In the Name of Equality

Harriet Harman has initiated yet another amendment to the Government's existing equality bills. The latest one means that employers will be legally able to choose a woman or ethnic minority candidate if they are up against an equally qualified white male without fear of being sued for discrimination.

Harman insists that this will make the workplace more 'fair', by boosting the number of women and ethnic minorities in certain jobs and pushing more into senior roles:

Miss Harman said: 'If you have got two equally qualified candidates, you might actually want to have the woman because she is a woman.

'Now at the moment, if you choose her because she is a woman, you could face a sex discrimination case.

'So this says to employers, if you want to, and want to be able to diversify your workforce, then actually you can choose, if you have got equally-qualified candidates, you can choose the one from the group that is under-represented.'

The Government released figures showing only one chief constable is from an ethnic minority, only 15 MPs are black or Asian and only 131 - or 11 per cent - of directors in the top 100 firms are female.

Well, after the next election, perhaps fewer than that will be Labour. The legislation will bring together nine current laws. Many business chiefs dismissed the proposal as a form of socialism.

This obsession with diversity is damaging - it is simply a form of social engineering. If I run a business, I do not care about the 'diversity' of my workforce, only that they are fit for purpose.

Increasingly it is dangerous to think such things, however. When Harman passed her first equality bill in early 2008, any opposition MPs who spoke up against it where dismissed as 'belonging in the stone age' and 'ranting'.

In last Thursday's Times, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Britain's black, female Attorney-General, called for action to 'increase diversity in the legal profession'.

Why? Well, the statistics aren't good enough for her. Out of 140,000 solicitors on the roll, 10% are from black ethnic minorities (that does not include Asians or others) - that is vastly out of proportion with society (around 9% of Britons aren't white). At partnership level, 26.6% are black.

At the bar, 13% of the 15,000 practising barristers are from ethnic minorities, and they make up 4% of QCs. However, only one High Court judge is black, and there are none in the House of Lords or Court of appeal.

Baroness Scotland claims that 39% of student enrolments for the bar are from ethnic minorities, however. Presumably it is perfectly OK if that doesn't quite reflect society?

It seems, shockingly, that none of this is good enough, however:

“It is much better than it was,” Scotland says. “But is it yet totally mirroring the community we serve? No. Is there a long way to go? I think there is. We need to acknowledge we are not over the hump yet.”

Ah, mirroring society. In other words, black people can only be treated properly by people who look like them and have a similar life experience. On the other hand, white Britons should welcome 'diversity' and basically being strangers in their own land (as they will be by the standards of Baroness Scotland herself, I might add).

Is it just me or is that actually quite a patronising view? Scotland is against specific employment targets, but she insists that she will be monitoring the appointment of judges and the stage before of sitting on panels to 'ensure it reflects the diversity of our profession'.

Lovely - I'm sure she has nothing better to do. It's not as if Britain has seen violent crime soar in recent years and people are losing faith in the justice system everyday. More because increasingly senior judges seem to come from an altogether different planet, never mind colour.

On Saturday there was a 'Minority Lawyers' Conference' in London. Here is what was outlined beforehand:

So what can be done? The theme of Saturday’s conference is “less talk, more action”. Kim Hollis, QC, who is chairing the event, has called for positive action to champion diversity and widen the available pool of talent. “There needs to be a clearer understanding of the term positive action. This doesn’t mean diluting the requirement for excellence: it would reflect other vital skills and experience to include those who may have been previously excluded as these factors have not been given adequate importance in any selection process.”

Again, this use of the term 'positive' - positive for who, exactly? We know from experience that it very much does mean 'diluting the standards for excellence'; social engineering always does when it can't raise up the groups it chooses - so it drags everyone down instead.

Scotland continues:

“In my view there are enough people within the profession — it’s a question of encouraging that talent where we find it . . . black, women, of different sexual orientation, young, old . . . if we are going to compete on a global stage.”

She “would love” to see a black law lord but predicts one only in the next “10 to 20 years”. “We are at a tipping point. We need to push hard to search out that talent we are looking for.”

Where does all this end? Does it really matter if your lawyer is black enough or gay enough - isn't it sufficient for him/her to simply be able to do their job?

No wonder nothing really works in Britain when educated people are distracting themselves with nonsensical rubbish such as this. They talk about limiting discrimination - by making us more and more aware of and constantly focusing on colour and differences.

Insanity.