an independent socialist

Wellingborough showing of film Spirit of '45 this Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Wed, 15 May 2013 09:54:00 +0000

There will be a special showing of Ken Loach's film Spirit of '45, followed by discussion.

This Sunday, May 19th at 7.00 pm in the Rising Sun pub, corner of Cannon Street/Mill Road

This has been organised by Independent Socialists in Wellingborough in conjunction with Left Unity

ALL WELCOME

******

Anti-Racism in Social Work Practice: New book now out

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Fri, 10 May 2013 18:12:00 +0000

Anti-Racism in Social Work Practice is a new book which I have have had the privilege of contributing a chapter to (on 'Critical Race Theory and exploring 'whiteness'). The book was published in April 2013 by Critical Publishing edited by Angie Bartoli. All the contributors are either based in the Social Work Division at the University of Northampton or have historically been linked to it (as I was when I was the Equality and Diversity Advisor at the university for seven years until 2012).

The publishers describe the books in the following way:

Anti-racism has a long history within the profession of social work and its education. Despite an agenda within higher education which promotes internationalization and practice which recognises diversity, little has been written to address the question of why black African students have a different experience from others on their social work educational journey.

This book is based upon the authors’ experience as educators and their own research about and with black students’ experience of racism and ‘otherness’ within social work practice and education. Radical and honest in nature, it re-visits anti-racism within social work practice and education from a student focused and informed perspective based on lived experience and conversations.

This book will be of interest to all social work students, educators and policy makers with an interest in anti-racism and diversity. It includes practical models and tried and tested tools to help the reader work through these issues.

The chapter headings in the book and the authors of each chapter are as follows:

Introduction. Angie Bartoli

1. Backlash blues: racialisation and citizenship. Bernadette Curran

2. Anti-racist social work education. Sukhwinder Singh

3. Developing Cultural Competence. Prospera Tedam

4. Padare: a meeting around a tree. Angie Bartoli

5. White women listening. Sue Kennedy

6. Critical Race Theory and exploring 'whiteness'. Paul Crofts

7. View from the workplace: practitioners speak out. Charity Chukwuemeka

Conclusion: a forward looking journey. Angie Bartoli and Prospera Tedum

*****

Debating the future of the "Left" in Northamptonshire: Do you want to join in?

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Tue, 07 May 2013 19:38:00 +0000

I recently posted the following observation on Twitter/Facebook and it prompted the following exchange of views between two friends from Northampton.

I have reproduced it here because I believe it is worthy of further debate and discussion. Do you want to join it? If you do, please post your comments.

ME: Only good news coming from elections seems to be total wipe-out for BNP, English Democrats and their ilk. But hate taken on by UKIP #dangers

David Huffadine-smith In effect, Northants voters have endorsed all the Tory cuts made to date, and opened the floodgates for more of the same thing. And the Tories can now rightfully claim a mandate for this. And all because the left of centre parties spend more time squabbling amongst themselves than setting out a clear set of policies and motivating people to go out and vote for them.

May 3 at 8:18pm · Unlike · 1

John Dickie David,everywhere I look your repeating the canard that the centre-left is squabbling.What you really mean to say is the centre is scrabbling to find something worthwhile to say.The left i9s fairly coherent in its world view,indeed I have never known the factions of the left to be so united.I find it encouraging that the initiative by Ken Loach(onetime SLL/WRP doyen)-Left Unity is gaining traction.It's starting to feel like those who founded the Labour Representation Committee must have felt all those centuries ago.Added to which the creation by Unite of the Community branches is also echoing a return to first principles of trade unionism.Perhaps we are moving towards the sort of movements that are starting to happen again all over Europe!

Saturday at 9:58am · Unlike · 1

David Huffadine-smith My observations about lack of unity amongst the centre-left is confirmed by your comments (on other threads) about the Labour group actions at the most recent Northampton Boro Council meeting. It seems to me that Northampton Labour desperately needs the guidance of experienced and gifted elder statesmen who can do a useful turn in the kind of rhetoric that wins peoples hearts & minds. As well as see through political traps, and counsel against playground theatricals. Those who, for one reason or another, now find themselves outside the traditional Labour umbrella could usefully wave an olive branch. Its a win-win, in that so long as Labour does not insist on those individuals eating 'umble pie, it regains the talents that are currently missing, and losing seats as a result of a split vote will become a thing of the past. Isn't it about time that both sides buried their egos for the sake of the common good?

Saturday at 2:22pm · Unlike · 1

John Dickie David, wwere it all that simple.The problem is that the Labour party that I once knew and worked for despite all its imperfections(Callaghan,Kinnock,etc) is long gone.What we appear to have is a hollowed out shell that lacks ideology and only has a strong desire to provide a small group of people with a professional career structure that ends on green benches.Right now in Northampton there are far more ex-labour party members with considerable talent and experience than there are still within that palsied organisation.It utterly breaks my heart to see it stumble and fail at every hurdle,but I think that the time is about right to create a new movement that brings together the multi-faceted left into a rainbow coalition of ideas.it will certainly not be a socialist organisation but it wil be a damn sight nearer one than what we have at present.I would hope that those few remaining socialists in the Labour party would understand that they are flogging a horse that was eaten as a Tesco burger years ago.The creation of Left U*nity and the Unite Community branches are both steps in the right direction.The Tory hegemony is a dreadful spectre haunting Northampton,and the advances of the BNP in suits is distasteful too-but one feature of us old lefties is optimism-without it we'd all think that Blair was the answer instead o0f being the problem!

Saturday at 6:36pm · Unlike · 1

Paul Crofts It appears I have prompted an important debate. Please continue and it may be worth reproducing as a pamphlet/blog to get debate going involving even more people too.

Saturday at 7:37pm via mobile · Like

David Huffadine-smith I could not give a [insert expletives of your choice] about the Labour Party as currently represented in Westminster, or indeed the previous Blair/Brown Labour Government. What I see is the Tories systematically destroying Northampton (+ shire) culturally, economically, morally, aesthetically and socially, not necessarily in that order. The people who used to be motivated, at least in part, via a powerful and effective Trades Union movement can no longer be reached because the Trades Union movement has been emasculated. There is no longer a popular left wing press, although middle class armchair socialists seem well catered for, and so those who would support a left wing movement are increasingly difficult to reach. I do not know what the solution to this situation is, but having several weak left of centre political parties that do not seem willing to work together does not seem to be a very good game plan for defeating those who would, given half a chance, consign us all to serfdom.

Saturday at 7:48pm · Like

John Dickie David, your arguments are persuasive and depressing,and remind me very much of what has been going round within the left generally for what now seems decades.I started my political life as what the Americans call a 'red diaper baby',growing up in a CP household,a working class family that itself was a rarity in CP circles even then.I was the youngest member of the YCL in London and seemed ddestined for an apparatchik role in the party.However the sixties radicalised me and it seemed that Peace in Vietnam was not as good a slogan as 'Victory to the NLF'.But even then it did seem that the extra parliamentary route was something of a blind alley, there are only so many times you can demand the TUC call a General Strike today! and only so long you can dismiss the labour Party as lackeys of the boss class.I joined the Labour Party at the height of the leftward shift,when despite the PLP and the leadership exciting initiatives wee happening in local government-Liverpool,London,Glasgow,even bloody Sheffield! (remember Blunkett the red scourge!) We tried to make Northampton a red bastion-we failed of course but in the process attracted some very bright and able young activists.But then came Thatcherism and the sickening dark period of ugliness.In 1997 we would accept almost anything,even Blair,rather than another decade of demoralisation and dispair.But that led the labour party into the capitulation of 'tolerating the filthy rich' and even becoming in some cases the filfhy rich.Watching Ken Loach's film 'Spirit of 45' and hearing Attlee talking about a socialist future showed how far backwards we have come.However my glass is not empty, I believe that the Occupy movement,inchoate and confused though it may be,has seeds of optimism.I think a range of single issue authonomous movements are emerging and the trick is to get them to converge.That does mean detaching the brightest and most able from the moribund Labour Party,that has become the Liberal Party of the 1900's, and create a new and vibrant view of socialism that will encourage many more local solutions,building bases in communities and reviving a spirit that the British people once had, the spirit that created the trade union movement,and yes the Labour Party.It's the job of us old greybeards to encourage and nurture and then get out of the way as quickly as possible!Sorry to take so long,but being old also means being long winded.

Sunday at 3:16pm · Like · 1

John Dickie paul, I think this is the debate that's kicking off within Left U*nity-maybe we need to bring to9gether all the strands of left,green,unaligned and gently loopy into a Northamptonshire Convention of 21st century Levellers,Diggers and people like me who think of myself as a Jeffersonian Marxist!(I pinched that designation from Chomsky)

Sunday at 3:20pm · Like · 1

John Dickie Another thought occurred to me, if this debate is to go anywhere it really needs one of the smart and hip young gunslingers from New labour-sorry One nation Labour to explain how ideology-lite labour will move on from listening campaigns to political action.It would be interesting to find out what motivates them now beyond the cliche and stating the bleedin' obvious!

Yesterday at 9:37am · Like

**********

Successful anti-bedroom tax protest in Wellingborough

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:01:00 +0000

To view all photos photos from the anti-bedroom tax protests in Wellingborough yesterday go HERE

*******

Equality & Diversity News: May 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:36:00 +0000

In this issue:

Editorial: Where’s AL gone?
Caste Discrimination to be made unlawful
Viewed with suspicion: The human cost of Stop and Search
Government backs off repeal of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s General Duty
Tribunal case re-emphasises legal protection against discrimination based on an “association” with a disabled person
The menopause – the last workplace taboo?
ECU announces pilots of schemes to bring about systemic change to improve equality
EHRC guidance to help employers support staff experiencing domestic abuse 7
‘Sex and Power 2013: Who Runs Britain?’
Racial harassment claim by Jewish teacher over union’s Israel-Palestine policies fails
Has Anti-Semitism in Europe become acceptable again
‘Illegal immigrant’ no more? How language changes and labels
Employing older workers: an employer’s guide to today’s multi-generational workforce
EHRC Research Reports and Reading Lists
Stonewall Healthcare Equality Index 2013

Editorial: Where’s AL gone?

EQUALITY? or EQUITY?

I recently came across the above cartoon and I thought it was really useful as way of visualising equality in different ways. As someone who has been involved in equality and diversity issues over many years I still find it difficult sometimes to verbally explain that the word “equality” carries different meanings in different contexts and sometimes these different meaning can seem contradictory.

The first picture, for example, shows an example of what might be described as formal equality: everyone is being treated “the same” (equally) as they are all standing on the same sized box. If all the people are “the same” (in this case terms of height) this would be a good thing – it would be wrong and discriminatory if the boxes were of a different height and this resulted in some suffering a detriment as consequence.

The law calls this direct discrimination: less favourable treatment on grounds of (in this case) height. But remember “height” is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, so it would not be illegal! It’s just an example, to illustrate a point, right. However if the detriment was caused with reference to race, or gender or disability or sexual orientation etc., (a “protected characteristic”) then it would be illegal.

But as the children in the cartoon are different in terms of height, treating them the same (“equally”), as the cartoon illustrates, results in discrimination against the smallest! So treating people “the same” or “equally”, when people are not “the same”, can result in discrimination. The law describes this form of discrimination as indirect discrimination: a provision, criteria or practice (in this case the size of the boxes they are standing on) which applies equally to all (it’s the same size box), but puts someone (the smallest) at a particular disadvantage because of a characteristic they do not share with others (in this case smaller height).

When indirect discrimination is identified (as the cartoon does) the solution to solving or eliminating the discrimination does not lie in treating everyone the same (this has actually created the discrimination), but rather treating different people in different situations differently. In the cartoon the solution is to give different sized boxes to differently sized children to put them in the same situation to see the match (an equitable outcome!). Formal equality is thereby transformed into substantive equality or equity, where it’s the outcome that becomes important, not the process (of providing same-size boxes).

I just have one tiny gripe with the cartoon. The outcome could have been achieved not by providing different sized children with differently sized boxes, which is complicated, expensive and focuses on the individual size of each child. But rather by taking down the fence (or not building it in the first place), which is the real barrier to full equality for all! Without the fence, irrespective of size, all can now see the match. Quite a radical solution, but with the benefit of simplicity and (if it had not been built in the first place) might have saved a great deal of money! Sometimes the simple solutions are the best!!

This latter point illustrates the difference between (in the case of disability) the medical or individualised model of looking at solutions to inequality, as opposed to the societal model of inequality favoured by disabled people themselves – where the real social barriers to full participation, involvement and equality are identified and removed; or better still not created in the first place.

Amazing what a simple set of cartoons can do...

Paul Crofts

Caste Discrimination to be made unlawful

Vince Cable the Business Secretary announced on Monday April 22 2013 that the government intends to make caste discrimination unlawful by extending the definition of “race” to include it in the Equality Act 2010. This represents a bit of a volte-face for the government as it had previous argued that it did not think it was necessary to extend protection in this area. However, after successive votes in the House of Lords to extend protection to the estimated 400,000 Dalits (or “untouchables”) resident in the UK, the government has changed its mind. In March the House of Lords passed an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill to add caste to anti-discrimination laws.

Source: BBC

Viewed with suspicion: The human cost of Stop and Search

The numbers are stark — data shows that black people are stopped and searched at seven times the rate of white people. Asians are stopped at twice the rate of whites. But what do the statistics mean in terms of people's lives?

A new report, portrait series and film look at some of the personal stories behind the numbers.

StopWatch and the Open Society Justice Initiative conducted interviews with nine people from across England whose lives have been directly affected by stop and search. They are a small sample, but their stories echo those repeated day after day in the lives of ordinary people who happen to fit the stereotypes that might lead to a stop and search. To provide context for these stories, the accompanying report draws on police and survey data to provide a clear picture of how stop and search is used and the unseen toll it takes.

