Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts

Tuesday, 18 February 2014

Statement Concerning the Scottish Courts Service


I have worked exceptionally hard over the last three years or so to promote equality within the Scottish Courts Service (SCS) as an unpaid volunteer member of their Equalities Advisory Group (EAG).


During this time, I took on many challenging subjects and in particular took a lot of time, outside of attending our regular meetings, to take forward additional work.  


I enjoyed this work and also looked forward to each of the meetings to which I contributed fully.  


Regretfully, I was told by Chair on Monday (17 February 2014) afternoon, that I was no longer welcome to be a member of the EAG.  


I am disappointed but to a certain extent, not surprised.    


It was not until I raised concerns recently about ongoing disability discrimination and transphobia, which were backed by evidence, that both Chair and the SCS management decided that I was no longer welcome.  


I tried repeatedly to raise these issues but felt that I was ignored.  


In particular, the SCS authorised the refurbishment of a court room in Dundee with scant regard to accessibility and more regard for financial expediency.  


Needless to say, I objected to this as it is not the manner in which our public services are meant to behave.  


It has subsequently been pointed out to me that as an EAG member I have no right to raise a grievance within the SCS and that the dignity at work policy does not apply to members of the EAG amongst other matters.  


In particular, it has also emerged that Chair has the right to remove members of the EAG.  


Raising a complain under the Equality Act is a protected act.  This means that a person raising a complain about disability discrimination and transphobia as I have done should not suffer any detriment for doing so.  


As a basic human right, everyone is entitled to have their dignity respected.  


Additionally, public bodies, such as the SCS, are required to apply the European Convention on Human Rights to all aspects of their work.   


Volunteer Development Scotland, together with the Scottish TUC, agreed a code of practice for organisations that work with Volunteers.  


The SCS does not subscribe to this code.  Amongst other things, the code states that:- 


Effective structures should be put in place to support and develop volunteers and the activities they undertake, and these should be fully considered and costed when services are planned and development.


 Volunteers and paid staff should be provided with opportunities to contribute to the development of volunteering policies and procedures.


 Volunteers, like paid staff, should be able to carry out their duties in safe, secure and healthy environments that are free from harassment, intimidation, bullying, violence and discrimination.


 All paid workers and volunteers should have access to appropriate training and development. 


There should be recognised machinery for the resolution of any problems between organisations and volunteers or between paid staff and volunteers. 


I was not told in advance that Chair intended to remove me from the EAG nor was I told about a secret letter that had been prepared and delivered to Chair by the SCS management. 


I was not given an opportunity to see this letter or address any of its contents. 


I was mislead as to the nature of this meeting. 


I was also accused of being "aggressive and threatening".  


My dignity was violated yesterday and I left our meeting in a distressed state.


At no stage have I ever been aggressive or threatening to anyone.  


I raised a complaint concerning the SCSs failure to address accessibility and transphobia.  I also stated that there was a problem with institutional discrimination.


I was victimised for doing so.


I was bullied by them.  


If the SCS had in place appropriate structures and machinery for addressing my concerns, I am sure that matters would not have gone this far.  Unfortunately, they do not.  


I am disappointed at the manner in which both Chair and the SCS have handled my complaints.  


I am also disappointed that it appears acceptable to unilaterally remove a member of the EAG, to write a secret letter about them and not provide any opportunity to answer its contents and then accuse someone like myself of being aggressive and threatening. 


I am now considering my position.  


A complaint has been made to the SCS about mondays meeting and the failure to address my concerns. 


We will wait and see what happens.  


I would welcome your support right now as it is a struggle to keep up the good fight on my own. 


This is even more difficult and distressing for me because I have multiple disabilities and I cannot come to terms with how this public body has behaved.


Yours for equality,


Daniel


Wednesday, 13 November 2013

Age discrimination



You may be forgiven for not realising that "age" is also one of the protected characterisics in the equality act.  What this means is that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because of their age or because they fall within a group of ages.

