Scottish Labour - Party of [IN]equality

The Labour Party operates a system of positive discrimination when deciding who to select as a prospective parliamentary candidate (PPC).  This system is designed to increase the number of women PPCs being selected by local parties and then elected to seats in Holyrood or at Westminster. 

However, the system is not without criticism and is open to abuse, as recent Holyrood and Westminster selections have demonstrated in Scotland.  Additionally, no parallel system of positive discrimination exists for PPCs who have a disability or come from a particular minority ethnic background.  

This article explores the institutional failures of the Labour Party to address the inequality experienced by PPCs and highlights the abuses that can take place, when a system of positive discrimination is not properly regulated or controlled.  

Recruitment of PPCs within the Labour Party

All PPCs are required to apply to the Party centrally first.  If the application meets the required criteria, the applicant is invited for interview.  Assuming there is no legal barrier, the majority of applicants who have met the criteria, succeeded at interview and attended a compulsory training day, receive the necessary accreditation to seek selection at a local level.  

Disability Discrimination 

Although the above system bears resemblance to any recruitment exercise for employment, all the classic hallmarks disability discrimination begin to emerge.  Throughout the process, the Party neglects to offer reasonable adjustments to facilitate the participation of applicants with a disability.  

This is an important legal requirement that applies to any job application.  Disabled people face many barriers to participation in the workforce, and likewise, disabled PPCs also face barriers to becoming PPCs.     

Even after interview, the discrimination against disabled applicants continues.  At the training events, no question was asked of applicants about reasonable adjustments.  In the author's experience, the problem of disability discrimination was made worse when the Party staff compounded the issue by setting "ground rules" which also discriminated.  

One of the ground rules for the training, to turn off all electronic devices, directly discriminated against candidates who required the use of assisted technology to participate.  This meant that disabled candidates, who required the use of technology, were forced not only to disclose their disability but also to raise their concerns in front of other non disabled candidates.  

Positive Discrimination - Women Only

The Party uses positive discrimination measurers to exclusively promote the selection of PPCs who are women.  This system is referred to as an all women shortlist.  In other cases, the Party twins two local constituencies with a guarantee that one constituency must select a female candidate and the other constituency a male or female candidate.  

This system of positive discrimination is meant to increase the number of female candidates being elected to Parliament.  However, no other political party has adopted this approach to selecting candidates and the system is open to abuse, when not carefully monitored or applied consistently.   

The abuse of the positive discrimination system is discussed below.  

Edinburgh West - Identified as a Key Seat but did not use Positive Discrimination

When the Party moved to select Cllr Cameron Day for the Edinburgh West UK parliamentary constituency, the selection committee was composed of individuals - including fellow Councillors - who had already declared their support for this candidate.  

Additionally, even though the Party had identified this as a Key seat, the Party chose not to deploy either an all women short list or a twinning arrangement to select a candidate.  

The selection timetable was also rushed through and objections concerning the arrangements were ignored.  The Party refused to accept or acknowledge any complaints.

It is important to remember that discrimination can be both direct and indirect.  The discrimination in this case was indirect, because while it did not directly exclude female PPCs from seeking selection, the selection process as a whole placed women at a particular disadvantage.     

It is common knowledge that the majority of carers, part time workers and stay at home parents are women.  The arrangements in this selection, had been set in such a way - over the school holidays - that would make it difficult, if at all possible, to successfully apply for selection, contact members, attend hustings and finally a selection meeting.  

In fact, the chair of the selection committee and one of the key proponents of the rushed timetable, was Cllr. Lesley Hinds, whom had made no secret of her support for candidature of Cllr. Day.

In this case, the Party specifically chose not to deploy an all women short list or a twinning arrangement.  If the Party wished to promote equality for women and enable greater participation, and increase the number of female MPs returned to Westminster, why did it not do so here?

Dunfermline by-election - an Open Selection Turns into an All Women Shortlist

The Party announced the selection of candidates for the Dunfermline by-election.  At this stage, the Party invited applications from all PPCs whom had been approved.  This was to be an open selection.  

However, during the course of this selection, the Party switched from an open selection to a closed, all women short list selection procedure.  This meant that the two male candidates were purposely removed from the selection procedure.  

The Party claimed, that they wished to emphasise the issue of "domestic abuse" and hence chose to deploy an all women short list.  

The Party here not only discriminated against the two male candidates - by bumping them from the selection process - but also belittled the experience of male victims of domestic abuse.  

The use of domestic abuse, as a reason for creating an all women shortlist, is unlawful.  