View the portrait slideshow

Watch the film trailer

Read the blog

Download the 33-page report

Source: StopWatch

Government backs off repeal of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s General Duty

Following a vote in the House of Lords on 4^th March 2013 the Government announced on April 22 that it does not intend to real the EHRC general equality duty. Peers had previously voted 217-166 in support of Baroness Jane Campbell’s amendment to s57 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, opposing the government’s planned repeal of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s General Duty.

In addition to Baroness Campbell’s powerful speech a range of impassioned interventions came from all sides of the House including Baroness Thornton, Baroness Lister, Baroness Hollis, Lord Lloyd, Baroness Hussein-Ece and Lord Morris. Each pointed out the critical importance of both aspirations and values in addition to rules and enforcement in achieving the cultural change required to ensure that equality and human rights principles take root in our society.

The House of Lords had made its view clear – the General Duty should not be repealed and the Government appears to have listened (although a more cynical view may be that they would not have mustered sufficient support in the House of Commons to overturn it).

Source: Politics UK

Tribunal case re-emphasises legal protection against discrimination based on an “association” with a disabled person

Price v Action-Tec Services Ltd t/a Associated Telecom Solutions [2013] EqLR 429

The Claimant, Rachel Price has a degenerative disc disease and as a result was absent from work for some days due to back pain. Her husband has leukemia.

When her husband’s condition deteriorated, Mrs Price found it hard to concentrate at work, and was signed off for a week by her GP as having high blood pressure. When she returned to work, she was told by her employer that her employment was not working out and “if I had known about your husband’s illness I wouldn’t, no might not, have taken you on”. He then terminated her employment with immediate effect. Mrs Price brought a claim of disability discrimination.

The Tribunal pointed out that it is clear from the wording of the Equality Act that it is unlawful to discriminate “on grounds of disability – not simply or necessarily on grounds of the Claimant’s disability”. The Equality Act 2010 was intended to extend the prohibition on direct discrimination to associative discrimination and Price v Action-Tec Services Ltd t/a Associated Telecom Solutions illustrates the difference this protection makes.

This is an important case reaffirming the Equality Act provisions relating to discrimination by association.

Source: Michael Rubenstein presents...

The menopause – the last workplace taboo?

Approximately half of the UK workforce (47%) is made up of women aged 50 years or older. With around two-thirds of women aged 50 to 59 in employment, these women will be experiencing the menopause or have been through it. The menopause is part of the aging process. It is not a medical disease and it can have a significant impact on psychological well-being, physical health, cognition and social implications on the working lives of women.

Many managers are unaware of the many physical symptoms of the menopause which might affect a woman’s well-being at work. Menopausal symptoms most likely to affect women include hot flushes (70% of women suffer from them for one year, 30% for five years and 5% – 10% for 10 to 15 years), palpitations, night sweats and sleep disturbance, fatigue, poor concentration, irritability and mood disturbance. These working women may also have to care for frail and aging parents, look after their own family, experience changes in health and changes in their relationships.

The Working through the Change study conducted by the Trades Union Congress (2003) surveyed 500 safety representatives on menopausal issues. Symptoms attributed to the menopause made worse by work were hot flushes, headaches and tiredness. Workplace temperature and poor ventilation also made symptoms worse. Employers can help to reduce the stigma and embarrassment when women are in the company of work colleagues and by supporting women experiencing the menopause employers can reduce absenteeism, maximise productivity and make the workplace environment as comfortable as possible.

To help develop a rich and diverse working culture within the workplace here are ten top tips to help employers cultivate good working practices:

1. Raising awareness of the menopause in an occupational setting through health promotion programmes and awareness training for managers.

2. Organising social support within the work place. This could include information packs, mentoring schemes and lunch time support.

3. Offer flexible working hours, job sharing, and opportunities to work from home. Many women experience tiredness.

4. The temperature of the work environment can be an issue, especially in refined spaces. Fans and temperature controls could be implemented.

5. A rest room where women can relax, just to have some space.

6. Cold drinking water – many organisations do not provide this.

7. Prioritise work life balance and maintain firm boundaries in working life and non-working life. Adopt buffer zones so that women feel in control more effectively. Many menopausal women experience feelings of ‘not coping’. If work becomes an issue encourage a specific time each day so that worries can be written down and then discarded.

8. Remain hopeful and optimistic – women experiencing the menopause often go through different types of emotions such as anxiety and depression. Remember these feelings do subside. Encourage women to discuss how they feel as these feelings are very normal.

9. Become a supportive manager, women are more likely to discuss menopausal issues with somebody they feel able to talk to. This also encourages organisational loyalty and less absenteeism which can only be a good thing for all companies.

These tips are based on research undertaken by Amanda Griffiths of Nottingham University: Women’s Experience of Working through the Menopause [PDF].

Source: Michael Rubenstein presents.....

ECU announces pilots of schemes to bring about systemic change to improve equality

The advisory equality group for universities (the Equality Challenge Unit) is developing a national charter marks to kick-start initiatives tackling race and gender inequality in employment in higher education.

The charter marks are being developed to help the sector address the continuing underrepresentation of black and minority ethnic staff and the similar underrepresentation of women at senior levels.

They are intended to instigate long term systemic and cultural changes to tackle discrimination. Our experiences with the Athena SWAN Charter (improving gender equality in STEMM subjects) have shown that such a scheme can have a significant impact on entrenched exclusionary practices and be successful in changing behaviour within higher education institutions.

· A race equality charter mark will focus on improving race equality for staff, concentrating on career progression and pipeline issues.

· A gender equality charter mark will extend the Athena SWAN scheme to cover all disciplines.

The charter marks build on programmes run by ECU over the past year investigating effective initiatives.

A pilot of the gender equality charter mark has been undertaken and, subject to consulting with the sector on the proposal, we plan to develop this further. The current Athena SWAN charter will continue to operate as it currently stands, with a view to bring the two together further down the line.

The challenges to gender and race equality are different, so the charter mark for race will begin as a small-scale pilot, but will grow incrementally.

Both schemes will be developed in consultation with the sector and be flexible to take into account the individual context of an institution (including size and geographical area).

David Ruebain, Chief Executive of ECU said:

‘Despite the diligent work of individual higher education institutions and sector organisations, systemic discrimination continues to exist in higher education. Entrenched exclusionary practices have been found to stifle the careers of black and minority ethnic academics and support staff, and women are also still underrepresented at senior levels.

We have worked with many institutions on initiatives to promote race and gender equality, but these are complex, and sometimes sensitive, issues requiring a strategic approach. It is clear that cultural and systemic changes are necessary if we are to make any real headway on these challenges.

There is a long way to go, but the scheme has the potential to have a significant impact and be successful in changing behaviour within universities.’

ECU will be circulating further details, including projected timescales and resource implications, as soon as possible in the coming weeks.

Source: Equality Challenge Unit

EHRC guidance to help employers support staff experiencing domestic abuse

In April 2013, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published guidance to help employers manage and support employees affected by domestic abuse, which one in four women will experience at some point in their lifetime.

‘Managing and supporting employees experiencing domestic abuse’, developed by the EHRC and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, outlines how employers should respond if an employee is affected by domestic abuse.

The guidance is designed to enable employers to develop a domestic abuse workplace policy and provides tips for managers on how to manage and support an employee experiencing domestic abuse. These small steps can include giving an employee time off to consult a lawyer, diverting telephone calls or providing a safe car park space.

The guidance is necessary because domestic abuse is a subject that managers struggle to respond to appropriately. People experiencing domestic abuse can be subject to disciplinary action and even lose their jobs because their behaviour, being late for example, is misinterpreted. A domestic abuse workplace policy will mean that skilled and experienced staff are able to retain their jobs and feel safe and supported in the workplace.

Statistics show that:

· Domestic abuse currently costs UK businesses over £1.9 billion a year

· In the UK, in any one year, more than 20% of employed women take time off work because of domestic violence, and 2% lose their jobs as a direct result of the abuse

· 75% of women that experience domestic abuse are targeted at work – from harassing phone calls and abusive partners arriving at the office unannounced, to physical assaults.

Ann Beynon, EHRC Board Member and Commissioner for Wales, comments:

“We are delighted to publish this guide in partnership with the CIPD which will have huge benefits for organisations. As Commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission my aim is that every employer benefits from taking effective action in the workplace to ensure their staff experiencing domestic abuse feel safe and supported at work.

“This guidance includes low cost, common sense practical tips through to steps on developing an effective domestic abuse workplace policy. Therefore, whether a large company or one of the many SMEs there are steps you can take to help managers facilitate conversations about domestic abuse and put in place support for employees."

The guidance is also be available on the CIPD website

Source: Equality & Human Rights Commission

‘Sex and Power 2013: Who Runs Britain?’

In March 2013, the Counting Women In coalition published ‘Sex and Power 2013: Who Runs Britain?’

The report examines the presence – or lack thereof – of women in politically powerful positions in politics and other spheres of public life in the UK today, including the police, the education sector, the arts and the world of finance. It then goes on to consider the implications of a country largely governed by men, and makes a series of recommendations for tackling the dearth of women in influential positions.

Key findings included:

just 22.5 percent of MPs are women, 21.7 percent of peers and 17.4 percent of the Cabinet. Women make up 13.3 percent of elected mayors and 14.6 percent of Police and Crime Commissioners.
Britain is falling down the global league table when it comes to the representation of women in politics, as other countries move forward faster: in 2001 we were ranked 33 out of 190 countries, but by the end of 2012 we had fallen to 60th[1] place.
women are similarly ‘missing’ in many other spheres of public life: just 36.4 percent of public appointments are women, 13.6 percent of the senior judiciary and 5 percent of Editors of national daily newspapers.
women’s absence is particularly marked in finance and economy: there are no women at all on the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee; women hold just 11.1 percent of UK Bank Chief Executive positions, 17.3 percent of FTSE 100 Director positions and make up just 15.1 percent of members of Local Economic Partnerships.

The report explores the impact of this dearth of women at the top tables of public life, and concludes that:

The lack of diversity in public life weakens democracy and public confidence in it;
Women make a positive difference to actual decision-making itself; excluding them from politics and other areas of public life means missing out on the substantial benefits greater involvement of women would bring, while also wasting the huge investment made in women and girls through the education system and beyond
A more diverse body politic with a wider spread of expertise and reflecting the life experience of both halves of the human race would be better placed to lead us through the complex times that face us.
Real, committed and targetted action is required; failure to do so means the UK will continue to ‘drift’.

Source: Equality & Diversity Forum

Racial harassment claim by Jewish teacher over union’s Israel-Palestine policies fails

Mr R Fraser -v- University & College Union - Case Numbers: 2203390/201 -

In this case, a member of the Union brought various claims of harassment related to his “race, religion or belief” under section 57 of the Equality Act 2010. The wide ranging allegations made by the Claimant arose, in essence, from the way in which Union had handled the Israel/Palestine debate. For example, claims arose from motions debated at the Union’s congress on proposals for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions and related questions. The Claimant alleged that the Union was guilty of “institutional anti-Semitism” which he alleged constituted harassment of him as a Jewish member of the Union.

The Tribunal described the litigation as being “gargantuan” in scale. It heard from 34 witnesses including academics and MPs. The hearing lasted 20 days and required 23 hearing bundles.

Ultimately, in an extremely robust decision, the Tribunal rejected the Claimant’s allegations in their entirety. It found them to be “manifestly unmeritorious” and an “impermissible attempt to achieve political end by litigious means”. The Tribunal also expressed themselves as being worried by the implications of the claim. They sensed that underlying the litigation was a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression”. Of particular interest was the way in which the Tribunal dealt with issues of legal principle at heart of the claim.

Source: Human Rights Blog

Has Anti-Semitism in Europe become acceptable again

This video, produced by the European Network Against Racism (ENAR) as part of its Recycling Hate series, explores the issue of anti-Semitism in Europe

Source: ENAR

‘Illegal immigrant’ no more? How language changes and can label people

The American Associated Press (AP) Stylebook is making some changes in how they describe people living in a country illegally. These changes are interesting because they reflects how use of language can change over time and also emphasises accuracy of reporting over emotive phases which can “label” and stereotype people, rather than focusing on unacceptable actions or behaviour.

AP’s Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll explained the thinking behind the decision:

The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.

Why did we make the change? The discussions on this topic have been wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life. (Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as “undocumented,” despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise. A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)

Those discussions continued even after AP affirmed (at that time) “illegal immigrant” as the best use, for two reasons. A number of people felt that “illegal immigrant” was the best choice at the time. They also believed the always-evolving English language might soon yield a different choice and we should stay in the conversation.

Also, we had in other areas been ridding the Stylebook of labels. The new section on mental health issues argues for using credibly sourced diagnoses instead of labels. Saying someone was “diagnosed with schizophrenia” instead of schizophrenic, for example.

And that discussion about labeling people, instead of behavior, led us back to “illegal immigrant” again.

We concluded that to be consistent, we needed to change our guidance.

So we have.

Is this the best way to describe someone in a country without permission? We believe that it is for now. We also believe more evolution is likely down the road.

Will the new guidance make it harder for writers? Perhaps just a bit at first. But while labels may be more facile, they are not accurate...

Change is a part of AP Style because the English language is constantly evolving, enriched by new words, phrases and uses. Our goal always is to use the most precise and accurate words so that the meaning is clear to any reader anywhere.

The updated entry is being added immediately to the AP Stylebook Online and Manual de Estilo Online de la AP, the new Spanish-language Stylebook. It also will appear in the new print edition and Stylebook Mobile, coming out later in the spring. It reads as follows:

illegal immigration: Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, us illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant.

Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.

Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.

Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution. Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where.

Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?

People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally...

Source: Associated Press

Discrimination arising from disability

Jamieson v Governing Body of Chorlton High School [2013] EqLR 429

Unlike direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability can be justified as proportionate. In this case the Claimant teacher was dismissed for taking a 16-year-old former pupil to a concert and bringing her home at 3am in an intoxicated state. He produced medical evidence that his judgment was impaired by then-undiagnosed bipolar affective disorder and/or the effects of medication he was taking for depression.