Age based discrimination is a little different in that it can be justified, but only in certain circumstances.  

This article examines three examples of potential age discrimination and asks you to consider whether or not there is a potential for discrimination, and if so, can the discrimination be justified.

In reading through the examples below, please keep an open mind.  Also, please bear in mind that there is a distinction between direct discrimination (overt) and indirect discrimination (where a policy, criteria or practice applies equally to everyone, but may have a disproportionate effect on some more than others).

1.  The Bank

TSB, LLOYDS and the Bank of Scotland all advertise "youth accounts".  There is nothing new about this, it has been industry practice to create specific products targeted at young people to encourage them into the financial services world.  

However, under the same heading, one of the accounts is marked up as a "student account".  Again, it is industry practice to market specific products to the students of higher and further education.  If you check the eligibility for a student account, you will find a requirement for a UCAS letter, proof of SAAS / LEA funding and so on.  Also, a requirement to be studying for at least two years full time.  

Here are the questions which arise in this example:

Is it acceptable to market a student account as one of the range of services under the heading "youth accounts"?

Are there any issues with the eligibility criteria set for the student account?

2.  University Tutition Fee Discount Schemes

Edinburgh Napier University, the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow all offer 10% discount on postgraduate tuition fees provided the student is a graduate of that institution.  Some Universities also attach additional conditions, for example, requiring the student to have achived a certain grade at undergraduate level, to only study full time or not to be embarking on a "professional course of study". 

Are there any issues with the operation of such a "loyalty" scheme?

3.  Freshers' Week

In the first week of a University or College semester, the institution or the local student body, organises a series of events for new students.  In many cases, the events will be open to every new student.  There will also be social events organised, these may include famous pub crawls, nights out and cultural excursions.  Parallel to these events, the Institution will also organise a in induction programme designed to introduce new students to the more functional side of academic life.  

What issues, if any, arise from the operation of freshers weeks or induction events?

Please leave your comments in the box below.

I have designed this exercise to get my readers engaged.  

I will post my responses, in answer to the comments given.  


Thursday, 29 August 2013

Supporting Disabled Students


The end of August marks the end of school holidays, the beginning of many college courses and the start of the new university year.  

However, if you are a student with a Disability, some planning many have to go into the start of your academic year in order to facilitate the support you need to stay on course. 

First of all, it is important to remember that you are just as entitled to attend school, college or university as everyone else.

It is also important to always believe in yourself, you can do it.

Dyslexia as an Example

At times, the society we live in may make education difficult.

For example, if you are dyslexic and have difficulty reading, remembering and writing - the three "Rs" as far as Dyslexia is concerned - the need to hand in written work, read through pages of black and white text and then to sit a written exam on the subject, educational achievement may seem like a challenge.  However, it need not be.

In this case, you may be entitled to additional time with your course work, to additional time with written exams, to use a scribe, to additional toilet breaks if you need a breather, the use of a computer and assistive technology.

This list of support described above is by no means prescriptive nor is it exhaustive.

What the list reflects are the potential "reasonable adjustments" that can be put in place for you to help you stay on course.

Personal approach is necessary

It is also important to remember that no one person with a disability - whether it is dyslexia, a mental health condition, a physical support need or something else - is the same.  We are all unique, and with that, each of us may have different support needs.

Unfortunately, many school administrators like to group disabled students, misunderstanding that the support needs for one person may not be the same as those you require.  This can lead to some difficulty in determining what is "reasonable" in terms of the adjustments that any institution may have to make.

The Medical Model of Disability

For example, a number of years ago the issue of student mental health - as a disability - was hotly contested within the education sector.  There was, and still is, to some extent, a lack of understanding concerning mental ill health.

Many educationalists preferred to focus on the medical model; always seeking a diagnosis and determining from that whether or not mental health fell within the scope of "disability" in order to make any reasonable adjustments.