This constituted a direct act of discrimination on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, disability, gender recognition, race, religion and age.  Whether on their own or in concert, people with each of these legally protected characteristics also experience abuse, which is why an all women short list cannot be justified.

Edinburgh Northern and Leith - One Candidate for the All Women Shortlist

The Party received an announcement that the male MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith was to retire.  Accordingly, the Party began the search for a new candidate.  Following consultation with the local Party, it was decided to create an all women short list.  However, what was the Party's motivation for doing so?  

As the selection process begins, it emerged, at close of nominations, that there was only one candidate.  

That candidate, a leading proponent of the all women short list system, was Cllr. Lesley Hinds.  

Cllr Hinds and Cllr Day (the PPC for Edinburgh West) had agreed to mutually support one another, to ensure their respective nominations.  

As you recall from above, it was Cllr Hinds who lead the selection process for Edinburgh West and now, having ensured Cllr Day's selection was free to pursue Edinburgh Northern and Leith.  

In order to cement this relationship, Cllr Day began an active lobby on Cllr Hinds behalf.  For example, at a Labour fundraising event, he introduced Cllr Hinds to the assembled gathering from the floor as, "the next Labour MSP for Northern and Leith".  

This constituted a personal canvass on behalf of Cllr. Hinds.  This was not only against the Party rules, but no selection process had begun and no potential candidate was meant to solicit support, in advance of an announced selection process.   

In this case, the decision to use an all women shortlist was not about promoting women in politics.  It was not about addressing inequality either.  The system was abused to select one candidate in particular, who just happened to be a woman.  The lack of opposition at the selection meeting, speaks for itself.  

Edinburgh Local Government Selection

Prior to the European Election, the Party again decided to discriminate unlawfully.  

In this case, the local Edinburgh membership, was informed that only women members would be invited to apply to the local government list - this is an internal list from which the Party selects local government candidates.

The Party had hoped, that they would be able to nominate an all women shortlist in the event of a by-election.  

When this was pointed out as unlawful discrimination, the Party said that they would open the list to everyone at a later stage.  However, there was no reason why the list could no be opened up to everyone immediately.

The correct approach, if the Party wished to increase the prevalence of women on the list, would have been to welcome, encourage and support more women to come forward.      

Edinburgh Western Scottish Parliament Selection - Discrimination Against Minority Ethnic Candidates

In Labour's selection for Edinburgh Western, two male candidates from a minority ethnic background, one other male candidate and one white female candidate all sought selection for the twinned constituencies of Edinburgh Western and Edinburgh Pentlands.

It is important to remember that there was no suggestion of racism in this particular selection or that the Party behaved in a racist manner.  However, the problem of indirect discrimination was not addressed.  

The female candidate would automatically be selected because the two constituencies were twinned. This meant that the three male PPCs had to compete for the remaining constituency.  In this case, the successful male candidate happened to be a Party insider as an aide to the leader of Labour in Scotland.

The Labour Party's Point of View

In recent commentary, the Party has described it's selection processes as fair and transparent. Additionally, the Party also considers the use of both all women shortlists and the twinning procedure as a progressive measure.

The author agrees that it is a progressive to seek increased representation and participation from women in politics.  The difficulty here arises where a hierarchy of competing priorities is created, to the exclusion of others.   

The Party does not support candidates from minority ethnic backgrounds, candidates who are disabled or posses any other protected characteristic, unless they are female.  This is where the problems with both direct and indirect discrimination arise.   

The Party also advocates both a "fair and transparent" selection system, placing all candidates on an equal footing, under one set of rules.  However, the rules are, more often than not, ignored.  The selection process is neither fair nor transparent, it is open to abuse, and it discriminates both directly and indirectly.  

Selecting the Few, not the Many

In the Edinburgh Western example, the successful male candidate worked as a party insider.  The two minority ethnic candidates stood no realistic chance of being selected for this reason.  Additionally, because a twinned arrangement was put in place, the only female candidate was automatically selected.  

No positive action measures are deployed to support minority ethnic candidates.

In years gone by, Party staff, including the staff of MSPs or the Party leader, would have been barred from taking part in any selection process.  The reason for this rule, was simple - party staffers are already inside the system - they are already known, have access to the mass membership and automatically carry endorsement.  Local membership at party meetings are not going to move against that endorsement, nor would the Party permit an insider to fail.  It would be too embarrassing.

If this selection were to be considered fair, the Party should have taken a wider view, in order to eliminate any direct or indirect discrimination.  This was not done.   

Summary 

Contrary, to the Party's stated position of equality, fairness and transparency, the Party does discriminate and does not operate fair procedures.

