New Labour’s Equality Act embedded identity politics into our public institutions and paved the way for the ideological capture of our schools, civil service and NHS, says Conservative MP Miriam Cates in the Telegraph. It needs a complete overhaul. Here’s an excerpt.
Like all good grenades, these Blairite laws did not explode until the thrower was safely out of range. In 2010, few conservatives understood the perniciousness of a Bill that established in statute nine “protected characteristics” including race, sex, religion and gender reassignment, laying the foundations for a culture that sees people not as equal individuals but as members of competing groups.
Neither was it foreseen that the Act’s Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) would give rise to such strident critical social justice activism within our public bodies. [The Telegraph] has exposed some of the most excessive examples of this, such as hard-pressed NHS staff attending a three day diversity training course at a time of record hospital waiting lists.
It is welcome news that Government ministers wish to tackle divisive and wastelful civil service activism. But in promoting woke causes, public bodies genuinely believe they are fulfilling legal duties under the PSED, which compels public organisations to “eliminate discrimination” and “advance equality”.
It is no longer enough for public sector bosses to ensure they do not discriminate against someone because of their sex or skin colour; they must actively pursue policies to eliminate all potential inequalities, giving rise to the kinds of ridiculous re-education programmes that frequently make the news. In seeking to subvert a British understanding of fairness, these programmes actually introduce discrimination, for example gender neutral policies that discriminate against women.
I am often asked, how has this happened under a Conservative Government? It’s a fair question. But while some now argue that the incoming 2010 Cameron Government should have repealed the Equality Act, this was a political impossibility in coalition with the Lib Dems.
And by the time of Conservative’s outright victory in 2015, Blairite equalities legislation had changed our culture so effectively that anyone who questioned the new creed of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion feared becoming a pariah. Even if Cameron had wanted to push back against these ‘advances’, he would not have had a majority in Parliament to do so.
The architects of Blair’s revolution knew that politicians would not want to be seen to oppose his ‘progressive’ agenda. But if we want to end this ideological capture – and the division, waste, confusion and cultural destruction it has caused – then either this Government or a future Conservative Government must be prepared to undertake wholesale reform of our equalities and human rights legislation, including withdrawing from the ECHR. It will take time to make the case for this but we must.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If you want to get a better understanding of what this bloke is up to, listen to Unherds podcast on the Tony Blair Institute. This guy is far more menacing and influential than most people understand. A stain on democracy that needs removing asap.
look at the face, it is a reflection of the soul,
The man is a mass murderer who started a war on something he knew to be untrue for personal gain. His hands are soaked in Iraqi blood, therefore every single thing he enacted should be understood to be done only with the worst motives and be reversed where possible.
I agree that the Iraq war was started on the basis of dodgy information and Blair joined in to suck up to Bush. However blaming them for what happened after Saddam was removed from power denies the Iraqi’s agency and absolves them of blame. The US made mistakes in administering the country but no one forced sections of the population to launch a counter insurgency and internecine conflict between Sunni’s and Shia’s. They could of worked with the invaders to eventually establish a prosperous free society as the Japanese and (West) Germans did after WWII. The same applies to Afghanistan, the obvious difference is that those countries who saw sense after a brutal regime was toppled weren’t Muslim and those that refused help from the ‘infidels’ were blinded by a sense of Muslim superiority to the west and refused help, whoever imperfect it may of been.
That removing the Iraqi dictator who suppressed all of the population equally would cause the different factions to start a civil war was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain before the invasion. I can’t say anything about the situation in Japan, but Germany became so ‘free’ that it remained militarily occupied for about the next 50 years and – to this date – people can and do go to jail there for publishing poems other people really don’t like.
The obvious difference is that nobody bothered to occupy Iraq or Afghanistan in order to suppress and ‘re-educate’ the local population for half a century. That’s the same obivious difference, BTW, which also applies to the middle-east where everyone has been at war with everyone else since the moment the occupation troops where withdrawn.
Germany wasn’t militarily occupied for 50 years, NATO troops were stationed there with permission from the government and, presumably, the support of the population just as American forces remained, and are still stationed, in Japan. If these countries are militarily occupied then so is the UK and any other country with foreign bases on it’s soil, indeed it would mean Britain is occupying Estonia as British troops are stationed there as part of NATO.
Civil war might of been obvious following the removal of Saddam, just as it might of been inevitable in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, but this doesn’t absolve the local population of blame, all it says is that Muslims can’t cope with democracy and have to have an authoritarian and often brutal regime to control them. It’s a fact that those Muslim countries that are relatively democratic such as Turkey are also far more moderate than countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. This doesn’t reflect at all well on Islam.
“Muslims can’t cope with democracy and have to have an authoritarian and often brutal regime to control them.”
This statement might be true but who are we to seek to impose our fake ‘democracy’ on other countries?
As the last four years have shown us in the west our democracy and even our so-called rule of law are a complete and utter sham.
Germany wasn’t militarily occupied for 50 years, NATO troops were stationed there with permission from the government and, presumably, the support of the population just as American forces remained, and are still stationed, in Japan.