The over reliance on the medical model, is something that many more experience disabled activists will be familiar with.  For the sake of brevity, the medicalisation of a disabled person removes the personal, it dehumanises and it predominately sees the disabled person as a problem.

The Social Model of Disability 

This approach is contrasted with a social model of disability.  Under this model, it is society, with its focus on maintaining utility for the majority, that is actually the problem.

The majority of people are able bodied, do not use wheelchairs and  do not have support workers to enable day to day living.  This is why, amongst other things, buildings, services, educational assessments and the way our society operates are all designed to accommodate the utility for the majority.

The social model articulates that society is actually the disabling factor.  Unlike the medical model, the societal understanding of accommodation is the problem.  Importantly, the problem is not the disabled person themselves.

Mental Health as an Example

Returning to the example of mental health, the medical model almost entirely ignores the problems created by society in providing appropriate support - and reasonable adjustments - for people with mental ill health.

Additionally, the medical model also seeks to categorise - through diagnosis - the mental health problem in hand.  This means that people with depression, anxiety, bi-polar disorder or some other category are often grouped together rather than being looked at as individuals with personal support needs.

What is essential to providing support to any disabled person is that you have an understanding of the support needs for that person; not as a homogenised group of persons with a particular category code or diagnosis.

A student with a mental health problem may experience problems with motivation, concentration, memory and also experience fatigue and general ill health.  In order to support someone in this context, a support worker may be necessary, additional time for assessments allowed, no penalties for handing in work late or absence.  Again, this is not an exhaustive list.  

The Law

The legal position concerning reasonable adjustments is found in the Equality Act 2010.

The Equality Act is lengthy and for this reason, a summary of what it says is provided here; 

  1. Disabled students are protected from discrimination - discrimination can either be direct or indirect.
  2. Protection also extends to acts of harassment or victimisation for a reason connected with the disability (in some circumstances, the criminal law also provides protection).   
  3. You do not need to be disabled yourself to benefit from protection; you are also protected from discrimination by association or a reason connected with the disability.   
Education providers, whether schools, colleges or universities must make reasonable adjustments to provide support for disabled students.  There is no prescribed list of what is reasonable and what is not, as this is always context and person specific.

In some cases, an education provider may decline to make a reasonable adjustment, if it is felt that the request is not reasonable.

If a dispute arises concerning a School, there are specific tribunals established to resolve a dispute.  Unfortunately, the tribunals do not have jurisdiction over colleges and universities.  In these cases, a dispute would have to be resolved through the local crown or sheriff court.

Getting Support

It is important to make contact with your education provider as soon as possible. 

The institution should then refer you to an appropriate service to seek support and discuss reasonable adjustments.  In many colleges and universities there is a dedicated student support service with disability advisers who can make recommendations.

It is important to be as open as possible about what support you may require.

The discussion you have is a two way process.  You do not simply have to accept what someone tells you, if you want something else or do not feel that it is appropriate.   

You may also be asked to provide evidence.  This is a reasonable request, but it should not be made too onerous.  For example, in the case of dyslexia a report summary from a Psychologist should suffice.  In the case of a mental health issue, a letter from a G.P.   

Please note, if you are told that the recommendations do not have to be accepted by the course provider, then this could constitute an unlawful act of discrimination, harassment or victimisation.  

The law says that reasonable adjustments must be made.  The law also prohibits discrimination.  Education providers are not given a choice about the law; it is there to protect you.

In Higher and Further Education, the Government provides a scheme called the Disabled Students Allowance (DSA).  The DSA provides funding for you to buy equipment, software and to access non medical personal help.  In order to access DSA funding, your education provider may have to refer you to a specialist assessment centre.

Once you settle into your academic year, you should be able to enjoy your course and fingers crossed, that with a little planning in advance, you get the support you need.     

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has prepared various guidance notes concerning Equality in the Education sector.  For more information, visit: 
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-equality-act-guidance/equality-act-guidance-downloads/
         
Caveat:  This article is not legal advice. 

