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
By the way – LOVE your YouTube channel – just wanted you to know: you freaking rock Karen.
Oh, and while I do agree with you – as a professional prop: I would hate to debate you on anything … I wish I had your encyclopedic mind. (sigh)
Rex Duis
Bee – Your grossly biased attitude becomes clear here, when the lipservice to mens right fades away and all we are left with is apathy rather than empathy towards male suffering.
It explains why you feel the need to differentiate between the levels of suffering and types of procedures inflicted upon helpless children, because it soothes your cognitive dissonance. Seeing another group as somehow being less than the group you support is the first step towards fascism and makes it so much easier to commit inhumane acts against a population.
You do make one good point though about the lack of visibility of men’s rights issues. It is not for lack of trying however as you seem to suggest. Mike Buchanan is the leader of a UK men’s rights party which had 2 members standing for election in the GE2015. When BBC Nottingham brought him on to debate with one of his counterparts, they filled the entire audience with just women.
I used to work at the BBC in 2007 and know this is a breach of their committment to impartiality and it’s something the editorial team I was on would never have been party to. Yet almost a decade later, it has happened. Had Mike been given a fair shot by the only broadcaster in the UK with a legislated mandate to do so, then perhaps we would have heard more about issues affecting men. Instead they decided to turn him into a sideshow act, a bogeyman to women, and he was unable to discuss his parties policies in the way he should have been. By contrast, the BBC have just given much press to Sandi Toksvigs Women’s Equality Party.
If male suffering is less visible in our society one of the causes of that is your beloved Feminism.
Steven
Patriarchy theory came from the idea of class warfare.
Just a little tip: ever heard of “The Feminine Mystique” by Betty Friedan? Well, she was (and feel free to Google this) a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA up until the late 1940’s.
When she wrote “The Feminine Mystique” she simply applied class warfare (Patriarchy Theory) to men and women, in substitution for the Proletariet and the Burgeouise (not sure I spelled those right).
She is often credited by feminists, in Gender Studies Courses, for being the “Godmother” of modern feminism. But, curiously, her Communist roots are always left out of the discussion. Weird huh?
Patriarchy is just their “they are out to get us” boogey man.
Whereas each woman is to be considered an individual and looked upon as a person with feelings, hopes, dreams, faults, and as a PERSON – MEN are to be looked at as a class and their personal stories are dismissed as “anecdotal” (nice dehumanizing mental gymnastics there )
Steven
No, what you are consistantly doing is engaging in a game of “Victim’s Olympics”.
One is to be discussed, empathized with, anecdotes (and pictures) shared, and the other is to be “yea, it’s bat, but ..” dismissed.
The point – and you’re making it, is that feminists care about the one, and dismiss the other.
Matthew Yeo
Google the National Organization for Women.
Then, when you think you’ve got a handle on what they stand for and represent, add one more phrase to your search field “shared parenting”.
When you can reconcile how an organization who visibly claims to be seeking equality with blatantly lobbying AGAINST equality in parenting, then maybe you’ll figure out that you’ve been sold an ideological bill of goods that doesn’t weigh up against actual real world behaviour.
It doesn’t matter what field you pick there’s a VAST discrepancy in the dollars spent and time invested. Did you know, for example, that the incidence rate for prostate cancer is very similar to breast cancer, but with an even higher mortality rate, and yet the breast cancer funding totally and utterly outstrips funding for prostate cancer?
That’s what 15 years of feminist lobbying has accomplished. We’re disposable.