UK supreme court rules that discrimination can ease social disadvantage

#1
C C Offline
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020...-only-rule

INTRO: A woman seeking housing in east London who alleged racial discrimination when a housing charity reserved its properties for Orthodox Jewish people has lost her case at the supreme court. In a ruling that cements positive discrimination as a legitimate way to tackle social disadvantage, the UK’s highest court of appeal found in favour of the Agudas Israel housing association in Stamford Hill after it listed its homes for rent with the caveat of “consideration only to the Orthodox Jewish community”.

A lawyer for the non-Jewish woman, who has not been named, argued that the policy “smacked of ‘no blacks, no dogs, no Irish’,” a reference to signs pinned up by some landlords decades ago. But the high court, the court of appeal and now the supreme court have all ruled it was legal because it overcame the social and economic disadvantage faced by the community of Haredi Jews in the area. Some do not speak English and face antisemitism, partly because of their traditional dress.

The charity’s 470 homes were listed by the London borough of Hackney as part of the wider social housing supply, which is under pressure in that part of the capital. Six of them came up during a period when the complainant, a mother of four, was at the top of the waiting list, but she was offered none. She alleged that the council and housing charity were letting Orthodox Jewish families “jump the queue”.

The housing association’s charitable objectives state it is “primarily for the benefit of the Orthodox Jewish community”. The application form for housing asks if applicants are “strictly observant of shabbath and kashrut [dietary laws]”, which synagogue and schools they use and whether they are ethnically “Orthodox Jewish Ashkenazi” or “Orthodox Jewish Sephardic”.

Handing down judgment, Lord Sales said the lower courts were right that the charity’s use of positive discrimination was proportionate and lawful, under the Equality Act 2010 [below], in order to correct the disadvantage faced by the community. He said the issue was not one of racism as the housing charity discriminated on the grounds of religious observance... (MORE)
- - - - -

(UK) Equality Act guidance for charities
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...-charities

[...] 4.4 How is this different from what went before? The key difference is that the new Act explicitly requires charities to justify any restriction, based on a protected characteristic, on who can benefit from the charity. The restriction must be justified using either of the two tests outlined above, or another exception permitted by the Act.
Reply
#2
Zinjanthropos Offline
I don't think discrimination will ever disappear entirely. Wait , probably ends when I die. But I guess i might not be of the chosen race should there be a god in my afterlife who's already declared Irish/Ukrainian are somewhere down the pecking order..

Seems like there's a whole generation out there protesting. Reminds me of the Hippie Days, protesting Viet Nam war (US soldiers treated like crap) and material wealth.. Anyways .... where'd the Hippies go? All of a sudden they were gone. I figured they went and got some of the material wealth they railed against and now can be seen giving veterans and military standing O's whenever they show up.

Like the Hippies this protesting generation will disappear. They'll find a job, get married, raise kids and generally just grow up. Gradually things either improve or get worse. This is nothing new.

This woman claiming discrimination all the way to the Supreme Court is like a student trying to stop a tank in Tiananmen Square by standing in front of it. Tested the system and lost.
Reply
#3
Syne Offline
If I decide to give something away, me setting the criteria for who gets it is not discrimination. It's just my preference with my stuff. Same goes for any charity. It's called freedom and property rights. Positive discrimination is when one group is broadly disadvantaged in order to ostensibly "help" another, like affirmative action in jobs and education. One charity designed to help a specific group, like charities that provide grants for black education, are targeted help to that group. They are not disadvantaging other groups because, without said purpose to help a specific group, such charities simply would not exist to help anyone at all.
Reply
#4
Ben the Donkey Offline
(Oct 16, 2020 08:19 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: I don't think discrimination will ever disappear entirely. Wait , probably ends when I die. But I guess i might not be of the chosen race should there be a god in my afterlife who's already declared Irish/Ukrainian are somewhere down the pecking order..

Seems like there's a whole generation out there protesting. Reminds me of the Hippie Days, protesting Viet Nam war (US soldiers treated like crap) and material wealth.. Anyways .... where'd the Hippies go? All of a sudden they were gone. I figured they went and got some of the material wealth they railed against and now can be seen giving veterans and military standing O's whenever they show up.

Like the Hippies this protesting generation will disappear. They'll find a job, get married, raise kids and generally just grow up.  Gradually things either improve or get worse. This is nothing new.

This woman claiming discrimination all the way to the Supreme Court is like a student trying to stop a tank in Tiananmen Square by standing in front of it. Tested the system and lost.

Reminds me of two things.
One, being someone on another forum I frequent who said, with all sincerity, that she felt she should be more socially active, and asked if anyone had a good cause she could protest about; paraphrased from memory "It doesn't really matter what, I just think I should be getting out there and protesting about something". She's in her 50's, I think, so... yeah.


Two, Arnold Rimmer, Red Dwarf. The "You livies hate us deadies" conversation. -

Lister:     But Rimmer, death isn't the handicap it used to be in the olden days. It doesn't screw your career up like it used to.
Rimmer: That's what they say, Lister, but if you had two people coming in for a job, and one of them was dead, which one would you pick?
Lister :    (pause) It depends which was better qualified.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Court says young immigrants can stay, rejecting Trump order C C 0 34 Jun 18, 2020 11:49 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)