Thursday, 18 July 2013

Fish Fingers and Law

On Sunday 14th July a Highland Restaurant refused to sell a portion of Fish Fingers to a man because they were on the Children's menu.

The Man has Down's Syndrome and according to his family, can only eat small portions.  Fish Fingers are his meal of choice.

The Family have claimed that they were kept waiting for an unacceptable length of time and that the refusal to sell the Child's portion amounted to discrimination.  

The Restaurant have denied discriminating against the man and have stated publicly that they apologise and wish to make amens.  They have also launched a formal investigation into the matter and a representative of the family is currently in touch with the Regional Manager for the Hotel, of which the Restaurant forms part.  

Although, this case has been more widely publicised for the 70 thousand or so followers of the Facebook campaign which followed the incident, the facts here highlight the potential Equality and Discrimination law challenges within the Hospitality Sector.  

This article explores the some of the legal and practical issues faced in hospitality sector when presented with a potential case of discrimination.  

Legal Issues

It is important to remember that the Equality Act applies to the hospitality sector.  

Employment

The sector is an employer and a provider of goods, facilities and services.  The Equality Act states that it is unlawful to discriminate on grounds of disability and that discrimination can be both direct and indirect.  It is also unlawful and in some cases criminal, to victimise or harass someone because of their disability.  In order to avoid discrimination, there is an obligation as an employer to make "reasonable adjustments" for any disabled members of staff.

Reasonable adjustments for staff may include changes to a working pattern or the provision of auxiliary aids to enable a disabled employee to stay in work.  There is no prescribed list of reasonable adjustments because making the adjustments and understanding the support needs of disabled employees is very person specific.  

Providing Goods, Facilities and Services

There is also an anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people as visitors, guests, clients or customers.  

This may mean ensuring that a building is fully accessible (wide enough corridors for wheel chair uses, the use of ramps and suitably sized lifts, appropriately located accessible toilets etc.). It may also mean that a conference venue is equipped with a hearing loop and suitable audio visual technology to allow disabled delegates to fully participate; not to mention that the venue itself is accessible (accessible does not mean requiring someone in a wheel chair to go around the back and use the servants entrance!) This is by no means an exhaustive list and should not be interpreted as such.  

The crux is that it is for providers of goods, facilities and services to anticipate the use of those services by disabled people, and to have make suitable adjustments in advance to allow that to happen.  

"DDA Compliant" does not exist

It is also important to keep in mind that there is no legal concept known as "DDA compliant" - and there never has.  This unfortunate use of phrase has been used by many to advertise that their services comply fully with the (former) Disability Discrimination Act.  

First of all, there never was a legal test of compliance within the Disability Discrimination Act.  It was and remains impossible to say that you are "DDA Compliant".  

The duty to make reasonable adjustments, whether for employees or as a provider of goods, facilities and services was an evolving one, continuing (it did not stop) and subjective (be it person, building or service specific).

There was no tick box list of what was reasonable and what was not.  There was no exhaustive list of what was a disability and what was not.  

Secondly, the Disability Discrimination Act has now been replaced by the Equality Act.  The duties under the former legislation continue in the new legislation.  

If something is described as "DDA Compliant" is usually means that it is not.  It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the relevant legislation and the legal obligations contained therein.  

Staff Training

Regular staff training is also important as part of the anticipatory duty.  For example, understanding that disabled people are not a homogeneous group, the term "accessible" does not just incorporate wheelchair users, that assistance dogs are not just for blind or partially sighted people and that some disabilities may in fact be hidden and not obviously apparent are all important to keep in mind.  For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an exhaustive list of items to be included in a training exercise.  

Taking this background into account, where does it leave the present case?  Is it discriminatory to refuse to sell a children's portion of fish fingers to a man with Down's Syndrome?

First all all, it is important to be clear that these cases of potential discrimination are rarely clear cut.  The approach taken below will be multi-faceted; examining arguments presented by both parties.  

