I know that I am unusual in liking a lot of the Equality Act 2010. Since its inception it has, in the words of Harman, been having some "unexpected outcomes" in that it is being used to gain equality for men in many areas of life, as well as remove special privileges for women in some others.

However, the third-party harassment section - and some other parts - are clear nonsense and just an added burden to employers who have no way of proving their innocence other than with very expensive lawyers.

On the whole, I hope to see this Act remain. It is making local councils answerable for discrimination on domestic violence, allowing men equal access to sports and social facilities, and teaching women the real meaning of equality in many areas of life. In time, it could be used to challenge charities' disparate spending on cancer and other health benefits for women, female-centric shopping areas and even court punishments. Men are using this Act to gain some semblance of equality.

Thank you for answer Douglas!

This Act is not worth keeping in its entirety if just one part of it is nonsense. I have to disagree with you because there is nothing equal about it. Far from it. This law obliges churches to forego their religious freedom using the force of the law. This is clearly a comunist conception when religious freedom are subjected to secular laws. In the UK., unfortunately, the church have never been disestablished. But the catholic church is clearly a separate entity, hence, it violates freedom of religion to which everyone is entitled by law.
The discrimination on grounds of domestic violence, is another grey area. All men knows how they are treated in the courts, and what happens to them regardless of any laws. Nothing will change until the "pussy pass" is completely abolished, preferably by law.
This law was essentially masterminded by a minister who has no qualms in showing off her obssessions on matters of sex. Not all discrimination is based on sex, why should an employer spend thousands of pounds in proving himself innocent? The onus of proof should be on the victim, not the employer. But as every one knows that is not the case. Furthermore, the UK. already has a sex discrimination act, why should the matter of sex be included in the Act? It just makes claims murkier and more profitable for lawyers firm.

The whole Act should be scrapped and start again based on propositions which reflects justice, not punishment against one gender. Furthermore, where there's a conflict between freedom and equality, the former should prevail.

NEVO

Quote from Douglas

I know that I am unusual in liking a lot of the Equality Act 2010. Since its inception it has, in the words of Harman, been having some "unexpected outcomes" in that it is being used to gain equality for men in many areas of life, as well as remove special privileges for women in some others.
(clip)
On the whole, I hope to see this Act remain. It is making local councils answerable for discrimination on domestic violence, allowing men equal access to sports and social facilities, and teaching women the real meaning of equality in many areas of life. In time, it could be used to challenge charities' disparate spending on cancer and other health benefits for women, female-centric shopping areas and even court punishments. Men are using this Act to gain some semblance of equality.

Hence, the NEED to eliminate, rather than cut the offensive bits cited by NEVO?

I believe Ms. Harman meant "unintended consequences", AKA "But...but...but...I know what I ASKED FOR, but that's not what I MEANT!"

Quote from CaptDMO

Hence, the NEED to eliminate, rather than cut the offensive bits cited by NEVO?

I believe Ms. Harman meant "unintended consequences", AKA "But...but...but...I know what I ASKED FOR, but that's not what I MEANT!"

If we scrapped all laws that had some part we don't like, we'd not end up with much.

Hmm... and attractive idea, perhaps.

Seriously, though, I would favour keeping this one and just passing another law (in the typical muddy and confusing way that things work) to effectively repeal the bits we don't like (many of which haven't come into force, anyway). Whichever way the government go, I suggest that everyone use this Act while they can to help gain justice for men - it helps more than anything before it and what follows might not be so useful to us.

I had not previously considered the religious angle and can see how irksome that is.