The Party does not fulfil its legal obligations to eliminate both direct an indirect discrimination.   

The non-discrimination provisions of the Equality Act are abused by the Party and decisions are made not to emancipate female PPCs but to promote certain candidates who just happen to be women.  

There is no support for disabled or minority ethnic candidates who also face significant barriers to participation, and candidates who are either disabled or represent a minority ethnic community are routinely discriminated against.  

The Party machine lacks sufficient understanding of it's legal obligations - and refuses offers of help - to improve its practices.  

While it is a legitimate aim to increase the number of female politicians in both Holyrood and Westminster, the single minded, positive discrimination approaches deployed by Labour are open to abuse.  

If the current status quo is not altered and core behaviour changed, the Public will once again decline to return a Labour Government come 2016.  

Sexual assaults against men...surely not?

Are men and women equal in the eyes of the law when it comes to sexual assault?

Is violence against women the same as violence against men?

This is a story from the past, but relevant to today concerning our attitudes of how we justify to ourselves right from wrong based on assumptions about gender.


When I was in my early 20's, I took to wearing my Kilt out and about, just on the odd time or two. On one occasion, I had stopped to tie my shoe lace or something, I cant quite recall what.

At the same time, a group of giggly girls and women passed by, I think they may have been on a Hen Night. Anyhow, two of the group approached me and tried to lift my kilt and feel me underneath.

I was, for want of a better phrase, quite shocked and had to push one of the girls off me. I also had to be quite forceful in telling the girls to "fuck off".

It was not a "bit of a laugh", at least for me.

My fault
I was wearing my Kilt. I naturally had decided to draw attention to myself. I therefore invited this kind of act...or had I?

Role reversal

Now consider this, had my gender been female, had I been wearing a nice outfit and looked good for a night out, would it have been acceptable for a group of men to come over and attempt to feel me up?

I hope all would agree that the answer is No!

So, why then, was it acceptable for a group of girls to do this to me?

Is gender relevant?

Time has moved on.

Unfortunately, our attitudes to sexual violence against both women and men have not.

The law has also changed. The Criminal Law, recognises that assaults of this type are gender neutral.

The moral of the story is...

So the next time you see a man in a kilt, or a woman wearing nice clothes, it is not an invitation to go and feel them up, to Wolf whistle or try to sexualise them in some other way.

Most importantly, if they decide to complain to a passing Police Constable, expect to get arrested.

Above all else, they didn't deserve it, because like everyone else that night, they had chosen to wear some nice clothes.

If you have been a victim of abuse and are seeking support, please use the links below to access help, advice and support.

The sites below are largely Scottish. However, if you would like to suggest other links, please get in touch.


If you are in immediate danger dial 999 for the police.


Police Scotland
http://www.scotland.police.uk/

Victim Support Scotland
http://www.victimsupportsco.org.uk/page/index.cfm

Scottish Domestic Abuse Helpline
http://www.sdah.info/

Scottish Women's Aid
http://www.scottishwomensaid.org.uk/

Abused Men in Scotland
http://www.abusedmeninscotland.org/index.html

Broken Rainbow - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Abuse Charity
http://www.brokenrainbow.org.uk/

More Women Please in the Boardroom and in Politics

In our society, women constitute just over 50% of the population.  Taking this figure into account, why are there not more women seen in politics?  Perhaps, this is the wrong question to ask - there are lots of women active in politics - just not represented in our Parliaments or in our Local Government. This then changes the question, why are there not more women in Parliament or Local Government?

Background

Many readers will be familiar with the sociological concept of patriarchy.  This is where society, in almost all aspects, is dominated or controlled by men.  This can been seen at a number of levels; men still dominate the Board Rooms of large corporations, men are heavily featured in Parliament, the Judiciary, Senior Government Roles and so on.  Women still earn on average less than men in terms of their take home pay and certain Professions, at a senior level, remain dominated by men.

Against this background, we contrast the following:

Women, on average, are performing better in education than men.  Similarly, the majority of entrants to the legal profession, at the junior level, are also women.  Women are also more likely than men to take part in, or organise campaigns at a local level for example, to stop the closure of a local school or hospital.  Women are less likely than men to take risks, for example by driving dangerously, or in making risky financial decisions.  Women also live longer than men and are generally better at taking care of their own health and wellbeing than men.

If women are more responsible, are better educated, are more than able to take part in politics, then why are there not more women in Parliament or in Local Government?

No Easy Answer

Of course, it it easy to answer this question from the point of view of discrimination, or blocking from the boardroom, perhaps even societal expectations and expected gendered roles.  However, it is actually more complex than that.

Access to Power

If we first turn to the boardroom.  This example also translates into politics.  In order to get there, you need access.  Unfortunately, it is not as simple as simply walking through the door and taking your seat at the table.  If women are not given the same access to the opportunities that men have, certainly at senior level, then women will always hit the "glass ceiling".  This is an analogy which continues to be relevant.  Women are granted access to a certain level and thereafter, have to stare through at the men sitting above them.

If the boardroom remains controlled by men, then why would men want to change that?  If the current model of working suits, why change it.

Men are not all the same

First of all, it is important to note that not all men subscribe to the concept of control or exclusion.  However, it takes a brave soul to instigate change.  Usually, a carrot and stick approach is necessary here.  For example, a change in the law.  This in itself, is not enough.  The equal pay act and the sex discrimination act all failed to achieved either board room parity or parity in pay with men.  Even to this day, women are fighting it out in employment tribunals across the UK to achieve the same rights as their male counterparts.

The powers that be, whether in the board room or in politics, inevitably still favour men.  This may not be direct discrimination against women, but usually indirect, where a policy, criteria or practice, applying both to men and women has a disproportionate effect on women.

We know that a majority of women remain the primary carers for children, for older relatives and also  work as a majority in certain work roles e.g., cleaning staff, catering, social work and teaching.  These responsibilities do not lend well to taking part in the boardroom, or seeking selection as a candidate for a political party (the precursor to seeking election as a candidate).

Indirect Discrimination in the Boardroom

If you are the primary carer for your disabled son, would you be able to drop those responsibilities at a moments notice, to enter into an extended board meeting?  The answer, in the majority of cases, is likely to be no.

In order to do that, you would need help and support.  First of all, you would need someone to share your caregiving responsibilities, board meeting would have to be arranged at family friendly times, you would need the support of your colleagues to take time off for inevitable appointments with the doctor and so on.  If you are an executive, sitting on a governing board, how likely are your colleagues to be that supportive - particularly if they are all, or by majority, men?

Indirect Discrimination in Politics

In order to get selected by a political party, you have to be seen to be active in that political party.  This means giving up personal time to go out and campaign, to deliver leaflets, attend conferences and events, meetings and so on.  If you are looking after your children, whilst your partner is at work, how easy is that going to be?

Similarly, if you are motivated enough and can find that spare time to actually get selected, what happens when you notice that Parliament sits late into the night, that there are no creche facilities, no extra allowances are provided for you and your family to employ a nanny or to permit your partner and children to re-locate to your new Parliamentary office?

The next obstacle involves persuading your colleagues that the rules should be changed.  However, bear in mind that the expenses scandal put any challenge to the current rules - to make them more family friendly - unlikely.

Solutions to this problem

1.  Identifying the institutional barriers

This seems easy to achieve.  However, as mentioned elsewhere, it is not as simple as that.  First of all, it is important to consult with women who have ambitions to join the board or enter politics.  We need to know what their experiences are, where their ambitions lay and what steps could be taken in order to help them achive their full potential.  

It is also important not just to look at women, but also look at men's experiences too.  Although, we have identified that a majority of women retain priminary responsibility as a care giver, a growing number of men, as well as women, now also perform this role.  In some cases, the responsibilities are shared between both partners in a family.  

It is also important to identify what systems currently operate in terms of recruitment - whether to elected office or the boardroom - and to perform an equality impact assesment.  This will help identify problems, for example with child care.  It will not identify all of the problems, but it will identify some.  

When you are aware of what the issues are or where the inequality in policies, practices or criteria lay, you can begine to apply some fixes.  If a particular policy sets board meetings at any time, then change it to accomodate family needs.  If you cannot take part in a selection meeting because you are looking after the children, ask for additional support from the political party to enable your participation.

2.  Take action

It is not enough to just look at the problems and say that there is an issue.  Talk is cheap.  What is important is that there is a measure of follow through.  It is not enough to say we have changed out recrutiment policy, or we now hold our meetings during the day, you have to stick with it and continue to improve and learn from the experiences generated along the way.  

There is no point encouraging women to come forward if you are not going to committ to providing the necessary support, education, training and rule changes that are necessary to facilitiate any change.  There has to be a full blown cultural change which tackles the institutionalism preventing many women coming forward.  

3.  All Women Shortlists

This is a form of direct affirmative action.  It is not without its merits and was sucessful in increasing the representation of women in both the Scottish Parliament and Westminster under the then Labour Governments.  

