Asking the people

This democracy thing, it\’s just fine until it hits the things that I believe in:

So far, it would seem, people are most interested in talking about equalities – by a very wide margin. Can we find a way to enable people to discuss how the still very young Equality Act can be helped to fly, without having to first say which wings should be clipped?

It\’s a nice way to try and limit the debate, isn\’t it? Stop people from asking whether and insist that they only discuss how? For it does seem that when askde the \”whether?\” question, most are saying \”no\”.

And that would never do, would it?

6 thoughts on “Asking the people”

  1. It’s the aghast reaction to the news that the answer might be overwhelmingly ‘No’ that amuses me.

    Why, that might mean people like her would be out of a cozy sinecure, and that will NEVER do…

  2. Fro the comments:


    Nobody wants this equality legislation apart from minorities

    These minorities include *women*, the disabled, LGBT people, people who have a relgion or a belief …

    Now, call me confused but HTF can you arrive at the conclusion that women are a minority? My trusty CIA Factbook(2010) has the male/female population balance favouring the distaff side by a whole 2%.

  3. @ bloke in spain
    A “minority” in the political meaning of the word differs from the simple arithmetical meaning. White middle-class males are a (relatively small) minority in the arithmetical sense but can never be classified as a “minority” (nor can white working-class males who are also an arithmetical minority but never think to scream about it because they are less subject to discrimination than the middle-class ones). In areas of London where non-whites form an arithmetical majority they can still claim the benefit of legislation preventing discrimination against “minorities”

  4. That the first order of business of the incoming coalition was not to destroy the foul Harman’s Equality Act is a rich demonstration of what a bunch of cunts they are. It could have been done with negligible expenditure of political capital. It was not. Meet the new boss, etc..

  5. @John77
    My thanks for your clear explanation. The light has dawned.
    By the same logic I will now park this 40 ton artic in that cycle rack.
    It has pedals – it must be a bicycle.

  6. bloke in spain:
    This is along the same line of redefining “indigenous” to exclude any indigenous people living in countries like the UK or France. One takes a common word, redefines it in a way to suit a political purpose, and then if anyone attempts to use it in the original way, accuse them of being offensive.

    So, in other words, how dare you imply that women can’t be a minority? Such appallingly offensive behaviour means that you are immediately stripped of your right to have an opinion on such matters. Who are you to think that you have a say in the development of the English language!? Shut your mouth, stop voting, and put on your sackcloth and ashes, immediately!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *