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
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
398 Responses to “He thinks feminists are ‘obnoxious bigots’: meet the new justice minister”
Rex
Do you see the irony in your comments on breast cancer awareness. How you said, that wouldn’t happen if it were a male campaign… how would we know? We don’t get many campaigns, unlike breast cancer…. Cock in a Sock was started as a fun antidote to that for example. A great way to raise funds and destigmatise the (‘incredibly attractive’) testicle or prostate checking.
Are you suggesting that men should work less so that women can work more? That women only work less because men are preventing them? I think I already said that is not the case. Women choose to work less in many cases because they have different priorities in life. They also choose jobs which entail significantly fewer physical risks than men, right across the board in all sectors. This is not because men won’t allow them to do dangerous jobs. Women are averse to doing them. No shame in that. It makes good sense! Only, let’s not denigrate men when they do it ay. They should be respected for taking the risk, so that women and children don’t have to.
Could you summarise all the links you shared. I don’t have time to read them all. I looked at one at random, Hard Hat revolution. Not a good argumet for your case, but an excellent one demonstrating mine. A woman is quoted saying: ““There’s a reason why a lot of women don’t want to [work on site]. It’s physically demanding. A lot more women could do it but why would you stand out in the rain for 12 hours a day?”. Indeed why would they.
The article proceeds to boast about increasing numbers of women in construction, but hits a snag when it points out that “Women account for 286,000 of a construction workforce of 2.1m. In manual roles, though, that percentage falls to just 1.3%, barely changed from 1.2% in 1999.”
In other words, the women in construction work in non-manual, office roles. Just like everyone expects they will. Because they actively resist demanding physical labour.. which is an absolutely vital component of any civilisation. Without manual labour, nothing happens. Men’s work is essential.
Re nurses and cleaners – The majority will be female. But those are the only jobs women will get their hands dirty for willingly. As I said, women prefer human focused, caring roles. So again not a good argument. Can you think of a great many other jobs that women actively seek out, where they get their hands dirty or take physical risks doing?…….
Rex
No, I’m too busy. If you want considered thoughtful replies to your posts, then you will read them. But you don’t. Like many women you just want to vent your feelings and aren’t interested in hearing a reply. Your hormone therapy seems to have made you female enough on that point at least.
fmf
Cop-out. You’re not too busy to write for ages, but you’re suddenly too busy to succinctly summarise your passionate beliefs into a cohesive argument? Sounds like you’re the one interested in only “venting” raw feelings.
Kills you not knowing people’s gender, doesn’t it Rex?
fmf
***REX. THIS IS MY VERY VERY LAST MESSAGE TO YOU. I CANNOT CONTINUE MESSAGING WITH YOU ANY MORE. I WANT YOU TO READ THIS, BECAUSE IT IS THE LAST MESSAGE. I DON’T CARE WHAT YOU RESPOND, AS LONG AS YOU REALLY READ THIS. I HONESTLY BELIEVE IT, FROM THE HEART.****
No one wants to do shit jobs. But there are women fighting to get more women doing them, for the sake of capitalism, it’s more efficient when you can reach more people. And there are women who do the jobs. And role models matter.
**You rationalise gender inequality by claiming it is natural.** So many women disagree they are like this. But you’d rather just think they are stupid than consider that actually society has created a self-perpetuating inequality of gender roles based on archaic farming tradition, including the stereotype “women are stupid”, ironically.
You don’t have time to consider that you might be wrong. So I *definitely* don’t have time to spoon-feed you an education that you won’t even give the time of day.
However, your opinion doesn’t change the ENORMOUS WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE that tells the truth. You thinking that I’m stupid and irrelevant won’t make it so. I know I am right, because I was prepared to admit I was wrong, and I spent the time thinking about that that it deserved.
If I were you, I’d actually give it some time, and get the scales off my eyes, before I waste my life living a lie, thinking that men are naturally being misaligned and that you are powerless to do anything to fight this natural imbalance except fight the feminists who try to actually fight it. Because you can do more, and it doesn’t have to be like this, if you’re not scared to look for more.
**BYE REX, SO LONG, AND ENJOY ALL THE TIME YOU HAVE NOW YOU WON’T BE REPLYING TO ME AGAIN.**
Rex
LOL! I’m not copping out at all. Just copying your tactic of being lazy but pretending it’s cos I’m too busy. I made my argument. Read it. If I was only interested in venting feelings like you, then I wouldn’t have bothered responding to each of your points and questions in detail now would I.
No it doesn’t kill me ‘not knowing people’s gender. You think so much of yourself, you have a massive ego, yet very low self-esteem, it’s a weird mix, but then I guess that’s what you are too. Didn’t you already say you were a male to female transexual, after initially making out you were a natural-born woman, till I noted that you wrote more like a gay man than a woman and then you went on about being an engineer developing technologies or something, I can’t quite care to remember the rest now. It doesn’t matter what your gender is in the end, it’s your ideas and the massive chip you have on your shoulder that’s all too evident from your writing style, choice of words and posturing of ‘arguments’ if you can call wallowing in self-pity an argument.