Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It has long been accepted that the fight for equality and for freedom march together in lockstep. But the quest for equality has become ever more a matter of law – culminating in The Equality Act 2010. Politics has become increasingly organised around complex and sometimes conflicting issues of identity, and some fear the great causes of equality and f...
Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It has long been accepted that the fight for equality and for freedom march together in lockstep. But the quest for equality has become ever more a matter of law – culminating in The Equality Act 2010. Politics has become increasingly organised around complex and sometimes conflicting issues of identity, and some fear the great causes of equality and freedom are coming into conflict. Some legal protections of identity groups intended to secure equality now pose thorny issues related to freedom, whether it is the right to enjoy single-sex services or, more broadly, free speech. Conversely, many pro-free speech activists now see the Act as more essential than ever in protecting the expression of legal, if controversial, views.
Enacted by the last Labour government, The Equality Act brought together a host of existing legislation, including laws covering race relations and various discrimination acts, including on the grounds of sex and disability. Supporters of the Act stress that extending previous discrimination law in socially progressive ways has enabled formerly marginalised voices to be afforded space and dignity by protecting people from less favourable treatment. With protections including for sex, race, religion or belief, disability, sexual orientation and gender reassignment, supporters argue the Act encouraged more diverse representation in workplaces, management boards and educational curricula of universities and schools.
Yet 14 years on, it has become clear that some of the Act’s provisions are causing problems. For example, the rise of gender ideology means the legislation has been used as a threat against feminist student societies, women’s sport, and single-sex spaces like domestic violence refuges and rape-crisis centres. The issue is that the Act gives protection to both women and people undergoing ‘gender reassignment’ in ways that are seen as coming into conflict. The law uses the words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ interchangeably, even though campaigners argue they have different meanings. Maya Forstater, CEO of the charity Sex Matters, said before the election: ‘Whichever party forms the next government, it must grapple with the serious lack of clarity about the law on single-sex services, which is undermining the rights and safety of women and girls in practice.’
Others have raised broader and more systemic issues relating to the Public Sector Equality Duty, including to eliminate discrimination and harassment, and Positive Action to improve representation in workforce, that critics say are being weaponised and can themselves be described as discriminatory.
Recent cases, such as Sean Corby’s, show that the Equality Act is being either overlooked or misunderstood by employers and tribunal judges so as to leave employees at the mercy of the intolerant. This can devastate people’s livelihood and reputation for holding, and voicing, reasonable political opinions on everything from race and racism to climate change. Meanwhile, Section 26 of the Act uses a definition of harassment that includes ‘unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic’ that has ‘the purpose or effect of violating’ an individual’s dignity, a subjective criterion open to grievance claims. Conversely, despite such speech-chilling impacts of the Act, increasingly the provision that treats beliefs as protected characteristics has become a key legal route to guaranteeing free speech.
Is free speech strengthened by the legal concept of protected beliefs? Should a subjective category such as preserving dignity of individuals with protected characteristics trump freedom of thought and expression of dissenting viewpoints? Have we tipped over from justified laws against intended and unintended discrimination, to using the law to pursue overly restrictive, partisan, divisive ends? Is it time to repeal, or at least amend, the Equality Act?
SPEAKERS
Joanna Cherry KC
King’s Counsel at Scottish Bar; former SNP MP for Edinburgh South West; former chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights
Dolan Cummings
writer and novelist; co-director, Manifesto Club
Maya Forstater
chief executive, Sex Matters
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert
director, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth.
CHAIR
Alastair Donald
co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question