On that basis, the Tribunal founds that the predominant reason for the Claimant’s behaviour was his disability.

Although the school acted in accordance with the legitimate aims of safeguarding children and protecting its reputation, the Tribunal concludes that dismissal was not proportionate in that there had been no assessment of the risk that such behaviour would be repeated. The Tribunal also concluded that to dismiss the Claimant for his behaviour when it was materially affected by his disability was not “proportionate to address any perceived threat to reputation”.

Source: Michael Rubenstein presents...

Employing older workers: an employer’s guide to today’s multi-generational workforce

This guide provides answers to employer questions about recruitment, performance, succession management, retention and transfer of skills, bringing on younger workers and retirement. It offers good practice solutions tried and tested by employers of various sectors and sizes.

The accompanying collection of over 30 case studies provides real life examples, showing how employers of various sectors and sizes have made the best of the opportunities, and effectively managed the issues presented by an ageing workforce. They offer practical examples and transferable experience.

Source: Department for Work and Pensions

EHRC Research Reports and Reading Lists

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) research team circulated updated information about EHRC research in the March 2013 research database newsletter.

To subscribe to the Research Database or request PDFs or printed copies of research reports please email research@equalityhumanrights.com

All available EHRC research reports can be downloaded from the research page of the EHRC website.

Since September 2009, each of these newsletters has included a reading list prepared by the EHRC’s Librarian on a particular equality theme. The latest reading list contains key books and journal articles on race issues. All reading lists are available HERE.

Source: Equality and Human Rights Commission

Stonewall Healthcare Equality Index 2013

The Healthcare Equality Index 2013 is Stonewall’s guide to the top healthcare organisations who have committed themselves to improving the health of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. The Top Ten healthcare organisations in England were:

1. Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

2. Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust

3. London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

4. St Andrews Healthcare Charitable Trust

5. Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust

6. Mersey Care NHS Trust

7. Barts Health NHS Trust

8. Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

9. Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust

10. County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust

Source: Stonewall

*******

Wellingborough protests against the "Bedroom Tax": Saturday April 27th

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 16:56:00 +0000

On Saturday April 27th at 1.00pm there will be a protest against the "Bedroom tax", other attacks on social welfare, and the demonisation of the poor and disabled.

Meet in Wellingborough town centre (by the Pagoda/opposite Hind Hind Hotel). Please tell others about it. We will have placards, leaflets to distribute and speakers.

Artwork with thanks to Another Angry Voice

******

A bed at the Ritz: a guest tribute to Thatcher

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:32:00 +0000

A Bed At The Ritz

Empire's half-mast flag unfurls
Requiems tweet from ex-Spice Girls
Iron handbag, twin-set and pearls
Found dead in a bed at The Ritz

Cruel Britannia's buccaneer
Brass-balled female anti-Greer
Cause of Ben bloody Elton's career
Found dead in a bed at The Ritz

Sybil-out-of-Fawlty-Towers-hair
Steel clad belief in laissez-faire
The midwife that gave birth to Blair
Now dead in a bed at The Ritz

Lovelorn acolytes sadly weep
Cue phony Tony so skin-deep
"Hey - she was the people's Meryl Streep"
Dead in a bed at The Ritz

Cold pre-packaged grocer's daughter
Leading England's lambs to slaughter
Ordained divine at Mammon's altar
Dead in a bed at The Ritz

Boudicca of entente cordiale
The Tory gentleman's femme fatale
Mandela's foe and Pinochet's pal
Dead in a bed at The Ritz

Fed the rich their daily focaccia
Spawned men of Jeffrey Archer's stature
Besmirched the honest trade of thatcher
Dead in a bed at The Ritz

Here lies a shattered miner's lamp
Factories choked down in black damp
Belgrano ghosts still slowly stamp
Round and round a bed at The Ritz

You can pray Charon rows her to hell
"Tramp the dirt down", sound a futile knell
But all her dreams are alive and well
And living it up at The Ritz

Money shouts - just listen to the noise
Material Girls and City Boys
Ruthless Little Lord Fauntleroys
Even now they're putting on The Ritz

Public service sold for private wealth
Community and kindness killed by stealth
Compassion, care and national health
Dying in a sick-bed far from The Ritz

Put inequality to the sword
Give each one of us our just reward
And then one day we all might afford To pay for a bed at The Ritz

by elvis mcgonagall

*****

More tributes to Thatcher....

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:41:00 +0000

Thatcher: Tramp The Dirt Down - Elvis Costello

*****

Margaret Thatcher is dead! A tribute....

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:35:00 +0000

Pete Wylie [ The Day That Margaret Thatcher Dies! ]

Racism and Social Work Practice: Book launch Invitation

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:35:00 +0000

Book launch Invitation

Come and Join us in the launch of

Anti-racism in Social Work Practice

The Social Work Division at the University of Northampton are are delighted to invite you to a book launch event on

16th May 2013 at 5.00pm

Sunley Management Centre

The University of Northampton

Park Campus

Boughton Green Road

Northampton NN2 7AL

Chapter authors: Angie Bartoli (Editor), Sue Kennedy, Prospera Tedam, Sukhwinder Singh, Bernadette Curran, Paul Crofts and Charity Chukwuemeka

Please circulate to others who also may be interested in attending.

Due to catering please confirm your attendance to Karen.haines@northampton.ac.uk by 6th May 2013

Click here for more information about the book.

*****

Equality & Diversity News: April 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:41:00 +0000

In this Edition:

Agency Worker awarded £35K for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal
Court of Appeal condemns treatment of autistic boy by Police.
Tribunal hears how council manager was overlooked for new role because of a 'racial divide'
Withdrawal of job offer was direct disability discrimination
Age banter: not a case of ‘only joking’
Not sex discrimination that male fire-fighters must have short hair
European Court of Human Rights finds Austrian adoption law discriminated against same sex couples
European Court of Human Rights publishes updated factsheets
Weight stigma and health: whose problem is it?
Attack of the Clones: Supreme Court keeps its white male first eleven
Fulfilling Potential: Building a deeper understanding of disability in the UK today
Stop Learning Disability Hate Crime – Helpline
The IRR publishes a report on how racial violence is shaping the UK

Agency Worker awarded £35K for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal

Ms Corinda Pegg v London Borough of Camden

Agency workers are set to have better anti-discrimination rights after an Employment Tribunal awarded a woman over £35,000 for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal in a case funded by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal heard that agency worker Corinda Pegg had been dismissed after 44 weeks service due to absences caused by depression. After a series of bereavements she was absent from work for a week receiving mental health residential care. On her return to work she was sometimes late and, when questioned by her manager, explained that this was due to her disability.

Two months later, she was admitted to hospital following a panic attack and, whilst receiving medical care at home the following fortnight, she was told by phone that her employment had been terminated because of poor attendance and punctuality.

Although she had requested confidentiality, work emails revealed that her medical condition had been openly discussed with a colleague. The data also indicated that discussions about ending her employment had begun before requests for further information about the reasons for her absence from work.

The case went to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the legal question of whether equality law protects agency workers from being discriminated against by an organisation they are supplied to. The Judge said that, as Ms Pegg was under an obligation to work for Camden Council, it was subject to a legal duty not to discriminate. The compensation was awarded when the case returned for a full hearing to the Employment Tribunal.

Commission deputy director legal, Wendy Hewitt said:

"There was an urgent need to clarify the legal status of agency workers who have been discriminated against, given the increase in this type of working arrangement.

"This case clarifies that agency workers are entitled to the same degree of protection from discrimination at their place of work as permanent employees"

Source: Equality and Human Rights Commission

Court of Appeal condemns treatment of autistic boy by Police

The Court of Appeal in February dismissed an appeal by the Metropolitan police against a finding that they had violated the human rights of a 16-year-old autistic boy, saying that nothing could have justified the manner in which officers restrained him at a swimming pool.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in the case involving ZH, who also has learning disabilities and epilepsy, to argue that the teenager's treatment by the police had been inhuman and degrading and was so serious that it contravened Article 3 of the European Convention. (1).

The Commission also told the court that the boy's subsequent restraint in handcuffs and leg irons before being locked up, alone, in a cage inside a police van constituted an infringement of Article 5, which protects against the deprivation of liberty(2).

The Court endorsed the Commission's position that, although the police did not intentionally breach his human rights, they had caused matters to escalate to a point where he was restrained wholly inappropriately.

ZH's ordeal happened when a group from his specialist day school had gone with care workers for a familiarisation visit to a baths in Acton, London. ZH, who cannot communicate by speech, broke away from the group and went to stand by the pool staring into the water. After 30 minutes the manager called the police.

The officers did not seek advice from ZH's carers - who knew a patient response was needed, and caused him to jump into the pool by touching him. After he was pulled out, five and then seven police officers restrained him before he was taken, still soaking wet, to the police van. The restraint and detention lasted about 40 minutes.

ZH subsequently experienced acute psychological suffering, including post traumatic stress and an exacerbation of his epilepsy.

In the hearing in the lower court the Metropolitan police officers were found to have subjected ZH to unlawful disability discrimination, assault and false imprisonment and to treatment that breached his rights protected by Articles 3, 5 and 8 (3) of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Judge awarded damages of £28,250, including compensation for exacerbation of the boy's epilepsy and for psychiatric damage.

Wendy Hewitt, deputy director of legal at the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

"We welcome the Court of Appeal's judgement in this case. Although the police officers were acting in what they thought to be the best interests of ZH, they made serious errors which led them to treat this vulnerable young man in a way which caused him great distress and anguish. The court supported the view that the threshold of Article 3 had been crossed on the particular facts of the case.

"The police deal with many vulnerable people and must make arrangements to ensure that they make well-informed decisions on how and when to restrain them, to avoid breaching their human rights obligations."

Source: Equality and human Rights Commission

Tribunal hears how council manager was overlooked for new role because of a 'racial divide'

Valdez v London Borough of Camden [2013] EqLR 298

UNION chiefs have warned of a “damaging blot” on Camden Council’s equal rights record after an employment tribunal upheld a manager’s claim of direct racial discrimination.

Fraser Valdez, 31, took Camden Council to an employment tribunal arguing that he was overlooked for a new role because of a racial divide in his department. The tribunal found in favour of the environmental management officer.

Speaking after the seven-day hearing, Mr Valdez said: “I always suspected that foul play occurred during the recruitment and selection process. “All I wanted was equality of opportunity during the recruitment and selection process, free from any racial prejudice.” He added: “The last 16 months have been very stressful and upsetting for me and a soul-destroying period of my life.”

Mr Valdez, of dual nationality and “mixed race”, worked for the the Council for 15 years and was nominated for a prestigious Camden Council staff award in 2005. He took the council to a tribunal after documents leaked by a whistleblower revealed interview scores showing him to be an “outright winner” in the selection process for a senior role in the environment department. But a white colleague had been given the job after a selection team boosted his score, the anonymous memo said.

The documents had been sent to senior managers but had not been properly investigated, Mr Valdez’s solicitor, Chris MacNaughton, said. He said Mr Valdez’s case was built on evidence that the department had been “segregated” into two teams based on race.

The decision not to appoint him for the role appeared to be taken in order to maintain the black-white balance. Mr MacNaughton added: “It is incredibly difficult for any individual to sustain a claim of direct race discrimination when such foul play occurs behind closed doors, where no records of discussions or decisions are made. “If it was not for the whistleblower’s input, the racial discrimination may never have been discovered and justice served.”

Tony Warr, senior officer at GMB union, added:

“This case is a clear indication that such prejudices are still regrettably present in the workplace. It is shocking that such discrimination occurred in this case and it is a damaging blot on Camden Council’s promoted ethos of equality of opportunity and diversity.”

Source: Camden New Journal

Withdrawal of job offer was direct disability discrimination

White v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust [2013] EqLR 296

The employer withdrew an offer of employment to a disabled person who had recently had an operation. The Tribunal held that this was direct disability discrimination because the employer would have made further inquiries about the health status of a person with the same sickness absence record who was also absent but did not qualify as disabled. The Tribunal also found that the withdrawal of the offer was unfavourable treatment for a reason relating to disability.

Source: Michael Rubenstein Presents

Age banter: not a case of ‘only joking’

Nolan v CD Bramall Dealership Ltd t/a Evans Halshaw Motorhouse Worksop ET/2601000/12

The tribunal in this case found that the employer discriminated against Mr Nolan on the grounds of age by making him redundant because he was close to retirement.

The tribunal drew an inference of age bias against Mr Nolan on the basis of workplace age-related banter. This included colleagues changing the number plate on his car from “OAB” to “OAP and nicknaming him “Yoda”, described by the tribunal as “a small wizened character in Star Wars who is several hundred years old”. The fact that Mr Nolan said he found the age-related jokes humorous rather than offensive was not relevant.

So the concept of ‘only joking’ (always a problematic phrase seeking to limit something to one interpretation only) didn’t work here to prevent a finding of age discrimination.

Source: XpertHR

Not sex discrimination that male fire-fighters must have short hair

Holdsworth v Cleveland Fire Authority ET/2508432/2011

The employer in this tribunal case successfully defended a male fire-fighter’s sex discrimination claim over its dress and appearance code that applied different rules to men and women.

In general a policy that requires employees to adopt a “conventional” or “uniform” appearance, but has different rules from men and women (e.g. length of hair), is unlikely to be sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Source: XpertHR case report

European Court of Human Rights finds Austrian adoption law discriminated against same sex couples

X and other v Austria – 19010/07 – HEJUD [2013] ECHR 148 (19 February 2013)

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (by 10 votes to 7) has found that Austrian law discriminated against a same sex couple as it prevented them from adopting jointly the biological child of one of them (what we would call a second-parent adoption). The Court found a violation of Article 14 (anti-discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (respect for private and family life) protection because this was less favourable treatment than if they were an unmarried different sex couple who would have been permitted to adopt together.