The Duty not to Discriminate 

The Length of Time the Family had to Wait

One version of events suggests that from the outset, the group of three customers were kept waiting because one of their party was a man with Down's Syndrome.  

In this case, it is implied that the waiting time amounted to less favourable treatment.  

This would mean that the group were treated less favourably than the restaurant would treat another group of three people who did not have a man with Down's Syndrome within their party. 

If this was the case, then this would amount to unlawful discrimination.  

However, it is important to explore other potential reasons for the wait.  For example;

(a)  Was the restaurant short staffed?  

(b)  Did the staff know that group of customers were waiting to be seated and ultimately served?  

(c)  Could there have been a breakdown in communication between the front of house and the waiting staff?  

(d)  In all the circumstances, was the waiting time reasonable?  

Additionally, poor customer service, in itself, does not necessarily amount to unlawful discrimination.  
The Hotel management have stated that the party were seated and told that there would be approximately a 20 minute waiting time for food (15 minutes to cook and 5 minutes lay over in case of a problem).  

The Family do not dispute that they were told about the waiting time, but have argued this was because one of their group had Down's Syndrome and the Restaurant did not want to serve them.  

It is unlikely, that the waiting time on its own, would have amounted to discrimination.  

In order to be discriminatory, the group would have had to have been treated less favourably than others in the same circumstances.  A 20 minute food service window is not unreasonable if food is cooked from fresh and this has been brought to the attention of all customers.  

The Choice of Menu - Adult versus Child

The Children's menu is printed on the same card as the Adult menu.  It stated that Children eat for free on a Sunday and the restaurant's tills were programmed accordingly.  Children is defined by the restaurant as under 12s.  

The Family asked to order from the Children's menu because it had (1) smaller portions and (2) fish fingers - a food which the man with Down's Syndrome could eat without issue.  There was no fish finger option on the Adult menu.  

The Hotel claims that the server explained that because of the difficulty with the programming of the till, they could not offer a Children's portion of fish fingers but would ask the Chef to prepare a suitable alternative (Goujons) in a smaller portion.  

The duty to anticipate

It is reasonable to anticipate that some would be diners may have specific dietary requirements; some of which would be in consequence of a disability.  

In this sense, any restaurant would have to anticipate the possibility of offering non-menu item alternatives.  This may include, for example, offering something from a different menu, if available, or arranging for limited bespoke cooking depending on the circumstances of the case.  

In the circumstances, what is reasonable?

In determining whether or not a particular course of action is reasonable, it is important to consider a range of factors such as the proportionaility of making the adjustment, the availability of any alternatives, the practical difficulties posed amongst other factors.  

In this example, the Hotel did offer an alternative.  However, this has to be contrasted against whether or not making the requested adjustment (providing fish fingers from the Children's menu) would have posed any particular difficulty for them.  

The Children's menu was available in this case, notwithstanding potential difficulties with the Till system.  There does not seem to be any reason there for why the Hotel could not have offered Fishfingers as requested.

Equal treatment may still discriminate

The Hotel's point of view here is that the guest presented to them as an adult.  The staff in the Hotel therefore treated the man as an adult and explained that the Children's menu was reserved for the Under 12s.  

The Hotel is adament that no discrimination took place; they treated this guest in the same manner as any other adult guest.  

In these circumstances, a well intentioned stance of equal treatment for everyone, may have amounted to indirect discrimination.  This is where a provision, criteria or practice which applies equally to everyone places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non disabled person.  

The potentially discriminatory provision here is that the Children's menu is only available to under 12s; notwithstanding that some disabled would be diners may seek to order from that menu.

The Hotel did not make any adjustment to this provision and potentially, because the specific dietry requirment of this guest arose in consequence of his disability, could be said to have discriminated (even if that was not the intention).  

The Importance of Staff Training

As highlighted above, poor customer service in itself does not amount to discrimination.  However, ignorance of the law and in this case the multi-faceted obligations of the Equality Act 2010 is not an excuse either.  