However, this is an extreme step.  It is a matter of debate whether in the long term a policy of all women shortlists will solve the problem.  

In the Labour Party, the decision was taken to use only all women shortlists.  However, following a decade of improved representation of women in both Parliaments, the numbers began to return to earlier levels.  Additionally, the Westminster Parliament took the retrograde step of reverting back to late night sittings of Parliament and the right to pay for your spouse to come to Parliament with you was withdrawn.  In essence, Parliament became the dominion of men once again.  Additionally, for the few women who did remain, they often had gorwn up families or came from families without children.  

If you are woman, or a man for that matter, with a family, how likely are you going to want to seek selection as a candidate if you know the working environment will not be family friendly?  This appears to the crux of the matter.  If the institution you are seeking election to is not family friendly, then what is the point of an all womens shortlist?  

Additionally, if the very party you are seeking to represent, is unwilling to move to change the rules that govern the system, or support you and your family inside the system, will you come forward to seek election?

An all womens shortlist will only work sucessfully if it allows all women - those with caring responsibilities and those without - to come forward as equals.  It will also only work where the institutional barriers have been broken to facilitiate full participation and are not tokenistic.  

At the moment, the reintroduction of an all womens shortlist system into politics or the board room would only act in the short term.  In the long term, like its precursor, it will fail.  

Moving Forward

The arguments reheresed in this article are not new and some may question the wisdom of writing about this issue.  However, it is important to remember that our democracy, whether local or national is meant to be representative.  Women constitute over 50% of the population, yet are routinely excluded from our political system.

Whether you believe in all women shortlists or not, society has to move out of an institutional mould and allow more women that coveted place at the top table. 

Edinburgh Fringe - The League of St. George

Skinheads have a certain stereotype; jeans, braces, boots and of course, racist fascism.  
Being Gay just does not fit.

Punk and skinheads may be something associated with 1976 London but Bricks and Mortar Theatre's League of Saint George actually bears more than a striking resemblance to 21st Century Britain.  

There is nothing quiet about this performance and you are hit with that almost walking in the door.

Punk bellows from stage, shouting, screaming excessive overt expressions of masculine identity carefully suppressing anything vaguely feminine.  Its this caveman mentality that sets the scene for the skewed sociology that is to come.

It becomes clear that growing up in this era, in a working class estate with diminished educational achievement and little employment prospects has bred a particular mentality of looking for someone to blame.  In this case, anger vents on local Sikh shop and restaurant owners.

The clever dichotomy of character is thrust into conflict when the lead protagonist - who is also Gay and having secretly declared his love for a handsome Sikh waiter - discovers that it is his lover and his restaurant that is the next target of League.

Although the inner struggle between establishing self identify and submitting to the will of the group carries throughout, other more subtle themes are also explored.  For example, the mother figure - a traditional home maker, assuming the gendered stereotype matching her societal expectation.  The father figure - trying his hardest to be a man, suppressing every public display or affection for his son or his wife - another gendered stereotype explored.

However, there is also the unexpected.  The show demonstrates that fascism has a more acceptable public face than street thuggery portrayed in stereotype.  Its an uncle figure, a family man, middle class, monied, house and family portrait about the fireplace.

This could have been a deliberate insert - a covert inference to Nigel Farage perhaps - with the UK Independence Party (UKIP) as the more socially acceptable, middle class face, of the League today?

Modern day Britain remains full of internal struggle and the sociology of 1970s London can be recognized today.  This is why The League of St. George is so powerful.  It explores modern day struggles, gendered expectations, relationships with family, poverty, the rise of right wing politics in the subtle historic context.

This show is not about just about a Gay Skinhead struggling with his identity.  Its also not purposely described as a Gay show.  The League of Saint George has multiple, complex strands of equality and human rights discourse.  The show has to be highly commended for its educational potential from this point of view.

If you want to see a refection of today's complex, austerity clad Britain mirrored in history, then this one is for you.

The League of Saint George is on at C Venues C- NOVA.  To buy tickets, or to find out more visit the Fringe booking site by clicking here.

To find out more about the show and the Bricks and Mortar Theatre Company, visit their site by clicking here. 
    

Edinburgh Fringe - MISSING

If one person goes missing in Britain every two minutes, why do we not care?  

A simple enough message, but when combined with our societal discourses of gender, age, social and economic background to name but a few MISSING by the Engineer Theatre does not shy from pulling punches.

The performance opens in a paparazzi frenzy, a poster of Madeline McCann held aloft; almost elevated to God Like status.  This is quickly contrasted with the case of Luke, a teenage boy, who disappeared following a night out and this time not a camera in sight!  The show then shifts back into 1957, to explore the still unsolved case of Moria Anderson and jumps forward again to the mid 90s and latterly to present day.