There may be an argument to say that the Court was not breaking new ground here but the Grand Chamber went out of its way to reaffirm the Judgment in Schalk & Kopf v. Austria (2010) that same-sex couples enjoy “family life” under Article 8 of the Convention.

Source: Human Rights Blog

European Court of Human Rights publishes updated factsheets

Given all the controversy about human rights, and particularly the work of the European Court of Human Rights, these case-law factsheets on the work of the Court are most welcome and have been updated and extended. In addition, translations are available in French, Russian, German, Polish, and Turkish.

Factsheets cover the following areas:

CHILDREN AND PARENTS

protection of minors (March 2013)

children's rights (February 2013)

parental rights (March 2013)

reproductive rights (January 2013)

CRIMINAL FIELD

terrorism (December 2012)

violence against women (October 2012)

DATA

Protection of personal data (January 2013)

New technologies (March 2013

DISCRIMINATION

Gender identity issues (October 2012)

Homosexuality: criminal aspects (October 2012)

Roma and travellers (January 2013)

Sexual orientation issues (February 2013)

EUROPEAN UNION

Case-law concerning the EU (January 2013)
“Dublin" cases October 2012)

EXPULSION

Expulsions and extraditions (February 2013)

Terrorism (December 2012)

HEALTH

Detention and mental health (January 2013)

Health (January 2013)

Mental health (February 2013)

Prisoners' health rights (March 2013)

Social welfare (January 2013)

LIFE

Death penalty abolition (December 2012)

Right to life (February 2013)

OPINIONS AND INFORMATION

Freedom of religion (February 2013)

Protection of journalistic sources (November 2012)

Trade union rights (November 2012)

PRISON

Detention and mental health (January 2013)

Detention conditions and treatment of prisoners (January 2013)

Prisoners' health rights (March 2013)

WORK AND BUSINESS

Forced labour and trafficking (November 2012)

Taxation and the ECHR (January 2013)

Trade union rights (November 2012)

Work-related rights (February 2013)

Source: European Court of Human Rights

Weight stigma and health: whose problem is it?

CONFERENCE: ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

A multidisciplinary conference focussing on the subject of Weight Stigma and Health, featuring presentations from both national and international keynote speakers is being held at Birmingham University on May 16th. This conference will be of interest to researchers, clinicians, and students from a wide range of disciplines, including psychology, social sciences, medicine, public health, allied health professions, sports and exercise science, education, media studies, law, business and social policy.

The organisers are also accepting abstracts for oral and/or poster presentations on subjects related to weight-associated stigma, including, but not limited to, weight stigma in health professionals, impact of weight stigma on health and wellbeing, stigma in society, public policy implications, legal considerations pertaining to weight-based discrimination, and interventions to reduce weight stigma. Postgraduate students are especially encouraged to submit their work.

Abstract submission instructions and the submission form can be found on the website at http://stigmaconference.com/abstract-submission. Please indicate if you would also like to be considered to deliver an oral presentation. Abstract submission deadline is 7th April 2013.

Details of keynote speakers and further conference information can be obtained fromwww.stigmaconference.com.

For further information: stigma@contacts.bham.ac.uk

Attack of the Clones: Supreme Court keeps its white male first eleven

Baroness Helena Kennedy has argued that judges have a tendency to clone themselves when choosing successors. It is hard to avoid that impression in the Supreme Court, which kept its white male first eleven in place yesterday by appointing three new justices: Lord Justice Hughes, Lord Justice Toulson and Lord Hodge: all White and very male! The sole woman amongst 12 justices of our highest appeal court remains Lady Hale. There are no black or Asian judges, nor have there ever been.

How did this happen? The answer is know one knows and won’t ever find out. Around two thirds of the Supreme Court’s case load are public law and human rights, decisions which affect millions of people. Yet appointments are made by an opaque commission consisting of senior judges.

The stark fact is that the public has more say over the appointment of X-Factor judges than over those who sit on country’s highest court. The only Parliamentary “scrutiny” of is through private consultation with the Lord Chancellor, currently Chris Grayling, but has never exercised it as far as is known. There are no public committee hearings nor can we read the minutes of selection commissions meetings.

Source: The Human Rights Blog

Fulfilling Potential: Building a deeper understanding of disability in the UK today

On 13 February 2013 the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) published ‘Fulfilling Potential: Building a deeper understanding of disability in the UK today’. The aims of this report are described as:

· to provide an analysis of the current evidence on disability in the UK to inform the development of the next stage of work on Fulfilling Potential – the development of actions, outcomes and indicators

· to inform public understanding and prompt debate about disability and the issues faced by disabled people

· to raise awareness, drive a change in attitudes and support an increase in commitment to improving the lives of disabled people in the UK today

The main document is structured in two parts:

Part 1 provides analysis of the number of disabled people in the UK as well as looking at the way disability develops over the life course and at the fluctuating nature of disability.

Part 2 focuses on the lives of disabled people by looking at trends in outcomes and barriers to taking part in different areas of life.

The evidence is structured around the Fulfilling Potential: Next Steps themes of early intervention; choice and control and inclusive communities.

Click here for summary of the report

Click here for main report

Click here for easy read report

Source: Equality and Diversity Forum

Stop Learning Disability Hate Crime – Helpline

In January 2013, Stop Hate UK launched a new 24 hour helpline service, Stop Learning Disability Hate Crime, in England and Wales.

People in England and Wales who have experienced, witnessed or know someone who is experiencing Learning Disability Hate Crime can contact the Stop Learning Disability Hate Crime helpline on 0808 802 1155 for support and information. The helpline is open 24 hours a day, every day of the year. It is free to call the Stop Learning Disability Hate Crime helpline from landlines and most mobiles and the number will not show on a phone bill.

The new service is funded by the Ministry of Justice Victim and Witness Fund.

Click here for details.

Source: Equality and Diversity Forum

The IRR publishes a report on how racial violence is shaping the UK

Racial violence: facing reality by the Institute of Race Relations warns that attacks on BME individuals are actually spreading to new areas of the country, as under the impact of globalisation and austerity measures, populations swiftly change; and points to the potential dangers in ‘decanting’ those affected by the benefits cap to towns and cities which have little history of ‘diversity’.

Attacks are often taking place in communities where BME families or workers are isolated, where there are few support services and such experiences often go unrecorded and become part of a repeat pattern.

The tendency of statutory agencies to view racial violence through a prism of a generalised ‘hate crime’ means that the conditions that give rise to racism are not being understood and addressed and community safety strategies are not being created: the emphasis having moved to simply criminalising individual perpetrators.

The report author, Jon Burnett, said:

‘The myth is that post-Stephen Lawrence, racial violence has been magically dealt with. A few mechanical changes cannot deal with what is a huge trend tied to national political and economic forces. The legislation is allowing the criminal justice system to target a few perpetrators – and often they are not the most serious offenders, but just the easiest to successfully convict. This is putting the cart before the horse. Violence does not, by and large, spring ready-made from people’s evil thoughts, but from the larger conditions – and these are not being addressed. There is an urgent need for government – nationally and locally – to consider the implications of austerity measures, industrial and services closures, the enforced moving of populations and cuts in welfare to social issues such as racial violence.

In the twenty years since Stephen Lawrence’s killing, we have seen over one hundred deaths from racial violence in the UK. That is a terrible indictment.’

Racial violence: facing reality can be downloaded here

Source: Institute of Race Relations

*******

Is the debate about immigration harming the UK? An Immigrant’s perspective?

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:28:00 +0000

I must say that over recent weeks I have started to become a tad angry. Is this a sign of growing age combined with my gender (grumpy old man syndrome?)[1] or something else? I hope it’s something else...

But I really DO think that the current “debate” about immigration is getting out of hand and it can and will do serious damage to the UK’s reputation aboard and to our own sense of who we are and our place in the world.

Sometimes I try to put myself into the skin of someone wanting to come to the UK.... such as an Indian or African, European (or indeed anyone from abroad really... Bulgaria, Romania, Germany...). Perhaps I am a business-person, student or tourist. Should I think twice about coming to Britain? Perhaps there are more welcoming places to go to. Should I really “do business” with this country?

An “immigrant’s” story? It seems that really quite a lot or people (including some of your senior politicians) really don’t want me around – or at least that’s the general message I get. And you can get quite angry and emotional about it (I have seen your BBC Questiontime programme when immigration comes up for “discussion”).
Could it be the case that you really just want my money, or the investment that I might bring to the UK, but really you don’t want my kind of people to actually come, live, or stay for anything more than a couple of days?
All this talk about immigrant “scroungers” worries me. After all at some point I might fall on hard times (despite being ok currently). Or I might want to live and stay somewhere (would I be depriving some “native” person of a home?).There is such a shortage of housing I hear and its getting more and more expensive - but I’m not sure I caused this, did I?
Or I might become ill and need to use your health service. Or am I perhaps someone who actually works in your health service, as a doctor or nurse from overseas? Do you really want me here? Do you really want “my sort of people”, or do you just want me to sort out your staff shortage problems (and your heart condition), accept your crap working conditions and exploitative low pay and then quietly disappear “back home”... for ever, and never come back!
Look, I know I speak with a bit of an accent – I cannot really help this, not actually being British born and breed you see. But is it really true that you cannot understand me, or are you just being lazy? I have spoken and studied English virtually all my life, but it is my second language. Do you have a second language? Do you know what it’s like trying to communicate in a second language all the time? Do you really resent the fact that I am in your country and just tolerate my presence for your own ends but don’t want to listen to me or hear what I am saying?
Should I worry that just walking down the street is seen a provocation to you, simply because I am here and look and speak, well, foreign. I understand that even some people born in the UK get abused or attacked because they look “foreign” (or not quite “English” enough) so what chance do I stand?
Would I be alright if I were rich? After all I am not one of those really poor foreigners who have simply come to work, to escape poverty; or are seeking to escape persecution. I have something to bring to Britain, don’t I? Money! They have nothing to offer – they only take! But hold on a second, is this right? Have poor immigrants to Britain only ever taken?. Have they never put anything back? Or have they perhaps put more “back” than they have "taken"?
I hear a few stories about Britain’s history (and indeed other countries as well) being the history of immigration. Is this true? Did I hear that England has been populated over the centuries by Saxons, Celts, Romans, Jutes, Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Huguenots, Irish, Indians, Bangladeshis, people from Africa, the Caribbean, Europe.... Did all these immigrants contribute nothing to the success of your society or economy? Did they all just take? I suspect not; but I also suspect you don't really care about the truth if it doesn't fit with your bigotry, prejudice and arrogance.
I understand that to become a British citizen nowadays you have to do a British history test. Does this include the history of immigrants into Britain and the contribution that “people like me” have made? Or are you just interested in Kings and Queens – although I understand these stories can be quite nice. I have even heard of your Queen Elizabeth I – didn’t she approve of slavery, invade my country and encourage the first immigrants to other people’s countries? Weren't some of your Kings and Queens originally foreign... perhaps like me!?
I think you British (or at least some of you) need to grow up and realise that Britain, England, UK (whatever you think you are!) is part of the world; there is only one world and that world is changing rapidly. I know this can be a bit hard to take and understand, but that's not really my problem is it? People are now moving around the world in their millions (by the way, most don’t come to Britain you know?) and some are going to come to Britain, just as some of you are going to live aboard. That's just the way it it these days.
I think you need to start to see us “foreigners” and immigrants to your country not as a threat, but an opportunity and as neighbours. After all if you don’t like me as your world neighbour, there isn’t, as yet, another planet that you can move to!
I would like to be your neighbour, your friend, your colleague, part of your family even... but do you want me?

[1] Look don’t contact me at this point about age prejudice. I am aware that this “grumpy old man” stuff IS age/gender prejudice, right! But I do think that as I age I am becoming more intolerant of intolerance and my anger levels rise!

************

UK GIN DEPENDENCE PARTY

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:13:00 +0000

by Attila the Stockbroker

We’re not fascists, are we, dear?
Bring that bottle over here.
Now. Where was I? Enoch Powell?
Sod this irritable bowel!
Do you play goff? Come down the club.
Just a snifter, lovely grub……
What, no blazer? Borrow mine.
Chin chin. Maggie, ‘79!

Now. Where was I? Nigel Farage?
Dear! More bottles in the garage....
Really don’t want to disparage
But he should pronounce it Farridge.
Agincourt and Waterloo
Showed those Frenchies what to do
Entente Cordiale - bloody shame.
Wonder how he got that name?

Now. Where was I? Edward Heath?
Awful man with awful teeth.
He’s the one who started this
Led us into the abyss.
It would have been so much eashier
To have teamed up with Rhodesia.
Bloody Poles. This gin is strong!
Oh, it’s vodka. Got it wrong…..

Now, where was I? Fascists? No.
I fought them, I’ll have you know.
Well, I nearly did – too young.
Something’s happening to my tongue!
Bloody Poles. I need a kip.
Do have one more. Just a nip….
Upstairs, ere my forces fail.
Eileen, where’s the Daily Mail?

One last parting shot, my man:
Country’s going down the pan.
Anyone with half a brain
Is selling up and off to Spain.
Part of that’s in Europe, true -
But not the bit WE'RE going to.
Bloody Poles. My poor old head…..
See yourself out. Off to bed!

********

In Praise of Mischief: the Wellingborough Diggers of 1649

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:56:00 +0000

I have titled this blog “in praise of mischief” because of the contribution the sixteenth century Digger movement in general, and the Wellingborough Diggers in particular, have made to our local and national history. Their contribution cannot be underestimated as we wrestle today with opposing the gross and disgusting inequalities of wealth and income across the globe that is there for all to see, and in helping us develop a vision of a different kind of society. The Diggers too had a vision of a new type of world and it is still with us today, albeit the language in which it was described at the time may have changed over the passage of time.