This view is echoed by the Chief Executive of the Institute of Hospitality Peter Ducker:


“Good induction practices and staff training are essential to ensure your staff are diversity-aware.  Research shows that many of us are afraid of causing offence or not knowing what to do when interacting with a disabled person.
You might think that none of your guests are disabled so there is no real need for you to tailor your service to meet their needs.  But you would be overlooking the fact that, according to the 2011 UK census, one in six people has an ‘activity limiting’ health problem or disability.  In fact, many of your existing customers are likely to be in this group but you may not realise it.  Impairments such as arthritis, poor eyesight, back problems and autism are invisible and most people will not mention them when booking a room with you.
There is a common misperception that to become fully accessible requires investing huge amounts of money in widening doors and building ramps, but less than 10% of disabled people are wheelchair users.  If we think of accessibility in its broadest sense, some small changes can lead to your business being more welcoming to a wider range of people.
VisitEngland research shows that disabled people and their travelling companions spend over £2bn a year, accounting for 11% of all domestic overnight stays in the UK.   Disabled people stay longer on average (3.6 nights) than non-disabled people (three nights) and are more likely to travel with carers, relatives or friends and stay during quieter times.”

Useful Resources

For more information on the Equality Act and the legal obligations of the providers of goods, facilities and services, please visit the Equality and Human Rights Commission website: www.equalityhumanrights.com

The Hospitality Institute has also prepared three short training videos about valuing diversity in the sector.  These can be viewed online here: http://www.youtube.com/VisitEnglandBiz



  

   





    

Thursday, 4 July 2013

Employment Tribunal Fees - Challenged in Court




In the Court of Session today (Thursday 4 July 2013) , Carol Fox of Fox and Partners, challenged the legality of the UK Government's plans to introduce claimant fees for the Employment Tribunal system. 

The proposed introduction of Employment Tribunal Fees was first covered here in March this year. 
 
Carol Fox is Petitioning the Court for interdict (an order which would stop the fees being introduced).   
 
Today's hearing, at first instance, was heard before Lord Bannatyne. 

This action was raised in the Scottish Courts and is running parallel to a similar action brought in the High Court (England and Wales) by the trade union UNISON. 

It is important to remember that although similar in nature, both challenges are legally separate. 

During the course of the hearing, Lord Bannatyne acknowledged the importance of the questions being asked of the Court and also that time was of the essence because the Regulations (concerning the fees) were to have effect from 29 July. 

The Petitioner

Counsel for the Petitioner suggested that there may be other means by which the suggested remedy could be sought, taking into account the time factor and also the potential for lengthy litigation and appeals. 

One proposed option was for the UK Government to provide an undertaking to the Court that no fees would be introduced pending the outcome of any litigation.  An undertaking would insulate Employment Tribunal litigants from July 29 onwards.  Fees would not have to be paid.   

If no undertaking was provided, Counsel would move for either suspension or interdict as craved.   

The Respondent

Counsel for the Advocate General of Scotland - representing the UK Government - had not received full instructions, because of short notice.  Counsel acknowledged that time was a crucial factor and was willing to accommodate the Court and the Petitioner in so far as urgency.

However, Counsel could not offer a view having no instructions concerning any undertaking; but did highlight that a challenge would be brought to the Petitioner's standing (which means entitlement) to bring proceedings.

Both parties acknowledged a lack of certainty around the parallel litigation in the High Court.

Lord Bannatyne made no interim order today, instead arranged for a full hearing on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. 

Equality and Human Rights Commission

A copy of the Petition was served on the EHRC as an interested party. 

The EHRC released this statement following today's hearing:

"When Employment Tribunals were established their aim was to be “easily accessible, informal, speedy and inexpensive.” We are concerned that these fees could deter people who have been discriminated against from making claims.