The performance's time shifting - back and forth through each unique case - lays bear the discrepancies in Police, Media and Societal responses to such an important topic.  The Audience is invited to challenge their assumptions. 

Who is responsible for finding Missing people?  Is it the Police, Social Services, Family, Friends or the Media?  Difficult questions are asked throughout and in the case of Luke - explored through the experience of his Mum, Sister and Two Friends, we are left to consider is there an institutional hierarchy at play concerning how the Police respond or the Media get "their" story?

In another case, the Police perspective is relayed, taken from the point of view of a desk bound Officer, struggling under his case load, lacking effective resources and constantly fighting the edge of time.  Is it ever going to be realistic to find these people?

The story of MISSING is not something you would traditionally associate with the fight for equality, against discrimination or for human rights.  However, this in itself is also an assumption - a stereotype - that perhaps explains why Society has let this issue slip from the public consciousness.

MISSING shines light into that darkened, cobwebbed area of a topic hitherto unexplored.  If you are interested in equality or human rights themes or even just a story that captivates without a pin dropping on the floor - see the show.

MISSING is on at the Underbelly at 8.05 in the Cowgate.  You can buy tickets, or find out more from the Fringe Box Office by clicking here.     

To find out more about the show's company, Engineer Theatre, click here. 

  

Equality Challenges facing the "New" Police Service

Corstorphine Police Station in Edinburgh

As of 1st April 2013 a new single Scottish police force will replace 8 regional and 2 national police agencies.

The amalgamation presents a number of challenges to policing in Scotland. One of the biggest challenges comes from the legal obligations the new force will inherit as a public authority, an large employer and as a service provider under the Equality Act 2010.

This article explores what potential risks and opportunities exist for the new force from an equalities perspective.

Legal obligations

The Equality Act will apply to the new police force. 

This means that the new force will have several legal obligations that cannot be ignored.

As a public authority, the force will have to have "due regard" to the promotion of equality of opportunity, the elimination of unlawful discrimination and the fostering of good relations between individuals who share protected characteristics.

The force will also act as an employer; not just of police officers but also of a large number of civilian staff. The force must not discriminate, harass or victimise someone because of their protected characteristic.

It is also likely, that the force will be a service provider. This means, that the clients or customers of the police are entitled not to be discriminated against in accessing police services.

It is all very well talking about these issues in the abstract. However, what will it mean in practice?

Example one - Hate Crime

This is the sort of racist graffiti that should be classified as a hate crime

It has already been acknowledged, by the incumbent Chief Constable, that there may be differentials between each of the individual force areas, in relation to the recording and processing of crime information.

This is due to different IT, training and employment practices between each of the existing police forces.

How this will impact upon the recording and monitoring of hate crime remains to be seen.

The identified issue here is not one of a lack of information within the police service generally about hate crime, but rather in the administrative processes behind reporting, identifying and then tackling hate crime at a local area.

Each individual police force areas utilises its own computer systems. Likewise, each individual force currently has separate training regimes in place for training both civilian staff and police officers concerning hate crime issues - or equality related issues generally.

It is unclear whether or not a new single police force will be any better equipped to deal with hate crime than its 8 predecessor forces.

The general duty described above, requires the new force to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and to foster good relations.

If the IT and administrative structures of the new force are not up to the task of properly identifying, recording and tackling hate crime, then it is likely that this could constitute unlawful discrimination.

It is also likely, that the new force will not be able to comply with either the general duty or the scottish specific duties.

This could leave the new force open to judicial review of decisions taken if it has not had "due regard" to these important legal obligations in adopting new IT, administrative and training systems for the prevention, recording and detection of crime.

Example 2 - Employment Practice

In all likelihood, there will be some job losses as a consequence of dismantling 8 regional police forces and consolidating these into as single scottish police force.

The most likely source of job losses will be in administrative and back of house roles. because the Scottish Government has made clear that it does not want to reduce the number of front line Police.

At the moment, each individual force has identified individuals responsible for particular equality remits. For example, many local forces have community liaisons officers responsible for pro active engagement with LGBT people, minority ethnic and particular religious groups. Similarly, other administrative roles are also primarily concerned with the pro active promotion of equality with each individual force area.

It remains to be seen whether or not such arrangements will survive after April 1st.

It also remains to be seen whether or not the new force will adopt local equality training and promotion practice or if these particular functions will be centralised - one central equality officer replacing 8 regional officers.

