Saturday 13 March 2010

Creating more elites.

In the name of Equality, the Hideous Harman announces her new elites.

Insinuating that a woman is not as strong as a man will be "unlawful sex discrimination", under the terms of the forthcoming Equality Bill.

Even if the woman is three foot six and barely visible edge-on while the man is Geoff Capes. Insinuating (not stating, just insinuating) that there is any difference in strength between the two is illegal. 'Insinuating' that a woman is not as strong as a man includes things like helping her lift anything at all or offering to help her change a flat tyre. Sorry, girls, Hideous Harman says we boys can't play with you any more. That DIY you want done? DIY.

A code of practice explaining the legal implications of the Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, states that being a woman is "a protected characteristic".

Like someone is going to come along and take that characteristic from you. Women, watch out, you may wake one day to find your womanliness-characteristic stolen away and you'll have to shave your head and wear dungarees and get a job on a building site. Worse, you might find yourself transformed into a demented raddled harridan and have no option but to trek off to Westminster and be deputy prime monster.

A biologically fixed fact is now a protected characteristic, and offering help to a woman is illegal. It can't get worse. Can it?

"It does not matter what the service provider's intentions are or whether the service provider's less favourable treatment of the person is conscious or unconscious.
"The service provider may even think that they are doing the person a favour, or simply be unaware that they are treating the person differently because of a protected characteristic."

Yes it can. Your intention is irrelevant. If you see a woman struggling with armfuls of shopping, a baby and a pushchair and you offer to help in any way, you're nicked. 'Less favourable treatment' includes advising a woman (but not a man) to not lift something that will clearly do them an injury if they try it. Lads, we'll just have to watch it happen. Try not to laugh.

Okay, there's no way even Hideous can improve on that... or is there?

The Bill will give more scope too for the prosecution of shopkeepers and club owners who refuse to allow entry to certain types of people.

Note the wording. It is not about protecting certain groups of people. It is about giving the law more scope to prosecute people. Revenue, dear boy, revenue is all they want. So who are these special elite who cannot be refused entry anywhere? It's who you think it is, naturally, but this time they can bring a friend.

The Bill also creates a new offence of discrimination by association. The code states that if a nightclub refused entry to three Polish people and an English man, the English man could claim he has suffered racial discrimination by association.

Again, it's in the wording. There is no requirement for any application of logic or sense. If the nightclub refused entry because they were full, or because those trying to get in were utterly plastered and violent, that's no excuse if they are Harman's Heroes. They are Elite and cannot be refused because that's discrimination and discrimination is contagious. You can now claim discrimination for any reason at all as long as one member of your group is a Harmanite. Anyone obstructing you will be prosecuted.

Of course, once they're in that full club, there are now more people inside than are allowed under health and safety law so they'll be prosecuted for that instead. Watch those clubs and pubs close down, but be quick because they won't be there long.

Your chosen Harmanite need not even be present.

If a boy is refused membership of his local football club and his parents are two lesbian women, he could claim "unlawful direct discrimination by association because of sexual orientation".

Note the 'and'. It does not say 'refused membership...because his parents are two lesbian women'. He might be refused membership because he is useless at football or because he is well known for raking his studs on his opponent's faces. The club might be unaware that his parents are two lesbian women and have refused him because he's a dangerous useless thug but that's not good enough.

They cannot refuse him. He has the Harman Ace up his sleeve.

You think there are daily reports of ridiculous prosecutions already? Wait until Hideous Harman unleashes her new elites.

Anyone can claim discrimination now. Anyone can initiate a prosecution. Anyone can boost the government's fine income.

Well, not quite anyone.

I would say 'it can't possibly get worse' but this is Labour we're dealing with. They see those words as a challenge.


banned said...

Presumably it will become illegal for 'service providers' to provide seperate lavatory facilities for men and women since this might insinuate that they are somehow different?
Don't laugh, disability access legislation was intended to force such providers to make their loos wheelchair accessable but the actual result was for many to simply close them altogether (especially in petrol stations).

