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”
Bikist
Somewhat ironic that a feminist keeps using “cunt”:a highly derogatory slang term for vagina, as an insult to a man. Any use of the term is very demeaning to women. It implies that the vagina is an object of derision/shame/hate. So all the more disappointing to hear it from a woman.
Steven
Despite what you were unfortunately indoctrinated with, women in the past, in many European (and other) cultures had to right to speak and publish etc.
Often it was the lower class of serfs that could not – both male and female. But in what you were spoon fed it only concentrated on the plight of females, appealing to your hero complex that many men have, and it makes you all warm and fuzzy to “speak up for women”, when in reality you speak out of ignorance.
Pvblivs
“assuming that feminism is anti-men”
It is. If you focus on what feminists actually do — instead of holding up a fictitious dictionary definition — you cannot escape the fact that feminism is anti-men. Most homeless are men. Feminism thinks that all homeless should be men. Over 90 percent of workplace deaths are men. Feminism only thinks about how to protect women. Feminism defends abortion with “consent to sex does not entail consent to parenthood.” But about men they say “he should have kept it in his pants.”
fmf
If hashtags that are little more then a semi-serious expression of resentment of the existence of a gender concept that defines “women’s” lives for the worse is your biggest problem, then you really don’t have a clue.
Men have ACTUALLY killed women EXPLICITLY for being women: Marc lepine, Elliot Rodgers, and Ben Moyihan who failed at his attempt but still stabbed 3 innocent women. If a hashtag (borne out of this environment) bothers you more than this, you should probably think twice about what your social change is for. Mines to end victims and allow people to speak freely about the fear and resentment our society creates between groups, until it is acknowledged and not silenced.
fmf
1. Because the full scale of FGM is far worse then the full scale of circumcision, and I want to reflect that. If it wasn’t, they’d probably both be called circumcision.
2. Er, source?? The law hasn’t stopped it (there’s only been 1 conviction in 30 years), and changes in attitudes don’t spring out of nowhere; people worked to get recognition.
(More info: http://www.fgmnationalgroup.org/historical_and_cultural.htm)
3. DEFINITELY source for that claim about use of foreskin… Wtf.
4. Feminism arose because women were sick of being second class citizens, so we wanted to abolish the hiarchal structure of society, starting with winning women’s rights. Who gave you the impression that it’s our job to actively solve everyone’s problems? Like I said, I think every feminist (not woman) I know would support victims of circumsision if they activated.