Our own experience with our helpline and legal casework clearly suggests that people are deterred from pursuing discrimination claims because of the costs involved.

 The equality impact assessment carried out by the Ministry of Justice also states that their proposal "ensures that no one is denied access to justice through the introduction of a fee." But at the same time they accept that people with some protected characteristics would be disproportionately affected by fees, regardless of the existence of limited financial support for some.

It’s not a complicated premise. Access to justice should be available to everyone, and not just those who can afford it. When the justice sought relates to inequality and discrimination, fair access to the justice system becomes even more important."
The Office of the Advocate General was contacted for a statement and declined to comment. 

The case will continue on Tuesday 9th July at 10am in Edinburgh. 

 

 

Sunday, 5 May 2013

Are you Mad?



The word "Mad" has a variety of connotations.  

Yet, in today's society we use this word regularly as a pejorative term to describe people who be find difficult to work with, who may see the world in a different way or with whom you may have had political or other disagreements. 

Our understanding of society and human interaction has improved dramatically since the 19th century, yet some of us still behave as if nothing has changed. 

This article explores the 21st century of the word "mad" and its use in the vernacular; to discriminate and stigmatise despite increased awareness and legal protection.

Why would you call someone mad?

It is easy to use the word in its ordinary meaning; perhaps to describe an action which you would consider foolish.

It is also easy to use the term to describe someone who you find unpleasant or perhaps disagree with.

The key question is why do you consider the action to be foolish, why do you find the person unpleasant or why do you disagree with them?

In any event, the use of the word mad to describe someone is inappropriate.




Mental health, Autism, Learning disability

In recent time, Mad, was used to describe someone who may have had a mental health condition, who was autistic or had a particular learning disability.

However, we now recognise mental ill health for what it is, notwithstanding the discrimination that still persists.  For example, someone who is bi-polar, will experience a wide range of mood.  At times, behaviour will seem energised, enthused or even manic.  This lasts but a short time, there after, the same person may appear withdrawn, closed in on themselves and disinterested or not engaged.   

We also have a better understanding of autism.  Not everyone experiences the world in the same way and communication is a skill the majority of society takes for granted, often ignoring that for some people, communication, even in its basic form, can be extremely challenging or even scary.     

Similarly, if someone is dyslexic, they may come across as articulate, intelligent and knowledgeable.  However, reading, writing and remembering all may pose particular challenges.  In a highly focused written world, it would be easy to write someone off as just being lazy or not capable.   




See me

If you find someone difficult to get along with, ask yourself - why? 

Is it because you have nothing in common or do not share their political beliefs?

Is it because you find their decisions or actions foolish?

Is it because you find it difficult to understand what they say alot of the time or do not understand why they look dire one minute and full of beans the next?

Is it because you simply can not be bothered, find the person irritable or irrational, they speak their mind, including voicing criticisms?

Do you lack patience?

Have you considered seeing the world through their eyes?

Do you jump to conclusions or make certain assumptions about the person's suitability for particular roles or what they are capable of?

Have you discussed the person with colleagues, friends, co-workers and ignored the person?  (perhaps you even encouraged others, whether directly or indirectly, to isolate the person?)

Did you describe the person as Mad, what about crazy, hostile or stupid?
  
Legal Aspects

The Equality Act protects individuals who share protected characteristics from discrimination - which can be both direct and indirect.  Individuals are also protected from harassment and victimisation.

It is likely that mental health, autism and learning disability fall within the legal definition of disability.  In order to benefit from protection, you do not have to be disabled personally.  You are also protected from discrimination based on perception of disability and or association with someone who is disabled.

The civil law also affords protection.  There is statutory protection from harassment in the form of the protection from harassment act and also at common law - where it is a civil wrong (tort/delict) to cause an injury or loss to your neighbour.

It is also important to keep in mind that disabled people are protected from hate crime.

Actions have consequences

It is easy to avoid or seek to exclude the individual or individuals whom you consider to be problematic.

