Dominic Raab is no more keen on the Equality Act than he is on the Human Rights Act
Esher and Walton MP Dominic Raab has just been made justice minister alongside Michael Gove.
Raab is a longtime critic of the Human Rights Act – this appointment looks like David Cameron’s way of saying he is serious about scrapping it. In January 2014 Raab voted to allow human rights grounds to be used to prevent a foreign criminal being deported only in cases where there would be a breach of right to life or the right not to be tortured.
In 2013, he voted to remove the duty on the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to work to support the development of a society in which people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination.
And in 2013 he also voted against making it illegal to discriminate on grounds of caste.
Raab also took an unusual stance on gender equality in 2011, when he expressed his fears that ‘from the cradle to the grave, men are getting a raw deal’. He attacked the ‘obnoxious bigotry’ of feminists and complained that men work longer hours than women (no mention of pay gap etc).
“While we have some of the toughest anti-discrimination laws in the world, we are blind to some of the most flagrant discrimination – against men.”
Seeming to have fallen at the first hurdle – assuming that feminism is anti-men – Raab also suggested that men start ‘burning their briefs’, presumably as a long- overdue retaliation against the feminists of the sixties (who did not, in fact, burn their bras.)
Raab’s diatribe continued:
“Britain’s not perfect, and we will never eradicate all human prejudice.”
This is especially true when we do not understand that prejudice. Another interesting choice from David Cameron.
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter
398 Responses to “He thinks feminists are ‘obnoxious bigots’: meet the new justice minister”
Steven
Please do enlighten us where feminists:
1) Advocate for women to take responsibility – as they often demand men do?
2) Argue for more stringent punishment for women in the criminal justice system, as they currently do for men (while advocating women do even LESS time)?
3) Where they decry the “tiny radical shard” of feminists who do things that are blatantly sexist?
Feminism is not about equality.
Bee Sharmaine
Show me the movement to end MGM? Show me the news, the campaigns, the people who actually gave a shit about it BEFORE the widespread campaigns against FGM? The first i have heard of people creating an issue over MGM has been whilst it is made on the tails of FGM as a criticism of feminism. I don’t see what the issue with attacking feminism for campaigning against things such as FGM is? – no one else is trying to stop it. Is it feminisms fault if male counterparts don’t campaign for issues that are specific to their gender as feminism does? And is it right to expect feminism to take on issues that don’t just affect females so that male counterparts stop moaning because they won’t do it themselves and instead prefer to hide behind the pretence that feminism is in some way anti-male?
Steven
Wow – wrong on almost every count:
1) Women are not paid less – you really need to read up. I could link and cite, but you clearly don’t care. It’s debunked and has been for a decade.
2) More likely to get raped? First off ANYONE getting raped is wrong – it’s not the “victim olympics” – do you also discount people’s experiences based on color or religion, because it’s less likely?!
Second – if you include rapes in prisons, there are more instances of men being raped per year than women.
3) When men are sexually harrased no one takes it seriously.
4) Fewer pension rights – I admit my ignorance on this law and cannot comment.
5) Can’t get rape convictions? Like boys who are molested? Like men who are too drunk? Like boys who get molested and then stuck with a child support bill?
Now – as you said – try looking at evidence.
Doug Lefelhocz
“Male and female ‘circumcision’ was being discussed and compared as one,
without reference to the different levels of severity, because of course
that would completely undermine the argument put forth that male
circumcision is equally as bad – perhaps my silly scaremongering picture
demonstrated that?”
No, it didn’t. Your picture only depicts one type of female genital mutilation.
Take a look at what the law says on female genital mutilation in the U. K. (U. S. is similar):
“Offence of female genital mutilation
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he excises, infibulates or otherwise mutilates the whole *or any part* [emphasis added] of a girl’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris.” http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/31/section/1
So if someone takes a knife and scrapes the clitoris, or nicks it, that is female genital mutilation and illegal under U. K. law. Such a scrape or nick is more severe than male circumcision.
You are also wrong about it’s function and purpose within a society. That issue is much more complex than a single function and purpose as you have suggested:
“There are many reasons FGC is practiced, including social, economic, and
political reasons. Those who support FGC believe that it will empower
their daughters, ensure the girls get married, and protect the family’s
good name. In some groups, FGC is performed to show a girl’s growth into
womanhood and, as in the Masai community, marks the start of a girl’s
sexual debut. It also is performed to keep a woman’s virginity by
limiting her sexual behavior. FGC is believed (by those who practice it)
to stop a woman’s sexual desire. In some groups, women who are not cut
are viewed as dirty and are treated badly.”
https://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/female-genital-cutting.html#f
The other problem you have is that, even *if* you were right about female genital mutilation, you’ve missed part of the historical context. You’ve missed the reason as to why society would consider it important that wives don’t become promiscuous and stray sexually from her husband by sleeping with another man. It wasn’t because women were considered to have lesser moral worth (you might argue this elsewhere successfully, but not here). It was because men couldn’t control whether the child that the woman birthed was his or not biologically speaking if she did become promiscuous. Paternity fraud and fathers raising children that aren’t theirs biologically speaking (while the mother raises her biological child) are by no means new.
And that reveals an even larger problem with your reasoning. *If* it was the case that female genital mutilation actually did make it so that wives were not promiscuous, then it actually could get rationally justified as a way to ensure that men raised their own children. But, women who have experienced female genital mutilation can still enjoy sex enough that they can become promiscuous.
Matthew Yeo
So says the poster tossing out emotionally driven personal snipes. Belly to the bar, my friend, and put that evidence on the table and let’s have a look.
[chirp]
[chirp]
[chirp]