The so-called Besatzungsstatut was simply transcribed into an ordinary German law and our erstwhile enemies were relabelled as “friends and allies” despite they still formally retained ultimate control of everything until after the so-called German reunifictaion. You can call that whatever you like. In the real world, a country where there’s at least one large foreign military base about every 12½ miles is militarily occupied by foreign troops. To this date, the exception clauses in the charter of the
league of nationsUnited Nations which justify unilateral military intervention in Germany by Great Britain, the USA, Russia and France should politicians there dislike German domestic policy have obviously been retained. This may again be your idea of freedom. But to me, it looks pretty much like the amount of freedom someone might grant to his dog.“However blaming them for what happened after Saddam was removed from power denies the Iraqi’s agency and absolves them of blame.”
If we hadn’t invaded and killed Hussein none of the subsequent deaths would have occurred. In fact we had no grounds for invading as Bliar and Bush knew there were no WMD. Therfore these two criminals DO have mass murder against their names. The invasion was about oil, supply and prices – as usual.
Let’s not forget that Bliar suicided Dr David Kelly for his courage in calling out Bliar as a liar.
Pedantry incoming – you are mixing up and mis-using ‘of’ and ‘have.’
If it ‘belongs to’ it is ‘have.’
Hear, hear.
“It will take time to make the case for this but we must.”
It won’t take time if enough effort is put in. If Ms Cates adopted the Andrew Bridgen work ethic she might be surprised at what she achieves.
If anybody could advise one single thing that Bliar did that was not intended to wreck havoc and destruction on this country I would appreciate it being posted on DS.
Bliar, the most evil man ever to hold a British passport. Within a couple of years of this Next Tuesday gaining office I was telling everyone who would listen that he was dangerous and that it would take the country fifty years to recover from his evil machinations.
On the latter point I was wrong. This country will never recover from the damages Bliar inflicted and continues to inflict.
A hollowed out sham of a man, a true acolyte of Satan. Evil made flesh.
He brought in the Freedom of Information Act which has been pretty useful! It mystifies me that he did so though.
Thanks for reminding me. I believe he bitterly regrets this piece of largesse now.
Correct, said it was the MAJOR error he made.
Tells you all!
The Good Friday Agreement – quite flawed but a huge improvement on how things were at the time. Blair was only partly responsible for it, but he played an important part.
Don’t get me wrong though, I detest Blair more than any other politician with the possible exception of Justin Trudeau.
Mo Mowlam drove that – she WAS a good ‘un
Seeing and listening to Blair (and his clown-mouthed wife) talk about “Blair’s Britain” and “Time for change” set my teeth on edge. So much so, that at the first opportunity, I took early retirement in 2001, sold up and moved abroad en-famille. Sadly, not only have my fears been vindicated, but the situation has become progressively more dire due to the shambolic tribe of no-hopers that inhabit Westminster
Agreed. It’s a shame he wasn’t strangled at birth.
If he had been thousands would still be living on this planet today.
https://youtu.be/IVvtKcuXay4?si=oYG1gtuCSquwR8eY
An extremely disturbing video but more alarming is the reaction of a MET police constable.
Listen out for one of the Chinese women instructing her handler:
“Don’t shoot. Don’t shoot him.”
https://youtu.be/YxxzOoWpW1c?si=a-vnn2JYRKD0hYnC
And another one from Black Belt Barrister.
I think todays Liberal Progressives would have the Brain Surgeon emptying the wheelie bins and the binman operating on your brain. The binman after all should not be discriminated against innit?
More proof that politicians were born yesterday and have better things to do with their selves. The beneficial interests of mankind are for the birds.
‘…..by the time of Conservative’s outright victory in 2015, Blairite equalities legislation had changed our culture so effectively that anyone who questioned the new creed of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion feared becoming a pariah.’
Or just lacked a backbone, like Bunter?
The 2019 80 seat majority was the perfect opportunity to ditch ‘Blair’s Britain’
But the conservative party made it worse….
Who will vote for them now?
I accept that under the Coalition, the Not-a-Conservative-Party would not have been allowed to repeal or significantly amend the Equality Act (even IF Cameron had wanted to – which he didn’t).
But they’ve now had 8 years to do it and they haven’t. So a bit of posturing by Miriam Cates, 6 months in advance of a General Election which is going to obliterate the Parliamentary Party (the membership has already been obliterated) cuts no mustard with me.
the NaCP is part of the problem. It will never be the solution to Blair’s destruction.
It’s best to avoid mixing up unrelated stuff. Like British laws and the ECHR. You may be opposed to both. But always jumping from one to the other for no apparent reason just ensures that neither of both will ever be addressed, because nobody understands what the real problem is supposed to be. You will then have split your supporters into those who think getting rid of the equalities act should be priorized and those who think withdrawing from the ECHR should come first and the outcome will be a heated discussion about proper priorities and no action.
Could this perhaps also be the intended outcome?