It is also easy to encourage others to marginalise or avoid. 

However, what are the practical consequences? 

In some circumstances, a person may be denied opportunities for promotion or to advance themselves because of the negative attitudes and rumours spread by others.

Likewise, a person may not feel comfortable coming forward to engage in future if they feel that they are going to be marginalised or exposed to exclusion.

In some extreme cases, this can lead to bullying, harassment and victimisation.

In many employment circumstances, it is easy for illfounded complaints to add up, resulting in making it difficult to remain in employment because of negative working relationships.

It is easy to get rid of the difficulty, by removing the person, rather than tackling the prejudice behind the problem.

This is discrimination and is why many people, who have mental ill health, who are autistic or have a learning disability are excluded from work.

This is also one of the reasons why so many people with mental health problems or who have autism are found in the criminal justice system or are excluded from education.   

Dont judge - support and encourage

I would have hoped that attitudes would have improved in the 21st century. 

There has been progress, but probably too little, too late. 

It is important that if you find yourself working alongside a colleague who sees things differently, or who needs some support, that you show support and challenge any of the ill-will that the tyrany of the majority will send his or her way.

We are all unique individuals and there is no 'normal'.

Challenge the stigma.  

Please don't judge others, lest you be judged yourself.  




   




  
       

   

Friday, 29 March 2013

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.



Sunday, 17 March 2013

"Getting AIDS comes from unhealthy relationships"


On BBC The Big Questions, aired on Sunday 17 March 2013, a religious audience member stated live on BBC TV that "getting AIDS comes from unhealthy relationships".  He went on to reference Gay men and Lesbians.  

The Presenter of the the programme did not robustly challenge him concerning this contribution.  

It can be difficult on a live television discussion programme to ensure that audience participants in the show avoid making derogatory  offensive or prejudicial remarks.

However, the BBC must set some standards for its television presenters and audience participants, even if the show is the topic of Christianity and Modernity.

My primary objection to this particular contribution, is that it was allowed to go unchallenged.

The Presenter moved quickly onto the next contribution and encouraged the audience member to elaborate on his contribution.

Because of the show's religious element, the BBC permitted this particular contribution to be broadcast and also to go unchallenged.

The BBC knew, or ought to have known, that this contribution was both stigmatising and inaccurate.

Two resounding questions for the BBC

Why is it that linking someone's sexual orientation to the spread of AIDS makes acceptable Sunday morning television?

Why is sexual orientation always viewed as a moral issue, inevitably linked to sex and then promiscuity?

History repeating itself?

The comment referencing AIDS to being Gay reminded me of the ill-informed, offensive and "hate" campaigns that featured throughout the 1980s.

At this time, a series of national adverts were being run by the UK Government to make the public aware of HIV / AIDS.  However, the reactionary media, were more focused on linking AIDS to being Gay and being Gay to spreading disease - this is where AIDS got its first name - The Gay Plague.

Call to be vigilant

Has nothing changed?  Or is this just a one off example, of an ill-conceived, off the cuff comment, made to promote the virtues of a religious celibate life?

I would like to think that this is the case.

However, it does go to show that we must all be vigilant.  Public opinion and with it, government and legislative policy can be easily swayed by both positive and negative media portrayal.


"Stories in the media can have a positive effect in increasing people's awareness of HIV and what it means to live with HIV. However media reports about HIV are often stigmatising or inaccurate. Many stories contribute to a culture of blame about HIV transmission, focusing on so-called irresponsible sexual activity, use judgemental language and stereotype people living with HIV."

People who are either HIV positive or who have AIDS already face discrimination and stigma.

We must do all that we can to address this problem and to challenge those, particularly in the media, who would like to see us revisit recent history.




 The episode of The Big Questions is available on iPlayer by clicking here.  It is available for the next 7 days from today.  The Contribution in question was made approximately 28 minutes into the programme.  

I have made a complaint to the BBC.

If you wish to complain too, you can do so by following this link:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/