It is also important to ensure that as a consequence of staff attrition, particular staff skill sets, such as those dealing with equality issues are not lost.

I do not know if the new police services authority, which is meant to supervise the work of the new force, has considered this point.

It is my experience, that many public bodies, when considering redundancy situations look to cover the basic legal requirements alone. It may not occur to them to also think further about the wider equalities impact of any redundancy exercise.

Example 3 - Service Provision

It will be unlawful for the new police force to discriminate in the provision of services. However, this duty goes beyond the obvious - denying access to the police services, harassing or victimising particular groups or individuals because they share a protected characteristic.

Consider the example of campaigns designed to tackle domestic abuse.

At the moment, under 8 separate authorities, each force is empowered to work with communities and other stakeholders on particular campaigns.

In Strathclyde, a poster campaign was launched to highlight the effect of rape and domestic abuse. In Lothian and Borders, similar posters are displayed at each local police station.

What is important here, is that a message gets delivered that victims of domestic abuse will be properly supported and that the police will act to prevent domestic abuse in what ever form it takes.

The majority of campaigns on domestic abuse are gendered - they specifically target men as perpetrators and women as victims. The majority of reported cases of domestic abuse follow this pattern and it appears logical that campaigns are designed around this model.

However, as our understanding of domestic abuse develops a new picture begins to emerge. In this new picture, we now see that domestic abuse can take place in same sex relationships too and that men can also be victims as well as perpetrators of domestic abuse. It is estimated that around 20% of cases reported and recorded in scotland place men in the role of victim.

The new police force cannot discriminate in the provision of services. This means that where a particular campaign is launched around an important social policy - such as tackling domestic abuse - that this campaign should not discriminate or stereotype to be more specific.

To a certain extent, this is already happening. Strathclyde made a point of highlighting that abuse can occur within a same sex relationship too as well as in mixed sex relationships in its latest poster campaign. However, there has yet to be any campaign, whether at a local or national level, addressing the issue of domestic abuse where men are portrayed in the role of victim and requiring support.

Hope for the Future

This article has sought to explore some of the equality issues and challenges that will face the new police force from April 1st.

I hope that the new force and the scottish police authority take the importance of these obligations seriously in order to build both the trust and confidence of the many diverse communities they will be empowered to serve.

Everyone needs to pee - except transgender people in Arizona apparently

With thanks to Gordon Ellis for preparing this short commentary on a story that is currently making the rounds concerning why transgender people need to go to the bathroom.

"The Independent (20 March) reports that Equality activists are outraged as Arizona considers banning transgender people from using public toilets not designated for their birth sex.

The proposal comes less than a month after the city of Phoenix passed a human rights ordinance prohibiting gender identity discrimination in public accommodations.
The prohibition of gender identity discrimination appears to be a positive step in addressing an issue which crosses the Atlantic to the UK, but the illogical proposal to ban transgender people from using public toilets, seems to totally contradict the ordinance from Phoenix.
The Republican proposer, is nailing his colours to the mast and creating an opportunity for the national debate which seems to be taking place in the USA to be aired in the legislature.
One must hope that common sense prevails, and the “Land of the Free” lives up to its name.
From a UK equality perspective, it is good that issues such as this are being aired in our media, and in a relatively supportive way.
It is however, indicative of a fair way still to go on this, and many other equality issues. With absolutely no irony at all, I read another media report, that in Pakistan, all public forms which require to be completed now have three boxes for completion, male female or transgender."

This has happened before

Sadly, this is not the first time that a story like this has hit the media.

Around two years ago, a similar issue was raised in the national media in the United Kingdom. In that case, a trans woman was accosted and complained against in a Sainsbury's supermarket for using the ladies toilets.

It was claimed that the trans woman should have used the disabled toilet.

Everyone needs to pee

First of all, everyone need to go to the bathroom.

It does not matter is you are male, female or transgender.

The difficulty is societal perception; we are obsessed with gender stereotypes, gender norms and most relevant, an automatic assumption of binary gender - male and female.

There is also an unfounded perception that because a transgender man or woman is using a gendered toilet in their acquired gender, that they are engaged in criminal, or more usually sexual, activity.

The Scottish Transgender Alliance is an organisation that campaigns for transgender equality and awareness in Scotland, elsewhere in the UK and also in Europe.  I tweeted about this story and this is what they had to say.

Equality law in Great Britain

The Equality Act requires public bodies, service providers and employers not to discriminate on grounds of gender reassignment. The protection in law extends to cover discrimination by association and perception.

