EHRC refuses Britain a fair hearing
Civitas, 8 August 2011
The Equality and Human Rights Commission contributes very little to meaningful equality in Britain today and should be abolished, according to a new Civitas report. Added to the Government’s much trumpeted ‘bonfire of the quangos’, the EHRC would save the Treasury tens of millions of pounds at no obvious cost to the general public.
Small Corroding Words, by Jon Gower Davies, is a systematic critique of the philosophy, research and practice of the EHRC. It reveals serious flaws in the EHRC’s ‘triennial review’, How Fair Is Britain?, that was used to demonstrate unfairness in Britain. What the research actually shows are the statistical differences between some groups. This line of thinking entails, for example, taking the fact that men are more likely to die in work-related accidents than women as a sign of unfairness. (pp. 8-9) The EHRC inaccurately blames Britain for differences of this kind.
Did you really need to spend all that time analysing this utter crock of blatant propaganda? What a waste of time, especially when we are having such a pleasant summer.
We have long recognised EHRC stuff is only concocted to justify what is going to be the inevitable policy anyhow; which will be to justify increased taxation and the centralisation of powers into the hands of the career victim-mongers. Did you really need to study this report to find out it serves only as another example of left-wing propaganda, to these ends?: Just reading the cover tells you everything you need to know: You can’t statistically test an un-defined and un-measurable concept, like unfairness (which interestingly seems to have replaced the old word “equality” in recent times.) So, at that point, the thesis gets a fail mark.
We take it for red the EHRC are only going to concoct, lie, spin and massage (and interestingly omit) data to their own ends. Hardly news. (For instance, how much tax is created by men and women? and appropriated?) What would be more interesting from Civitas, therefore, would be to explore more about how this whole industry self-propagates:
For instance, there is a whole piece Civitas could write on “using causes to make markets”: The simple model is: Start with a personal agenda. Find a group with a usable grievance. Rouse that sense of grievance. Persuade group to project grievance on to white men, especially successful ones in the private sector. Adopt a posture of virtue, making the case for increased powers and funds to tackle said-grievance. Use monies to build structures that will fight to defend themselves. Cement positions by affiliating with similar structures, to offer mutual support. Carry out token PR projects to give impression of action of tackling said grievance, but which are intended to fail. Make the case that monies and powers are insufficient given injustices are greater than previously realised. Return to Go.
Would be great to see Civitas probe into the individual self interest, the taxes, the cash, the networks: Like a public sector version of Dynasty!. For instance, Caroline Spelman – big supporter of HS2 – has a husband who is a Global Director of Strategy at Accenture. His company seek strategy and infrastructure projects and he is personally pushing the low carbon economy in his role, interfacing with the great and good at the WEF. He’ll get fantastic bonuses, we presume, if he and Accenture win projects on HS2. (They are well placed with strong infrastructure operational optimization services and are strong advocates of high speed rail.). Create a cause (green), form a network (WEF, Accenture, UK Government), collect taxes (to come, to tune of £30b), cement positions (via contracts and links to other EU low carbon forums) etc.
Slight digression on HS2 – but to reinforce that capitalist socialism has won such arguments of our time, through the Darwinian principle of its brute force and mob self-interest, rather than because of the quality of any rational argument or the natural justice of its causes.
It’s a real shame: Just think how much better it would have been had we emerged from the Industrial revolution and wars of the 20th century with a perspective said something like, “Phew, 95% had a pretty tough time of it… leading unpleasant lives due to acute-need or, at worst, expedience…. Men have been locked in coal pits and factories too long, getting ill. Women have been locked in domestic doldrums too-long, too, being unfulfilled. We want now something better for everyone, where people can choose their own lifestyle and contribution…. We will promote a spectrum of choice that is now open to all and encourage all to pursue a life that will be most fulfilling and happiest for them….We will view our society, herein, by how many feel that they are able to pursue a happy, fulfilled life that is congruent with their unique hopes, skills and nature.” There would be less male depression, early death, illness. more fatherhood. Happier women, able to choose the lives they want, free of one sort of legacy imposition or another. Less fear, envy and racism. More balanced, rounded, tolerant and reflective people all round.
I am truly interested. Does your analytic work actually achieve anything these days? Can I suggest you feed this to someone like UKIP, or at least the right-leaning papers, rather than charge for it? The Left form self-supporting networks and if you believe what you write, then that ought to want to counter that. That way, there is a minute chance it will get used, to add to the pressure for a (truly) fairer society, rather than sit in a drawer. Otherwise, I fear you may end up getting someone fired or abused when they get caught glancing at a copy.