I have used the term mischief, because this is the word used to describe the Diggers at the time. A contemporary letter of April 15 1649, from the Government of the day to a “Mr. Pentlow, Justice of Peace for County Northampton” said:

“We approve your proceedings with the Levellers (Diggers) in those parts, and doubt not you are sensible of the mischief these designs tend to, and of the necessity to proceed effectively against them. If the laws in force against those who intrude upon other men’s properties, and that forbid and direct the punishing of all riotous assemblies and seditious and tumultuous meetings, be put in execution, there will not want means to preserve the public peace against attempts of this sort of people”. (my emphasis)

In particular I draw your attention to the words “… mischief these designs tend to, and of the necessity to proceed effectively against them.”

What were the Digger’s designs and actions that were so threatening that

“… there will not want means to preserve the public peace”?

I don’t think it was so much what the Diggers did that rattled the the government and ruling class of the day (is sowing seed on common land or manuring it so threatening?), so much as the ideas that the declaration promoted. And such ideas were spreading throughout the country at that time.

So what were the Wellingborough Diggers all about?

Their actions were very simple:

“... (we) have begun and give consent to dig up, manure and sow corn upon the Commons and Waste Ground called Bareshanks, belonging to the people of Wellinborrow by those that have subscribed and hundreds more that give consent”

Why were they taking this action?

“We are in Wellinborrow in one parish of 1169 persons that receive alms… our trading is decayed; our wives and children cry for bread; our lives are a burden to us, divers of us having 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 in family, and we cannot get bread for them by our labour. Rich men’s hearts are hardened; they will not give us if we beg at their doors. If we steal, the law will end our lives. Divers of the poor are starved to death already; and it were better for us that are living to die by the Sword than by the famine …”

How did they justify their action – what underpinned the philosophy or set of ideas that encouraged them?

“We find (in the word of God) that God made the earth for the use and comfort of all mankind, and sat him in it to till and dress it…
God never gave to any sort of people that they should have it all to themselves and shut out the rest …
We find that no creature that ever God made was deprived of the benefit of the Earth, but mankind …

it is nothing but covetousness, pride and hardness of heart that hath caused man so far to degenerate.That in the last day the oppressor and proud man shall cease and God will restore the waste places of the Earth to the use and comfort of man, and that none shall hurt or destroy in all His Holy Mountain.

We have great encouragement from two righteous Acts, which parliament of England has set forth, the one against kingly power and the other to make England a free Common-wealth”

Within a few weeks (we do not know for sure how long it lasted) the Digger enterprise in Wellingborough had been brought to an end by the forces of “law and order” - unleashed by that nice Mr. Pentlow on instructions from the Government of Cromwell. The Diggers’ leaders were arrested, taken to Northampton, and charged with riot and affray. After this nothing is known of what happened to them, but the Digger colony in Wellingborough (as colonies in other parts of the country as well) ceased to exist.

Within the ranks of the Cromwellian New Model Army there was the Leveller movement with its call for wider political democracy (“the poorest that lives hath as true a right to give a vote as well as the richest and greatest”), and it was time of flourishing debate and discussion on the future society that people wanted to see where demands for political democracy went hand in and with demands for economic democracy through the common ownership of land. The writings of Gerrard Winstanley especially spring to mind – the spiritual leader of the Digger movement.

All this amounted to a vision of an alternative society without exploitation, without private ownership, respect for the environment, and a society of equals, without “Kingly power” and a Common-wealth for all. Such ideas had to be smashed, and smashed quickly, and they were!

But smashing the movements of that time – the Levellers, the Diggers - was easier than smashing these new emerging ideas that have resonated throughout our history since and right up to the 21st century. We owe a tremendous debt to the “ragged band” of Diggers (that Leon Rosselson refers to in his famous ballad) and we have a duty to keep their vision alive and allow it to inspire us in the struggles against the injustices of today.

This coming Saturday the third Wellingborough Diggers Festival will be hosted by Independent Socialists in Wellingborough. Please join us to celebrate and remember the Wellingborough Diggers - their ideas and their vision of an alternative society. For details of the event see here.

The Wellingborough Digger Declaration of 1649 - now in the British Museum

******

Equality & Diversity News: March 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:26:00 +0000

In this edition:

No absolute rule on whether workers are entitled to avoid shift on days which clash with their religious belief
New Guidance on Religion and Belief in the Workplace
Justice for dinner lady who told of school bullying. 3
Judge says £420,000 racism claim can stand, after 13 years of 'Dickensian' wrangling
Dismissal for Political affiliation or opinion
Harassment on Grounds of religion
“Dinosaurs, rockets, pirates and robots” – not for girls at John Lewis
Time off for dependants: six absences totalling seven days in 12 months was “reasonable”
Ugandan anti-gay legislation leads Buckingham University to suspend degree validation
Recycling Hatred
Male student under-representation a priority for BIS
Top 100 gay-friendly employers
Public Sector Equality Duties: EHRC explains specific duty regulations

No absolute rule on whether workers are entitled to avoid shift on days which clash with their religious belief

Mba v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Merton UKEAT/0332/12

Just when we thought we had heard enough on the issue of religious rights at work along comes another case which may drag its way through the courts over the next year or so.

In this case the employment tribunal and EAT held that here is no absolute rule as to whether workers are entitled to avoid working shifts on days which clash with their religious beliefs. It will mainly depend on whether the employer can justify requiring the individual to work in the particular circumstances of the workplace.

However, it is possible that this case may need to be reconsidered in the light of the recent European Court of Human Rights cases (see previous newsletter), especially that of Ewieda. The question may arise is this case: did the employment tribunal and EAT give sufficient weight to Ms Mba’s important religious/human rights not to be discriminated against, when balanced against the needs of the employer and their ability to make reasonable adjustments?

It also appears that the EAT got it wrong on the issue of whether or not the condition or requirement is a tenants of the faith, or of just some adherents (e.g. a rule not to work Sundays is not a component of the Christian faith per se, but is clearly important to many Christians). The ECtHR was clear that it did not have to be a manifestation of the religion that is practice by all - it only had be an important part of the faith for some adherents and not unreasonable.

As this case predated the recent ECtHR decisions the case may be successfully appealed. Watch this space....

The facts were as follows:

Ms Mba worked as a residential care worker at a registered children’s home, which provided short residential breaks for children with serious disabilities and who had complex care needs. After accommodating her wish as a Christian not to work Sundays for some time, her employer decided she must share the Sunday shifts along with everyone else. When she refused to do so, she was given a final written warning. Ms Mba resigned and brought a tribunal claim for indirect religious discrimination.

The tribunal said the Council’s imposition of the Sunday rota on Ms Mba was objectively justified, so her indirect discrimination claim failed. It accepted that the employer had a number of legitimate aims in imposing Sunday shifts on Ms Mba, i.e. to ensure (a) an appropriate gender balance on each shift, (b) an appropriate seniority mix on each shift, (c) a cost effective service in the face of budgetary constraints, (d) fair treatment of all its staff, and (e) continuity of care in staff looking after the children at the home. If Ms Mba did not work Sundays, other staff would have to do so disproportionately. It was also more expensive to employ agency staff on Sundays and they were less well trained.

The tribunal also thought it was proportionate for the employer to insist on Ms Mba participating in the Sunday rota. It weighed up the discriminatory impact on Ms Mba against the reasonable needs of the Council’s business.

Although it accepted the requirement impacted on Ms Mba’s genuine and deeply held religious views, it noted that the Council had made efforts to accommodate her for about two years, and also that it was prepared to arrange shifts so that she could attend church each Sunday. It also noted that Ms Mba’s belief that she must not work Sundays was not a core component of the Christian faith.

The EAT said the tribunal was entitled to say any indirect discrimination was justified. When deciding whether it is proportionate to apply the discriminatory requirement, a tribunal must balance the employer’s reasonable needs against the impact on the disadvantaged group - in this case, other Christians. The EAT said the only relevance of a tribunal stating that a rule not to work Sundays was not a component of the Christian faith was when it was considering justification. Generally speaking, it is not for courts and tribunals to decide what are the tenets of a particular faith or what an individual believes. However, when considering justification, if a discriminatory requirement affects virtually every Christian, it would have a greater discriminatory impact than if the same measure affects only a much smaller number of Christians. The greater the discriminatory impact on the group as a whole, the more that has objectively to be shown by the employer to demonstrate that the requirement is necessary, and proportionate.

Source: Discrimination Law Association

New Guidance on Religion and Belief in the Workplace

Also hot on the coat-tails of the recent ECtHR cases, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has issued new guidance for employers and employees on religion and belief in the workplace which contains a number of very useful examples of requests and how employers might deal with them as well as a Q&A section that addresses some key employer questions.

You can read the guidance here:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/guidance-for-employers/religion-or-belief-new-guidance-february-2013

Justice for dinner lady who told of school bullying

A school dinner lady who was unfairly sacked after telling a seven-year-old girl's parents that their daughter had been tied to a fence and hit with a skipping rope has won her two-year battle for compensation.

The decision by an Essex primary school to sack Carol Hill for blowing the whistle on the playground bullying incident was ruled unfair in 2011 but a tribunal

D But that has now been overturned by an appeal tribunal in a decision welcomed by Mrs Hill, 64, as a “step closer to justice”.

A further hearing must now be held to determine a new payout. Mrs Hill had been suspended and later dismissed over “breach of confidentiality” after telling a pupil’s mother and father about the playground bullying incident in June 2009.

An employment tribunal at Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, ruled in January 2011 that the school had not carried out a “fair, proper and reasonable” investigation before dismissing her.

But the following month the same panel ruled that she would have been sacked in any case for going public with her story, even if the correct dismissal procedures had been followed. She was awarded just £351.82, including just over £300 in back pay and £49.99 in “compensation”.

An earlier hearing was told how Mrs Hill was doing playground duty when she saw that the girl had been tied to a fence by her wrist and then "whipped" across the legs with a skipping rope by a group of boys. The head teacher, Deborah Crabb, sent a letter to the girl’s parents saying that she had been hurt in a “minor accident” with a skipping rope. They only learnt the full details of what had happened when Mrs Hill got talking to the girl’s mother outside a Scout meeting. The girl’s parents were furious and have since withdrawn their children from the school.

On Tuesday Mrs Hill said: “It has been a horrible ordeal but I feel a step closer to justice. I was never doing it for the money, I was doing it because I believe what I did was right.” Mrs Hill now works as a cleaner around the village but said she missed her old job. “I loved that job, I would definitely still be doing it if this had not happened.”

Dave Prentis, general secretary of public sector union Unison, said: “Carol has been put through a terrible ordeal by the school and lost a job she truly loved.

“The value of someone being free to speak out against injustice must be upheld and this decision by the employment appeal tribunal strengthens and clarifies this important principle.”

A statement from Great Tey Primary School said: “The employment appeal tribunal upheld Mrs Hill’s appeal into her compensation payout following dismissal from Great Tey Primary School. “It does not change the outcome of the overall case but there may need to be a further liabilities hearing at an employment tribunal to reassess the amount originally awarded.”

Source: The Telegraph

Judge says £420,000 racism claim can stand, after 13 years of 'Dickensian' wrangling

A race equality campaigner who won £420,000 compensation after a council-funded anti-racism group turned her down for a job has emerged victorious from a "Dickensian" court battle - at the ultimate expense of the public purse.

Lord Justice Mummery, the employment judge, said qualified barrister Natasha Sivanandan's 12-year battle with the London Borough of Hackney was "a 21st Century version of a 19th Century Chancery saga". The progress of the case read like "a Dickensian narrative of allegations and counter- allegations...misunderstandings, objections, complaints ...and repeated wrangling." But, despite the huge cost to the council, the payout could stand, he said.

The saga began in June 1999 when 58-year-old Ms Sivanandan, who lives in Wood Green, North London, applied for a job as a training and development coordinator and race discrimination case worker with Hackney Action for Racial Equality (HARE).

She was turned down for the post with the charitable advice service, partly funded by Hackney, following an interview in July that year and, within months, had started proceedings against both HARE and the Council, alleging victimisation under sex and race discrimination legislation.

She claimed that she had been treated unfairly in the interview, because she had brought a previous discrimination case against HARE after being turned down for another job.

In April 2002 she was awarded £15,076 by an employment tribunal (ET) in relation to that original complaint, and in June 2003 the ET found that HARE and the Council were liable to pay out for victimisation of Ms Sivanandan in relation to both interviews.

In 2007 she was awarded £1,905.41 against one of her interviewers in relation to "injury to feelings caused by race discrimination". Then, in 2009, she was handed a £421,415 payout against the Council.

Hackney appealed, with its barrister Robin Allen QC arguing that the payout's impact on the council and public funds was "disproportionate."

He argued it was unfair for the Council to be landed with such a huge bill, as well as 12 years-worth of lawyers' fees, when a "very much smaller sum" was awarded against the interviewer who Mr Allen described as "the primary discriminator."

Lord Justice Mummery, giving his decision on the appeal, expressed surprise at the sums involved, saying: "On the face of it £421,415 seems to be a great deal of money to compensate Ms Sivanandan for acts of discrimination in two unsuccessful job interviews."

However, dismissing Hackney's appeal, the judge said the employment tribunal had been entitled to find the Council liable for the full amount of Ms Sivanandan's compensation.

The court defeat is a blow for Hackney which now faces legal costs bills which may even exceed the amount of Ms Sivanandan's payout, meaning the final cost for refusing Ms Sivanandan a job could come to close to £1m.

Lord Justice Mummery acknowledged that the case had cost "a very large amount of public money" but refused to grant Hackney permission to appeal further to the Supreme Court.

Source: The Telegraph

Dismissal for Political affiliation or opinion

Following an earlier report in this newsletter on the Redfearn ECtHR case, which anticipated the possibility of the emergence of a 10^th “protected characteristic” of “political opinion or belief”, the Government recently (February 14^th) issued the following the statement:

Dismissal for Political Opinion

My Noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business,

Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie), has today made the

following statement.

The Government takes the United Kingdom’s responsibilities to comply with human rights protections seriously. With that in mind, we are taking steps to amend our legislation following a recent European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) ruling.

In November 2012, the ECtHR held that the United Kingdom was in breach of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights by preventing individuals who do not have a qualifying period of service from making claims for unfair dismissal on grounds of political opinion or affiliation. The ECtHR considered that the UK Government should amend its legislation to protect employees who suffer such dismissals.

In the case, Redfearn v UK, a bus driver was dismissed after he became a

BNP councillor. Mr. Redfearn was unable to bring a claim for unfair dismissal because he did not have the requisite qualifying service. In principle, the Court agreed that a qualifying service period is reasonable and appropriate. The ruling is a narrow judgement, limited to instances where the alleged reason for dismissal is political affiliation or opinion.

Having considered the judgement, the Government has decided not to appeal this decision. To bring our legislation into line with the ruling, we have tabled an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently before the House of Lords. This amendment exempts claimants who allege that their dismissal was on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation from the 2 year qualifying period.

Following the necessary Parliamentary stages, this additional protection would come into effect two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent and would apply to dismissals after that date.

Whilst not explicitly recognising political beliefs and opinions as protected under equality legislation, the effect of this change to the law would be to make it de facto so, as the two year requirement to bring proceedings for unfair dismissal on such grounds has been dropped – which brings it into line with all the other protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/crhvf3z

Harassment on Grounds of religion

Did the question 'What's happened to the fucking Pope?, shouted in a pressured newsroom, amount to harassment on grounds of religion of a Catholic sub-editor present at the time? Obviously not, says Underhill J in Heafield v Times Newspaper Limited.

The employment tribunal found that the conduct was unwanted, but not done with the purpose of creating an adverse environment for Mr Heafield; if Mr Heafield experienced the environment as adverse, that was unreasonable of him. And it was not done on grounds of Mr Heafield's religion or belief.

Mr Heafield appealed, arguing that the tribunal had wrongly treated the speaker's purpose as conclusive that the words could not create an adverse environment; and that it had erred in relying on the speaker's motive in finding that the words had not been said 'on grounds of' Mr Heafield's religion.

Underhill J emphatically rejected the first argument: the employment tribunal had not treated the speaker's purpose as conclusive, but had legitimately treated it as relevant. He accepted that the relevance of motive in deciding the 'on grounds of' question was less straightforward. But since his conclusion on the first question disposed of the appeal, he did not need to deal with that argument.

See judgement: http://tinyurl.com/b342ach

Source: Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin

“Dinosaurs, rockets, pirates and robots” – not for girls at John Lewis

I could not resist reproducing this article by Martin Belam:

I was shopping in John Lewis today, when I saw a great set of Jennie Maizels patches to sew on children’s clothing — dinosaurs, rockets, pirates and robots. All of my child’s favourite things.

I was going to buy it, and then I peered a little closer at the packaging…

Ah, not intended for my little daughter. Clearly she isn’t meant to like dinosaurs, rockets, pirates and robots.

This stuff drives me mad.

It isn’t like we’re trying to bring her up in some kind of gender-neutral vacuum. The other night I came home from work and she was perfectly happy in a Snow White Princess dress.

But I just don’t see any need for ridiculous gender-stereotyping in products that could quite easily be aimed at all children, not just a sub-set of them. I think the thing that disappoints me most is thinking about the entire supply chain involved in getting a product onto the shelves at somewhere like John Lewis.

And during that process not one person has thought, you know, we could label these as being for “Little explorers” or “Little adventurers” instead, and market the set at everybody in the store, rather than trying to dictate what “Little girls” aren’t meant to like.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/aqock2d

Time off for dependants: six absences totalling seven days in 12 months was “reasonable”

Naisbett v Npower Ltd ET/2502795/12

The employment tribunal held that a mother's six absences totalling seven days in a 12-month period constituted a "reasonable" amount of time off for dependants under s.57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Ms Naisbett, who worked from 9am to 5pm from Monday to Thursday, has a child who was three years old at the relevant time. The child attended nursery, and Ms Naisbett could receive only limited childcare help from her partner because he worked away from home and from her parents because they ran two public houses. In general, it fell to Ms Naisbett to look after the child when he was too ill to attend the nursery.

From March 2011 to February 2012, Ms Naisbett had seven days' absence (five one-day absences and one two-day absence). On each occasion, she invoked the employer's policy on time off for dependants and was granted the emergency absence. It was accepted that she followed the employer's procedure (telephoning on the morning of each day's absence) and that the reason for her absence was entirely due to her son being ill and not able to attend the nursery, and the absence of anyone else to look after him.

In February 2012, the employer invited Ms Naisbett, who had been given no prior indication of any concerns, to a "formal capability meeting" for "non-medical absence". The outcome of the meeting was a letter giving her what the employer described as a "first written notification of concern" and threatening her with dismissal if she had "further unsatisfactory attendance due to time off for dependants".

Ms Naisbett brought a tribunal claim alleging that she had been subjected to a detriment for exercising her right to time off for dependants.

The employment tribunal rejected the employer's argument that its "first written notification of concern" did not amount to a warning and could not be a detriment. The letter was identical to a written warning under the employer's disciplinary procedure and Ms Naisbett was left in no doubt that, if her attendance did not improve, further action, including dismissal, could be taken.

The employment tribunal, noting the lack of case law on time off for dependants, relied on the EAT guidance in Qua v John Ford Morrison Solicitors [2003] IRLR 184 EAT. The EAT said that the employee is not entitled to unlimited time off and the right is to deal with something unforeseen. Once it is known that a child has a medical condition that makes relapses likely, the employee is entitled to reasonable time off work to make longer-term arrangements for care. Where the line should be drawn is a matter to be decided on the facts of each case, with the foreseeability of the absence being key.

In determining what is a "reasonable" amount of time off for dependants, disruption or inconvenience to the employer caused by the employee's absence is not a relevant factor. Applying these principles to this case, the tribunal concluded that, taking all the circumstances into account, the claimant in this case had not taken an unreasonable amount of time off under s.57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Naisbett had not suffered any financial loss, but found that the written warning was a detriment because it could be taken into account in the future, for example if the claimant was up for promotion. The tribunal awarded £1,000 to Ms Naisbett for the detriment.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/a6vrzn8

Ugandan anti-gay legislation leads Buckingham University to suspend degree validation

The University of Buckingham has suspended validation of degrees at Victoria University in Kampala, Uganda following increasing concern over proposed Ugandan legislation increasing the penalties for those convicted of homosexual acts – up to life imprisonment in some cases.

Buckingham stated that there was concern ‘in particular [over] the constraints on freedom of speech in this area’. Times Higher Education reported that Alistair Alcock, deputy vice-chancellor at Buckingham, said: ‘we're getting to the position [in Uganda] where questioning whether there should be such legislation gets impossible.’

Source: http://tinyurl.com/bcr39tw

Recycling Hatred

The European Network Against Racism has launched Episode 1 of its Recycling Hatred series: Are migrants second-class human beings in Europe?

Coming soon: Episode 2, Apartheid practices in Europe?

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtakZPB8_8w

Male student underrepresentation a priority for BIS

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has written to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), which oversees and funds universities, outlining funding allocations and setting priorities for HEFCE for 2013-14.

Equality and diversity is given as a priority in the letter, which highlights the following challenges that ‘the sector and HEFCE need to address’:

lower percentage of men in the student population
lower attainment rates of black and minority ethnic (BME) students
insufficient diversity of institutional governing bodies
relatively low proportions of women, BME and disabled people in senior management positions

In the letter, David Willetts (Minister for universities and science) and Vince Cable (Business secretary) go on to say that ‘it is essential that universities continue to address these long standing issues and we look to the council to continue work with the sector.

See: http://tinyurl.com/bcr39tw

Top 100 gay-friendly employers

Six universities and a further education college have been named in Stonewall’s top 100 gay-friendly employers:

University of Cambridge (11)
Liverpool John Moores University (28)
Newham College of Further Education (32)
University of the West of England (45)
University College London (53)
Cardiff University (55)
University of Liverpool (58)

A number of other higher education institutions achieved places or improved their ratings in the index this year, which currently has 376 participating employers.

Stonewall Top 100 Employers 2013, is the definitive list of Britain's most gay-friendly workplaces. The rankings showcase the achievements of employers submitting to the Workplace Equality Index.

Other employers highlighted in the top-20 include:

Accenture
Gentoo
The Co-operative
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Home Office
Ernst & Young
Barclays
IBM
Simmons & Simmons
Metropolitan
Environment Agency for England and Wales
University of Cambridge
Goldman Sachs
Lloyds Banking Group
Brighton & Hove City Council
Hampshire Constabulary
North Wales Police
South Wales Police
Baker & McKenzie LLP
Leicestershire County Council

Source: Stonewall top 100 employers

Public Sector Equality Duties: EHRC explains specific duty regulations

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published technical guidance on the public sector equality duty for England, Scotland and Wales. The guidance explains the aims of the PSED of the Equality Act 2010, the specific duties’ regulations and provides practical approaches to complying with the duty.

The guide isn’t a statutory code of practice, but it can still be used as evidence in legal proceedings. Public sector organisations will need to justify why they haven’t followed the guidance should a discrimination claim be made against them.

For further information see: Equality Act technical guidance

*********

Bugger the Bankers: the official video

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:25:00 +0000

******

The Crisis of Capitalism Explained - simply and to the point!

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:58:00 +0000

Great cartoon explanation of the current crisis of capitalism by David Harvey. A must see!

*******

Public Meeting: What future for the welfare state

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:12:00 +0000

Thursday February 28^th

2013 @ 7.30pm

Victoria Centre, Palk Road

Wellingborough NN8 1HT

Speakers:

Wilkie Wilkinson

Social Worker and UNISON shop steward

(personal capacity)

Disabled People Against Cuts (invited)

Public & Civil Services Union

(Department for Works and Pensions Branch)

(invited)

Stop attacks on the poorest

and vulnerable

Defend our welfare safety-net

STOP the Government:

· Attacking the Disabled

Cutting Disability Living Allowance will take away

£2 billion from disabled people

· Attacking Families

The “bedroom tax” takes 14% from the housing benefit of 660,000 families deemed to have one bedroom too many.

Council tax benefit is being abolished,

and discretionary responsibility is being passed to local councils already coping with cuts

· Attacking the Young

Reducing housing benefit from the under 25s will condemn thousands of vulnerable young people to homelessness,

and is denounced by homeless charities

· Sowing Division and hatred

The Government tries to set employed against unemployed, poor against the event poorer

Benefit claimants are branded “shirkers,”

but most claimants are in work but paid lousy wages

· Cutting our Local Services

County Council cuts have hit libraries, preventive services, adult social care, the youth offending service, foster care, trading standards, fire and rescue, Police, early years, meals on wheels, education services and many more.

Council employees face unprecedented attacks on

pay, conditions and pensions.

COME AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THESE ATTACKS AND THE FIGHT AGAINST THEM

DON’T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!!

An event organised by

Wellingborough Labour Party

and Independent Socialists in Wellingborough

For more information ring: 078 72 83 64 63

***************

Wellingborough Diggers Festival...final few weeks to get your tickets!

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:24:00 +0000

The 2013 Wellingborough Diggers Festival

Saturday 9th March 2013 at Gleneagles Social Club, Grafton Close, Wellingborough, Northants, NN8 5WA. Doors will open at 7:30pm

Ticket Prices: £10/£8 cons.

With only 3 weekends to go - have you purchased your ticket(s)? There are still tickets available!

Please email if you want to order tickets:jacquinortonpromote@gmail.com

Details of the event are as follows:

Developed from the Workers' Educational Association (WEA) during 1995, our first act of the evening is the Red Leicester Choir. Some of the members attended the second Diggers' Festival as part of the audience, so we would like to thank them for agreeing to perform for us all during our third event.

Author Dr John Gurney will provide a talk on the Diggers which will be followed by a book signing opportunity. Dr Gurney has written a number of journal articles and books relating to the Diggers including “Brave Community: The Digger Movement in the English Revolution” and his current November 2012 release "Gerrard Winstanley: The Diggers Life and Legacy (Revolutionary Lives)". Wellingborough Museum are stocking the latest book and we believe it is now the fastest selling book from their shelves!

The final artist confirmed is Five String Thing folk and ceilidh band which are generally seen performing at the annual World Conker Championships! The group will be performing folk music and providing a ceilidh; don’t be afraid to join in – it’s great fun!

The festival is sponsored by Independent Socialists in Wellingborough

For more information about the Diggers click HERE

We would like to thank UCU, Unison and the Northampton Trade Union Council for supporting the third festival. Stalls have been confirmed and the third Wellingborough Diggers' Festival t-shirt can be ordered from the ISW stall. Members of the ISW will be modelling the 2013 design on the night!

*******

An uncanny resemblance?

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:06:00 +0000

Did anyone notice the uncanny resemblance between "evil" Richard III and our skeletal Peter Bone, Member of Parliament for Wellingborough, in last weeks Observer cartoon?

If you missed it, here it is:

The cartoon accurately depicts #Bonethebigot's current pet prejudices: homophobia and Europhobia, and his hatred of the ConLib government which he sees as far too "liberal".

Isn't is time we, the decent people of Wellingborough, stood up and said we don't accept him as our "representative" in Parliament? Isn't it time we said loudly "not in our name" Mr. Bone!

*******

Nick Griffin gets it wrong again...

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 14:24:00 +0000

As a Leicester boy born and bred I could not resist reproducing this from Islamaphobia Watch. I don't normally reproduce stuff spouting from the mouths of fascists, but on this occasion I'll make an exception.

The leader of the British National Party responds to news of the identification of Richard III's skeleton with this piece of Wildean wit:

According to the 2011 census, 214,403 inhabitants of Leicester were born in England – 65% of the total population. So there's evidently a large majority of native English people living in the city. Of course, for all the BNP's assurances that it rejects racism, when Griffin writes "Englishman" what he really means is "white person".

Even if we were to accept that bigoted definition, there are 148,629 people living in Leicester who categorise themselves as "White; English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British" – 45% of the population. By contrast there are 61,440 Muslims living in the city – 18.6% of the total.