In order to obtain full gender recognition in Great Britain, there is no actual requirement to undergo gender reassigned to surgery.

Many transgender people will want to live their life in their acquired gender. For some, it is a requirement, prior to approval for gender reassignment surgery.

This would not be a problem if we did not have an obsession with binary gender roles and by extension, binary gender toilets - male toilets and female toilets.

Transgender does not equate to being disabled

Transgender people are also not disabled because of their gender reassignment status.

There may be some form of disability arising from gender reassignment, for example, on grounds of mental health.

There is no reason therefore to ask someone to use an accessible toilet, or to deny the use of gendered - male or female - toilets.

Solutions

In many organisations, there are at least some, gender neutral toilets. In these circumstances, no one has a complaint.

The title of this article highlights the crux; transgender people need to pee too.

If peeing is criminal, then we will all be going to jail.

"Cut services for women, increase services for men..".

A new political party has been launched in the UK which plans to stand candidates across the United Kingdom in the next General Election.  

The political party is called Justice for Men and Boys (and the Women who love them)

On a radio debate on the BBC's Call Kaye Programme, broadcast on Monday 18 March 2013, the party's founder, Mike Buchanan, advocated, amongst other things cutting services aimed at women, because men contribute more tax revenue to the UK Exchequer than they do. 

There is merit in highlighting any form of gender inequality where it exists.

I doubt anyone would disagree on this salient point.

On the tax revenue issue, it is important to highlight that the majority of part time workers are women, that women still receive only 75% of the pay of male comparators and that women are still under represented in the boardroom.

No surprise that the majority of tax generated comes from men then, eh?

I believe that the approach taken here, and the policies being espoused by this new political party, are ultimately counter intuitive.

Men deserve more, women less

The key mantra put forward seems to be that men deserve the support more so than women.

By setting each of the sexes against one another like this, the approach, in my view, is counter intuitive for the following reasons;

• The approach taken works against the cause of campaigning for greater awareness of the inequalities which do exist between both men and women in the law, politics and social policy

• It is too simplistic because throwing money at a particular problem, may not necessarily, address that problem and fails to actually examine and address the under lying reason for the inequality in the first place.    

• By demanding resources are taken away from another group, to support your cause, there is a real risk of alienating allies and losing the argument. 

I wish to make clear from the outset that I do not subscribe to, nor support, the key political mantra of Justice for Men and Boys - I do not believe in removing support from women for the sake of it.

Health inequalities

The Following information is taken from the Men's Health Forum; which bases its information on statistics available from the Office of National Statistics.

  
It is important to note that rates of mental ill health between men and women are roughly equal.

Cause for concern

The illustrations given above are shocking.  They should, quite rightly, give any policy maker cause for concern.

However, what has caused, or continues to cause, such statistical inequality?

There is a range of sociological commentary on the subject.

Some of the reasons highlight,

• the level of risk taking behaviour in young men, 
• the rate of engagement with health care professionals by men - spotting a problem too late for instance.  
• that men lack the basic health education to look after themselves properly.    

If you look at these reasons, it is unlikely that taking money away from support services for women and diverting those resources into support services for men will make an automatic difference.

Multi faceted problems

If you set up a men only service, how can you be certain that men will use that service, if you are already aware that there is a problem of engagement?

Similarly, how do you address risk taking behaviours?  Or re-educate men to know that going to their GP regularly is important?

The Equality Act

There is an obligation on the National Health Service to promote equality of opportunity, to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to foster good relations.  This is referred to as the Public Sector Equality Duty.

This important legal obligation is made up of "general duty" described above and a series of "specific duties", designed to give teeth to the general duty.

The general duty applied across Great Britain and there are different specific duties for UK wide public authorities and for Public Authorities exclusively working in Scotland and Wales.

The NHS is also required not to discriminate as a service provider, as an educator or as an employer.

It is clear that there is a legal obligation on the NHS and any other public service provider to tackle health inequalities.

It would be interesting to see, on a health board by health board basis, what is actually being done to address men's health and the particular inequalities highlighted above.

Current work

There are a number of efforts already under way to look at these particular problems.  One such approach, is to encourage men to attend "well men" clinics, changing the culture of engagement and education by encouraging male role models, such as footballers, to take a lead.

Tackle the inequalities

It is important that the health inequalities between men and women are addressed.

However, the view of Justice for Men and Boys, involves taking a sledge hammer to an identified problem and hoping that by smashing it to pieces, it will some how make it right.

Here is what the Scottish Association for Mental Health (SAMH) had to say about suicide rates and men:

You can find out more about Twotoomany by clicking this link.