Challenging the equality law

​

 

In the UK today, we have comprehensive laws to outlaw all forms of discrimination.  Equality is a basic British Value.

Many towns have regular Gay Pride marches, and most companies have some form of LGBT awareness training.  Laws to enforce equal treatments are tightening.  The Equality Commission is always on the lookout to promote equal treatment for all groups, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation or religious belief, etc.  We are all told that we must accept one another, not discriminate or show any kind of prejudice, otherwise we fall foul of the law.  The UK wants to be the world leader in tolerance.  The old bigotries are being consigned, forcibly, to the dustbin.

But you can't enforce tolerance and acceptance by legislation and threats of fines.

​

For one thing, having a law that forces people to say a particular thing or to pretend that they agree with something is an offence against Free Speech.  If people can't openly say what they think for fear of losing their jobs (e.g. Billy Vunipola), how do you know what they are thinking?  I expect you can think of a number of people, notably politicians, who have got into trouble for an unguarded remark that has been jumped on because it could be construed as racist, or homophobic, or anti-semitic.  Teachers are being pressured to 'support' gay marriage in case their dissenting voice 'confuses the children'.  Church schools and independent schools, in particular, are being closely monitored in case they are teaching any of the Oldthink.  I believe in the supremacy of Free Speech, and no law, however well-meaning, should be allowed to get in the way of this.

​

Secondly, equality (specifically, same treatment) taken to extremes leads to contradictions in other areas.  Take religious groups, for example.  I do not know of any worthwhile religious group that discriminates on race, but most put a value on age, many specify different (not necessarily unequal) treatment of men and women, all look down on other religious groups (atheists are a religious group, and the most notorious for considering themselves superior to other religious groups), and most have a problem with unorthodox sexual orientation.  If you say to a religious group "you're not allowed to say this" then you are diminishing the value of the religious group, i.e. being discriminatory.  As another example, what about transgender people taking part in women's sport?  If a woman took testosterone at any time in her life, she would be branded a drugs cheat.  But women born male have had natural testosterone for years.  It's not clear what is the right thing to do here, but blind application of equality laws isn't the answer.  As a further example, there are some religious and cultural groups that we simply can't accept, such as those that believe in the supremacy of one race over others, or those that abuse children.  And how can you have an open debate about whether it's a good idea to allow two gay men to adopt a child?  This should be a discussion about a child's wellbeing, not about the rights of the would-be adopters.  You get people jumping on the bandwagon of 'equality' by trying to be more and more gay-friendly and waving the rainbow flag above their buildings, as though everyone is in agreement with it, because I'm sure there are knighthoods to be had for chief executives of the most overtly gay-friendly organisations.  You get nonsense like "I'm intolerant of intolerance" which is as bigoted a point of view as anything I have heard.

​

We must remember that our tolerance of differences is a natural trait, not the result of legislation.  People used Free Speech to gain acceptance of their own group, no matter how many people were offended by their view.  And they won other people over, so we have a very high level of acceptance of differences.  As a society, we consist of lots of different groups, often overlapping, often disagreeing, and yet we manage to get along.  Laws that compel us to treat another group in a certain way are going to cause resentment, not acceptance.

​

I am quite happy to tolerate and accept someone who thinks or acts differently to me.  Other people have the same right to happiness as I have.  But don't expect me to agree with their views, or pretend I agree.  I don't like the fact that the Catholic Adoption Agency was shut down because they (not unexpectedly) wouldn't allow same-sex couples to adopt.  Or the fact that some Bed-and-Breakfast houses have had to close because they would not be allowed to refuse same-sex visitors to have a double bed.  Or the legal battle that a baking company got involved in, for refusing to promote same-sex marriage (at a time when it was illegal, so they were effectively refusing to support something that was illegal).  The equality legislation has been used to put some people's rights above others, which is a contradiction in terms.

​

Nobody is offended when someone puts forward a traditional view of what they agree with and what they don't.  However, some people will say they are offended, if it suits their own agenda.  It is remarkable that groups that vociferously promote their own views, no matter how upsetting it might be to people with traditional beliefs, are the first to be 'offended' if anyone dares to disagree with them.  Nobody has the right to be unchallenged.  We are a heterogeneous society.  Get used to it.

​

Equality for all is a noble ambition but we must resist the single-minded pursuit of "equality" as if it is simple to achieve and nothing else matters because it diminishes our human rights in other ways.  If we really want to celebrate diversity, let's stop trying to make everybody the same.

 

Do you agree?  Or is this article offensive?  Tell me what you think.