So, still some way to go before the Muslim hordes accomplish the Islamification of Leicester.

*******

Equality & Diversity News: February 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:58:00 +0000

In this issue:

Stephen Lawrence murder: 20th anniversary to be marked
Catholic adoption agency faces loss of charitable status for discrimination against Gay adopters
Equal marriage on the way as Bill published
National Diversity Awards
Oaths and Promises: Air Cadets include non religious oath for first time
Anonymous application forms proposed to stop discrimination
Important changes to Employment Law and Practice
Discrimination law protection does not apply to volunteers
Disability discrimination
New Guidance on Pre-Employment Health Questionnaires issued
All the data you could need on ethnicity in the UK
Who are we? Results from the 2011 Census
2013 Diversity Calendar

Stephen Lawrence murder: 20th anniversary to be marked

The mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence has begun a campaign to mark the 20th anniversary of his death. Doreen Lawrence said she wants to ensure no other family has to go through what she endured. The campaign will include talking to new police commissioners and a memorial service on 22 April - the date Stephen was killed in Eltham in 1993.

The announcement comes exactly a year after Gary Dobson and David Norris were convicted of his murder. Other events will include a concert planned for April, a criminal justice lecture, an annual memorial lecture and a gala ball.

The memorial service will be held at St Martin in the Fields church in Trafalgar Square.

Mrs Lawrence, who founded the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, said:

"It is hard to believe that 2013 will mark 20 years since Stephen died. This time last year we faced the conviction of two of Stephen's killers and the relief I felt then has stayed with me through the extraordinary year that was 2012. Despite this, our focus has to be on the next 20 years. There is more to be done to get justice for Stephen and to ensure that no other family has to go through what we endured."

Mrs Lawrence said the trust would campaign for fairer community policing.

She also continues to press for the tracing and arrest of others involved in the murder of her son.

During Dobson and Norris's trial, the court heard a gang of five or six white youths set upon the A-level student in Eltham, south-east London.

The Metropolitan Police faced criticism of the original investigation into Mr Lawrence's death. A public inquiry branded the force institutionally racist and claims were made by Mr and Mrs Lawrence's lawyers that some officers were influenced by Norris's former drugs baron father.

The breakthrough in the investigation came when a cold case team of forensic scientists found tiny traces of blood, hair and fibres on clothing seized from Dobson and Norris's homes.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/a5ullfd

Catholic adoption agency faces loss of charitable status for discrimination against Gay adopters

St Margaret's Children and Family Care Society in Glasgow was found to discriminate against homosexuals by giving higher priority to couples who have been married for at least two years. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) reviewed the practices of the adoption agency following a complaint from the National Secular Society.

Despite concluding the charity provides a valuable service to the public, its investigation found St Margaret’s was operating in breach of the Equality Act 2010. It has until April 22 to comply with the legislation or will lose its charitable status, which means it does not pay corporation tax and receives a substantial discount on its rates.

The OSCR report found the agency gives greater priority to prospective adoptive parents who are a couple, Catholic, married for at least two years and wish to adopt within the framework of the Catholic faith.

As marriage is not yet available to Gay couples, the regulator ruled this “constitutes direct discrimination” and breached equality laws because access to the benefit the charity is providing is “unduly restricted”. “OSCR also finds that this discrimination causes disbenefit to same-sex couples. For these reasons OSCR finds that the charity does not provide public benefit and it therefore fails the charity test,” the report concluded. Martin Tyson, the regulator’s head of registration, said: "We acknowledge the valuable service provided by this charity, but the fact is that all charities must comply with the law, including the Equality Act 2010. Where we find this is not the case, we have a duty to act.”

Source: http://tinyurl.com/b4clrck

Equal marriage on the way as Bill published

“Marriage of same sex couples is lawful”, begins the Government’s new Equal Marriage Bill, which will, amongst other things, make it legal for gay couples to marry in both civil and religious ceremonies.

Religious communities will not be forced to conduct ceremonies, but will be able to ‘opt-in’ to the new system. However, Church of England communities will not be permitted to opt in even if they want to. The next reading is in the House of Commons on 5 February. The Bill is summarised as follows:

A Bill to make provision for the marriage of same sex couples in England and Wales, about gender change by married persons and civil partners, about consular functions in relation to marriage, for the marriage of armed forces personnel overseas, and for connected purposes.

Marriages on religious premises will be lawful but only if (a) the ‘relevant governing authority’ (defined as “recognised by the members of the relevant religious organisation as competent for the purpose of giving consent for the purposes of this section”) has ‘opted in’ to the new system, and (b) the religious premises are related to the Church of England (section 4).

The Bill will insert a new provision into the Equality Act 2010 to make clear that there can be “no compulsion to solemnise” (s.2(5)), which means that nobody will be able to bring a claim under the Equality Act arguing that they should be allowed to marry on religious premises where the governing religious authority has not ‘opted in’.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/bgpqj73

National Diversity Awards

Nominations are now open for the National Diversity Awards 2013, which are supported by the Runnymede Trust. You can nominate individuals or groups for these awards in the following categories: Positive Role Model, Community Organisation, Entrepreneurs of Excellence, Diverse Company of the Year and Lifetime Achiever. For more information and to submit your nominations, please visit here.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/ay7hkg4

Oaths and Promises: Air Cadets include non religious oath for first time

The decision of the Air Cadet Organisation (ACO) to provide a non-religious oath for Air Training Corps cadets has been welcomed by the British Humanist Association. Currently, cadets only have the option to make a religious promise, usually at a ceremony presided over by the Unit Padre or Officer Commanding. There is no alternative for young people who are atheists and non-religious.

The proposal to provide an alternative, non-religious, oath is based on the argument that the Royal Air Force Air Training Corps (RAF ATC) should comply with national and European legislation and with Ministry of Defence policy on equality and diversity.

This small but important change comes as the Scout Association and Girlguiding UK both announced that they are consulting on changing their membership pledges to be inclusive to the non-religious. Currently, both groups require members to make a pledge ‘to do my duty to God’, in the case of the Scouts, or ‘to love my God’ with the Guides – with God being substitutable for some other deity.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/9wt3mso

Anonymous application forms proposed to stop discrimination

A Government report on the employment prospects of ethnic minorities has ensured that the notion of blank-name application forms is firmly back on the agenda. The study from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Community in December 2012 discovered that women of black, Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage who ‘anglicised’ their names saw a 50% drop in the number of applications required before getting an interview.

In wake of the findings, the Group has encouraged businesses to use blank-name, anonymised applications forms that hide a candidate’s name, background and schooling from recruiters, with the hope that this will eliminate unconscious biases.

This is not the first time the idea has been proposed however, and it has proved very contentious in the past. In 2009, Lib Dem MP Lynne Featherstone tried to add a clause to the Equality Bill that would have made nameless CVs compulsory, citing the use of candidate numbers rather than names in school exams. A number of HR directors described the idea as “unworkable” though, and it was subsequently dropped.

During 2012, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg asked firms signing up to his Business Compact on social mobility to “increase use of name-blank and school-blank applications” – but although more than 100 major employers have joined the scheme, the CV requirement was not obligatory and as a result there is no indication of take-up.

Explaining his doubts as to whether anonymous CVs would make a difference, Tim Baker, Manager of commerce & industry at global HR recruiter Frazer Jones, said: “The name is usually the first thing you look at when you open a CV, but any good recruiter will tell you that it’s a combination of experience, companies worked for and sometimes education that make a good CV. If you have this, the name and ethnic background is irrelevant.”

Commenting on the report’s findings, Neil Morrison, group HR Director at Random House, said: “Companies have a vested interest in employing the best person for the job, regardless of gender and ethnicity. But the parliamentary report is a sad reflection of how ethnic minority groups feel about their treatment by employers, and collectively we should be looking to change both perceptions and treatment.”

Source: http://tinyurl.com/a79s2d6

Important changes to Employment Law and Practice

The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills has announced/confirmed it is:

imposing a cap on the unfair dismissal compensatory award of twelve months' pay (and still capped at the current limit, if twelve months' pay is greater). See: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/53132/13-565-ending-the-employment-relationship-consultation-response.pdf
amending TUPE, to remove service provision changes from the definition of a transfer,
repeal Employee Liability Information provisions, and making various other (important) amendments. See: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49505/13-533-tupe-regulations-2006-consultation-on-proposed-changes-to-the-regulations1.pdf
consulting on the detail of Early Conciliation via Acas. See: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/52598/13-538-early-conciliation-a-consultation-on-proposals-for-implementation.pdf

Separately, the Department for Work and Pensions has announced a new Health & Work Advisory and Assessment Service, to be introduced in 2014, providing (amongst other things) state funded occupational health testing for employees who are off sick for more than four weeks See:www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/health-at-work-gov-response.pdf

The Ministry of Justice has also announced it is introducing an online service for the payment of employment tribunal fees. See: www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-releases/moj/employment-tribunal-fees-set-to-encourage-mediation-and-arbitration

According to the announcement, the facility to pay online will be available from July 2013 - suggesting fees will be introduced from then (August had formerly been mooted as the likely implementation date).

Discrimination law protection does not apply to volunteers

X – v - Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and another [2012] UKSC 59

The Supreme Court has decided that the European General Framework Directive does not cover volunteer activity.

X worked as a volunteer for Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) for 4 - 5 hours per week. She signed a volunteer agreement which said it was ‘binding in honour only and not a contract of employment or legally binding’. After a 9 month training period, X started giving advice. No records were kept of volunteer hours. About 25 - 30% of the time, X did not attend on the days she was expected. No objection was ever taken to this or to her changing her working days, however she was asked to cease being a volunteer.

She brought an employment tribunal case because she believed the reason she was asked to cease volunteering was related to her disability.

The employment judge rejected X’s claim, finding that she was not covered by discrimination law. She was not in ‘employment’ under the then Disability Discrimination Act 1995, because there was no contract between her and the CAB. X appealed unsuccessfully to the EAT and the Court of Appeal. She appealed again to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It said it is clear that article 3(1)(b) of the Framework Directive is not directed towards voluntary activity and a reference to the Court of Justice to decide the matter would not be appropriate or necessary. The Supreme Court observed that ‘Any responsible organisation aims to combat discrimination on the grounds of disability - or indeed any other characteristic protected by the Equality Act 2010 - and will do so for the benefit of persons serving or wishing to serve as volunteers in the organisation no less than anyone else.’ But the appeal was not about this ‘moral imperative’. It was about the scope of domestic and European law.

Source: Discrimination Law Association

Disability discrimination:

Tribunals must concentrate on what the person cannot do rather than on what they can do
Impairments do not fit into a sliding scale: they are either trivial/minor or substantial

Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd UKEAT/0316/12

A worker is ‘disabled’ under the Equality Act 2010 if s/he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his/her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. There is statutory Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of ‘disability’, which helps advisers and tribunals decide whether a particular individual meets the definition.

Mr Aderemi was a station assistant at London Bridge until dismissed for capability. Due to a back impairment, he had difficulty standing on his feet for large parts of the day, which was what he was required to do for his job. At certain times, he could only stand for periods of 20- 25 minutes and was unable to undertake any bending or lifting. The tribunal decided that Mr Aderemi did not have a disability as defined by the Act.

The EAT overturned the decision and sent the case to a new tribunal to decide. The tribunal had wrongly focused on all the activities which Mr Aderemi could still do, instead of looking at what he was unable to do, which is the correct legal test. The tribunal also wrongly disregarded the evidence of the effect of his impairment on Mr Aderemi’s work activities.

Standing for a long period of time is required in many jobs and is therefore potentially a normal day-to-day activity.

The EAT also noted that under section 212(1), ‘substantial’ simply means more than minor or trivial. If an impairment has effects on a worker’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities which are more than minor or trivial, that is sufficient. The statutory guidance is misleading because it gives examples which on the one hand are thought to be ‘substantial’ and on the other hand are thought not to be ‘substantial’. It would be wrong to think there is a sliding scale between a substantial effect and a trivial effect. There is not. The effect is either trivial/minor or it is covered as substantial.

Source: Discrimination Law Association

New Guidance on Pre-Employment Health Questionnaires issued

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has launched new guidance around pre-employment questionnaires, and a research report examining:

· The extent to which health related questions are still used by employer

· Why employers continue to ask unlawful health questions

· The extent to which employers are aware of their obligations under Section 60 of the Equality Act 2010

· Whether disabled people are more likely to be asked health related questions.

Employers’ guidance is available here:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/EqualityAct/pre-employment_health_questions_guidance_for_employers_final.pdf

Job applicants' guidance is available here:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/EqualityAct/pre-employment_health_questions_guidance_for_job_applicants_final.pdf

The research report is available here:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/rr87_final.pdf

All the data you could need on ethnicity in the UK

Ethnicity is a complex concept that cannot be adequately captured by a simple classification. However, ethnic classifications provide a way of highlighting very important differences and inequalities between groups that need to be made explicit if they are to be recognised and addressed by policy-makers. The figures presented on these web-pages should be taken as a starting point for asking much deeper questions about the processes that underlie the observed differences, rather than an end in themselves.

This web site is designed to help you to locate data and information about ethnic difference and inequality in the UK. It is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) via the National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM) and is managed by the Population, Ethnicity, Religion and Migration (PERM) research group based at the University of Manchester.

Happy number-crunching!

See: http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk

Who are we? Results from the 2011 Census

The first statistics from the 2011 Census for England and Wales were released on 11 December 2012. They include analyses of international migration, ethnicity and national identity, religion, and the labour market. They can be accessed in full via the Office for National Statistics website.

