Equality Bill & Parliamentary 'wash-up'

Harriet Harman tweeted a short time ago that: 'Equality Bill through House of Commons last night. Tories said they wouldn't implement socio-economic clauses. Tories unchanged'. This is part of our strange Parliamentary 'wash-up' game in which Bills currently before parliament end up going through a negotiation between the parties to see what can be passed now a General Election has been called. The final text doesn't seem to be on Parliament's website yet, but I'll try and post a bit more comment on it later when (I hope) the site is updated.

Tatchell on Equality Bill

Activist Peter Tatchell has criticised the Equalities Bill over the lack of equality in it's harassment protection sections. Full details can be read here. I've previously questioned the necessity of the bill but if you are going to have such a bill, at least ensure all groups are protected equally. That said, the minister responsible states she has consulted with appropriate groups. Tatchell says she hasn't. It might seem tit for tat but it's pretty important in addressing these issues and

It's a tricky one but for me, this is another example of legislation that is well intentioned but lacks roots in any queer or trans 'community'. It seems to me, the legislative progress made in the last decade has led to a greater dis-connect between those who identify as 'gay', the groups that represent them, and the legislation/politicians that respond to those groups.

What does equality mean to you?

Danny Dyer popped up on This Week last night in the context of a discussion on equality (hence the gratuitous photo). The show can be viewed again on the programme website here. On that page, the Danny Dyer item is pulled out as the main video so you don't have to sit through the whole programme to watch it. It has a really good intro video narrated by Andrew Neil at the start. His opening question to Dyer was "what does equality mean to you?" and it's a useful starting point. The Gay Times Chandler Cline blog is pointing to the possibility that the Tories might attack the equality bill. That may be true but they wold be doing so because, as with the Dyer conversation, the focus in an equality discussion usually comes back to issues of money and class rather than issues of race, sexuality and gender. This is particularly the case given that is what the government is choosing to highlight. I don't think you can suggest that a Tory front shadow cabinet with two male members openly gay and in civil partnerships and opposition to this bill does not equate to being gay. On a personal note, I think there is some good stuff in the bill, some bad stuff, and some stuff that needs amending. That I question the present structure of proposed new burdens for business on wage visibility does not make me anti-women or anti-gay any more than it does those who seek to scrutinise and question this bill.

On gender, would we not argue that Lesbian bars can be a good thing? Groups that are aimed at only gay youth useful? These are discriminatory practices and environments but surely we would say they can be a positive thing? Equality is not therefore always a good thing and we should embrace a more nuanced debate on this area. Perhaps a better term is 'fairness'.

Equality Bill Published

The Equality Bill has been published today and seems to have had a lot of media coverage, mainly focusing on the social economic equality provisions and whether this marks a return to 'old' Labour. I suspect there is an internal leadership agenda going on with Harman (pictured left)continuing her positioning as the left of centre post Brown candidate but I also think she genuinely believes in this stuff. I'm still trying to get my head round the material relating to gender and sexuality.

The Bill has been published in a new format (it's sort of beta legislation) and as someone used to navigating around legislation, I'm finding it a bit of a nightmare to flick through to what I want. That said, the incorporation of the explanatory notes should make it easier for the public and I'll probably be praising it once I get used to things. Anyway, looking at the Bill (and trying to figure out what the hell it actually means in spite of the guidance) the only thing that strikes me so far is the continued categorisation of gender as one or the other (i.e. male or female). The Bill was an opportunity to move beyond the traditional binary notions of gender, particularly given the bill seems to have given some serious thinking to the issue of transgender.

For those worried about the sexuality and gender clauses (Stonewall has stated on its Facebook page that this is 'the last piece of the jigsaw') I think their worries may be sidelined. I suspect the real Parliamentary focus is going to be on the economic clauses. It also plays into the traditional narrative of Labour seeking to equalise the outcome and Tories focusing on equalising the opportunity. Whether that's fair and accurate or not doesn't really matter - it's a simple and familiar message and I suspect the one that will dominate rather than peers getting worked up over us nasty homos again. Then again, the House of Lords does love the opportunity to use the word 'buggery' so I'm sure one or two will try and work it in somehow.