Leg-iron said...

It's what always happens. A disco near here closed because it was upstairs and didn't have wheelchair access. Their options were - install a lift at great expense, build a huge ramp at great expense, or shut the disco. It was a small place so there was only one option, really.

So next up are gymnasium instructors who advise their clients on weight training. If they tell a woman she can't lift a train axle like some of those Hulk clones, they'll be prosecuted for discrimination. If they don't tell her and she hurts herself, they'll be prosecuted for negligence.

Watch them resign en masse once they realise this.

The Olympics have different events for men and women, and it's going to be in London.

Hideous is going to blow a gasket when she realises that.

Anonymous said...

Now I just know that you’ve been making all these stories up. You’ve just stretched credibility a bit too far this time and nobody is going to believe you any more, so there! I mean, really, do you honestly expect us to believe that a group of intelligent, thoughtful, well-respected, sensible MP’s such as ours would even consider suggesting such a silly thing?? After all, MP’s are really very nice people with our best interests at heart, the expenses scandal was all a media fabrication, there are no campaigns against alcohol or junk food, the BNP aren’t going to get any votes at all in the next election because everybody hates them, Gordon Brown is a model boss who should be used in all management training programmes, and there’s no smoking ban. No – we’ve rumbled you now. You made it all up, didn’t you?

Pleeeeeese tell me you did, because if you didn't then this latest insult to the masses is the surest sign yet that the lunatics really, really are now running the asylum.

Frank Davis said...

It always amazes me that while they're working to prevent discrimination against all sorts of people, they're busy promoting discrimination against other, entirely new people.

No need to state who.

Leg-iron said...

Anon - I sometimes make up stories and sell them. Tales of horror and future despair.

It's getting harder. This government is way ahead of me. If Orwell tried to sell '1984' now, every publisher would label it 'documentary'. None would take it, because it describes people smoking - and indoors!

Ironic that the film version would now be banned for that very reason...

Leg-iron said...

Frank - I cover that one in the next post.

I see you have Chapter 4 up. Are you going to pitch this one to publishers? By the time you're done, there might be a hell of a market waiting for it.

john miller said...

It has long been apparent that one of the objectives of the government is to make us all guilty of something.

You know that if you tell that woman in the gym not to lift that weight you will be a criminal and if you don't tell her, you equally know what will happen if you don't and she hurts herself.

Then, as we have seen with the Keens and Uddin, if you are in the right party, you get let off.

Katabasis said...

Great post LI.

This story nearly made my head explode last night.

Amongst many other things it means I'll likely be giving up the door-work for good. Those interpretations of these proposals for nightclubs will make my job impossible.

As far as I'm concerned, if this bill goes through, is enforced by the police and upheld by the courts then it is the beginning of the end of civil society in Britain.

naturalnoble said...

Not to defend the article in principle but if women and men have the same contract at the gym it's perfectly reasonable to enforce their being allowed access to the same facilities.

Also how exactly does a boy have two lesbian parents? I'm no biologist but I'm familiar with the porn and I'm pretty sure it can't happen.

Pogo said...

Hmm... I wonder if I can insist on getting an entry for the Women's Beach Volleyball competition in the 2012 Olympics? :-)

Just the thought warms the cockles of this dirty-old-man's heart.

Leg-iron said...

naturalnoble - it's not access to the equipment that's at issue. Gym staff will be prosecuted for advising women not to attempt exercises they aren't ready for. They will not be prosecuted for giving the same advice to men.

Biologically, two women cannot have a son even if it were possible for one to impregnate the other (and it soon will be, if it's not already). Neither of them has a Y chromosome.

I guess they mean 'adopted'.

Uncle Marvo said...


I feel that the article to which you refer is beyond rational comment.

Instead, therefore, I will simply point out that the "weight" as depicted in the accompanying picture is "girly", and I could lift it with my dick.

Which she, clearly, cannot.


opinions powered by