2013 Diversity Calendar

The Equality and Diversity team at the London School of Economics has developed a diversity calendar for 2013. The images in the calendar were sourced through a photo competition that was held last year for LSE staff and students. See the calendar at: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/intranet/staff/equalityAndDiversity/docs/Calendar-2013.pdf

*********

Religious Rights and Human Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:41:00 +0000

The eagerly awaited recent European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decisions in the four cases of Eweida, Chaplin, McFarlene and Ladele have largely been presented in the populist media either as a victory for Christians over secularism (as Ms Eweida won her case over the wearing of a cross) or as a victory for secularism and human rights over extremist Christians (as all the other applicants lost their cases). How such contradictory positions can be adopted at the same time is difficult to understand, unless you look at the details of each of the cases, the way the ECtHR approached the issues at stake (based on human rights principles in general) and the nuanced nature of the decisions in each case. In fact both press perceptions are probably broadly true! I would go on to say that that the court probably got it right in difficult and highly charged political circumstances.

Freedom of religion is very important

The fact of the matter is that the ECtHR correctly stated that freedom of religion, and the manifestation of religion by religious people, are hugely important human rights. Despite what the populist media often say about human rights, religious freedoms have explicit and privileged protection.

The Court recalls that, as enshrined in Article 9(of the European Convention on Human Rights - ECHR), freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a democratic society... in its religious dimension it is one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. [Para 79, of the ECHR Decision]

Religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual thought and conscience. This aspect of the right set out in the first paragraph of Article 9 (of the Convention on Human Rights), to hold any religious belief and to change religious belief, is absolute and unqualified. However, as further set out in Article 9.1 freedom of religion also encompasses the freedom to manifest one’s belief, alone and in private but also to practice in community with others and in public. The manifestation of religious belief may take the form of worship, teaching, practice and observance...[Para. 80]

Manifestation of religion/belief can be limited

However, the court went on to say that in manifesting a religious belief this may have consequences for others and may impinge on the rights and freedoms of others – therefore in a tolerant, plural, democratic society the right to manifest belief may be restricted by the state subject to rigorous legal scrutiny of such restrictions by the Courts in each country.

...Since the manifestation by one person of his or her religious belief may have an impact on others, the drafters of the Convention qualified this aspect of freedom of religion in the manner set out in Article 9.2.... (this) provides that any limitation placed on a person’s freedom to manifest religion or belief must be proscribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of one or more of the legitimate aims set out therein.[Para. 80, continued]

This amounts to a common-sense recognition that doing things (as opposed to just thinking about them or believing in them) can inevitably affect others – my “right” to build an extension to my house may direct affect the “rights” of my neighbour – hence there may well be some restrictions on what I can actually do. As with building things, so with manifesting one’s religious beliefs. But actually religious freedom (i.e. the thinking/believing bit) is given a special status that makes it absolute; the only restriction is on the manifestation, and even then only in quite exceptional circumstances should restrictions be placed on it.

What is “manifestation” of religion or belief?

So what does manifestation of religious belief mean? We have a helpful definition in the decision:

Even where the belief in question attains the required level of cogency and importance, it cannot be said that every act which in some way inspired, motivated or influenced by it constitutes a manifestation of the belief. Thus for example acts of omission which do not directly express the belief concerned or which are only remotely connected to a precept of faith fall outside the protection of Article 9.1.

In order to count as a “manifestation” within the meaning of Article 9, the act in question must be intimately linked to the religion or belief. An example would be an act of worship or devotion which forms part of the practice of a religion or belief in generally recognised form. However, the manifestation ... is not limited to such acts; the existence of a sufficiently close and direct nexus between the act and the underlying belief must be determined on the facts of each case. In particular, there is no requirement on the applicant to establish that he or she acted in fulfilment of a duty mandated by the religion in question.[Para. 82]

Protecting the rights and freedoms of others

The protection given to manifesting a religion or belief is seriously constrained by the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, which includes Article 14 rights not be discriminated against. This includes discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or civil partnership.

The Court recalls that in its case-law under article 14 it has held that differences of treatment based on sexual orientation require particularly serious reasons by way of justification...It has also held that same-sex couples are in a relevant similar situation to different sex couples as regards their need for legal recognition and protection of their relationship...”[Para. 105]

Historically of course some (often extreme and/or unrepresentative) faith/belief groups have always justified and argued for the removal or denial of the rights and freedoms of others (or for special privileges or advantages for their group) as opposed to those of other faiths or beliefs (or even others within the same faith/belief tradition), ethnic/national/racial minorities, disabled people, those of another gender/sexual orientation, etc. It is a fundamental human rights principle that the rights and freedoms of one group to manifest their faith/belief cannot and should not be to the detriment of others.

If the particular manifestation of a religion or belief is detrimental to other groups (e.g. discriminatory towards them) this is therefore not an “equality conflict” between the two groups, but a conflict between the particularly manifestation of that religion or belief and core human rights principles. Additionally I would submit that a human rights framework is a package that all ultimately benefit from and sign up to in a democratic, diverse, and respectful society.

Right to manifest religion or belief is not lost if changing job is an option

It has been argued in the past (and there is some previous ECtHR cases that endorse this view) that where restriction are placed by, for example, employers on the manifestation of religion, if the adherent can resign from the situation and finding new employment there is not an infringement of their Convention rights to manifest.

Thankfully this decision reverses/changes this approach:

Given the importance in a democratic society of freedom of religion, the Court considers that, where an individual complains of restriction on freedom of religion in the workplace, rather than holding that the possibility of changing job would negate any interference with the right, the better approach would be to weigh that possibility in the overall balance when considering whether or not the restriction was proportionate. [Para.83]

Practical Conclusions

Five very important conclusions arise at this point from the decision:

1. Religious (and other) belief systems are very important in a democratic society and restrictions on the right to hold such beliefs (through persecution or discrimination) breaches fundamental human rights.

2. The manifestation of religious (or other beliefs) is also very important and should not be infringed upon unless the rights and freedoms of others are affected. There must be legal scrutiny when such rights are infringed or restricted. There may be a high degree of subsidiarity or “margin of appreciation” to national courts (as opposed to the ECtHR itself) in making such decisions.

3. The “Rights and freedoms of others” includes the rights of Gay people or those in civil partnerships not to be discriminated against.

4. The wearing of a cross, whilst not mandated within Christianity, is nevertheless a manifestation of that faith (NOTE: as may the wearing of Hijab or Niqab for Muslims; or being a vegetarian for Hindus and Buddhists).

5. It should not be expected, if restrictions are placed on manifestation of religion or belief (e.g. by employers for business reasons), that the person affected has no rights if they can change their job. Instead this issue should only be part of an evaluation (balancing act) on whether or not the restriction itself is justifiable/proportionate in the circumstances and bearing in mind the issues above.

Court rejects 3 out of 4 applications – but supports manifestation of religion when there is no threat to the rights and freedoms of others

Given the above conclusions arising from the decision, it is not really surprising that the court found against the applicants in three of the four cases (Chaplin, Ladele and McFarlane) but in favour of Eweida.

Ms Eweida was successful in her case for one simple (and probably correct) reason: the ECtHR believed that the UK court had placed too much weight in favour of the business argument against the wearing of a cross, as opposed to the very important right for Ms Eweida to manifest her religious belief by so doing. They believed such a restriction was not justified to protect the rights and freedoms of others, as no other person had really suffered any detriment.

The Court considers that the refusal by British Airways ...to allow the applicant to remain in her post while visibly wearing a cross amounted to an interference with her right to manifest her religion.[Para 91]

On one side of the scale was Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religious belief...On the other side of the scales was the employers wish to protect a certain corporate image. The Court considers that while this aim is undoubtedly legitimate, the domestic (UK) courts accorded too much weight. [Para 94]

The Court therefore concludes that, in these circumstances where there is no evidence of any real encroachment on the interests of others, the domestic (UK) authorities failed sufficiently to protect the first applicant’s (Ms Eweida’s) right to manifest her religion... [Para. 95]

However for Ms Chaplin, which similarly involved wearing a cross at work, the case was determined on a simple alternative finding of fact to that of Eweida: that the UK courts had properly considered whether the restriction on her wearing a cross (which they confirmed was a legitimate manifestation of her Christian belief) was nonetheless justified in a democratic society in the context of protecting the rights and freedoms of others.

...the reasons for asking her to remove the cross, namely the protection of health and safety on a hospital ward, was inherently of a greater magnitude than that which applied to Eweida. Moreover, this is a field where the domestic (UK) authorities must be allowed a wide margin of appreciation. The hospital managers were better placed to make decisions about clinical safety than a court, particularly an international court which has heard no direct evidence. [Para. 99]

For Ladele and McFarlane the ECtHR accepted both held strong religious views about marriage and same sex relationships/unions based on their own interpretation of Christian beliefs and that these beliefs resulted in them both being dismissed from their jobs. They had a right to hold their beliefs, but not to manifest them at work in the way they wished. The Court accepted that their employers had the right to dismiss them in the context of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, particularly in ensuring that the services they provided to the public were free from unlawful discrimination – as in both cases the applicants had refused to undertake work that involved services to Gay people. In the case of Ladele this was as a local government registrar officiating at Civil Ceremonies and in McFarlane’s case as a Relate counsellor not wishing to provide psycho-sexual counselling to Gay couples on an equal basis as heterosexual couples.

In respect of Ladele, the ECtHR referred approvingly to the decision of the UK Court of Appeal’s decision in the following terms:

The (UK) Court of Appeal held in this case that the aim pursued by the local authority was to provide a service which was not merely effective in terms of practicality and efficiency, but also one which complied with the overarching policy of being an “employer and public authority wholly committed to the promotion of equal opportunities and to requiring all its employees to act in a ways which does not discriminate against others”. [Para. 105]

It concluded:

The Court generally allows the national authorities a wide margin of appreciation when it comes to striking a balance between competing Convention rights... In all the circumstances the Court does not consider that the national (UK) authorities, that is the local authority employer... exceeded the margin of appreciation available to them. [Para 106]

In a rather less sympathetic judgement than for Ladele, the ECtHR came to the same conclusions. But because Mr. McFarlene knowingly started a job where there was a direct conflict between the duties required and his own Christian beliefs, the Court said this was a legitimate matter to “be weighed when assessing whether a fair balance was struck” [Para 109]between his rights to manifest his religion and the rights of his employers to protect the rights and freedoms of others and to not discriminate against Gay people.

Overall conclusion

These four cases are extremely important not only for the people of the UK, but across the whole of Europe. The decisions in the end were not surprising, but they essential re-affirmed human rights principles in a political context where some religious groups are seeking to unwind the rights that have been fought for over many decades for Gay people (and other groups) and/or have sought to provide protection for people who would wish to discriminate against others justified by their religious convictions (some might say “bigotry”).

The outcome to these cases also provides relatively clear guidance for employers: if an employee wishes to reasonably manifest their religious or other belief, this should be allowed unless it impinges on the rights and freedoms of others or there are some other very, very, good reasons to justify interfering with what is an important human right.

The ECtHR decision in these cases:

· Confirmed human rights protection for all groups (including religious groups) from intolerant manifestation of religious or other ideas and beliefs that attack or undermine the rights and freedoms of others.

· Reinforced the importance of human rights principles within our diverse societies -where there has to be “give and take” if we are all to live together peacefully.

· Emphasised that the reasonable manifestation of religious or other beliefs should be respected and tolerated where they do not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others and cannot be justified.

******

Third Wellingborough Diggers Festival 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:37:00 +0000

Independent Socialists in Wellingborough

invites you to the third annual

Wellingborough Diggers Festival 2013

Saturday, March 9th 2013

from 7.30pm

Gleneagles Social Club

Grafton Close

Wellingborough, NN8 5WA

Red Leicester Choir

Author - Dr John Gurney - Presentation and book signing

Folk and Ceilidh Band – Five String Thing

Stalls and Licensed Bar

Tickets available in advance only

£10.00/£8.00 (concessions)

For reservations please contact: jacquinortonpromote@gmail.com

This event is supported by:

Northampton Trade Council

University and College Union (UCU)

UNISON

“England is not a free people, ‘til the poor that have no land, have a free allowance to dig and labour the commons....”

"But shall one man be richer than another? There is no need for that; for riches make men vain-glorious, proud, and to oppress their brethren; and are the occasion of wars.. the government of kings is a breeder of wars, because men being put into the straits of poverty are moved to fight for liberty"

Gerrard Winstanley (1649)

see also: http://www.wellsocialists.org.uk/diggersfestival2013.asp

******

Small victory against the dehumanisation of those on benefits

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Crofts) — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:14:00 +0000

Following my previous blog "No Pets. No DSS": the demonisation of a new group? I have been informed that the Estate Agents concerned have now withdrawn use of this phrase from their window adverts.

This was reported in the Herald and Post newspaper this week.

This small victory does, however, hide a bigger injustice that continues: the discrimination, by landlords and estate agents, against renting property to those on housing benefits, or in receipt of other social security benefits. I remain concerned that the poorest in our society are now effectively being excluded from any form of housing provision except that provided by councils or social landlords, who are managing larger and larger waiting lists. Where will the poorest in our society live in the future?

Isn't this situation also a recipe for community conflicts? No doubt the hate-mongers in our society and populist politicians will look around for other groups to scape-goat and blame for the housing shortages. No doubt some people on benefits, having been stigmatised themselves as "scroungers" and discriminated against, may be persuaded to blame other groups for their predicament as a consequence. On this weeks BBC Questiontime we had a taster: new immigrants from the European Union (this time Bulgaria and Romania rather than Poland!). Historically many other groups were demonised in exactly the same way: the Irish, Jews, Black people from the Caribbean and Africa, Asians from Bangladesh and Pakistan ... all at one time or another blamed for causing housing shortages over the past 100 years or more!

A week-on-Sunday (January 27th) it will be Holocaust Memorial Day. If there is one single important lesson for today from the holocaust (and there are of course many lessons) it is that the stigmatisation and dehumanisation of any group in our society is morally and ethically wrong and can lead on to gross human rights abuses, if not actual genocide. I hope that during the commemorations this year we will make an explicit commitment to reject the demonisation of people on benefits that is taking place in our society at present and the scape-goating of "immigrants", where ever they may be from.

******