Meanwhile, the government mandates and demands sexual discrimination
Posted Under: Education,Minorities,Puritanism
The proposed equality bill has generated much debate – in particular the question of whether churches should be banned from discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation. Yet what strikes me is the sheer hypocrisy of these measures, from a government which has actively institutionalised such discrimination.
Under laws that went into force last year, the new Independent Safeguarding Authority has the power to ban people from working with children, or to throw them out of their jobs if they are already doing so. People can be banned from working with children simply on the grounds of ‘unsuitability’, regardless of whether they have broken the law. Over on the ISA’s website you will find the list of criteria that case-officers use to decide whether somebody is unsuitable. Under the guidelines, people can potentially be banned from working with kids on the basis that they have an interest in violent porn, even if the material they possess doesn’t reach the threshold for criminal prosecution. Apparently, while discrimination against gay people should be illegal, discrimination against the BDSM community is not only fine but necessary.
Equally officers are expected consider whether the subject displays signs of a “concerning paraphilia”. This is a phrase so vague that it should frighten any freedom loving person. A “paraphilia” refers to any form of sexual desire that departs from the “normal” . What makes a particular paraphilia “concerning” is anybody’s guess. The important thing is that 40 years ago homosexuality could reasonably have been placed under this category. Most people DID find it concerning. Such a guideline potentially rules out anybody whose tastes are odds with prevailing social and sexual norms. Thus, while the government harps on about equality, it continues to support an institution which can ruin people’s lives on account of nothing more than their sexual orientation.
Reader Comments
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, whereas bdsm is not.
LOL time for word games again. I thought somebody might say that. But even if I was to concede the point could you please explain how it is significant? Could you actually offer me a cogent argument as to why it is more reasonable to discriminate against some forms of private consensual sexual activity than others.
We have created a link to this article.
Our website, AllPoliticalOpinions.com, strives to be a valuable resource for learning about – and expressing your opinions on – all the issues of the day. We invite all political writers to visit us, and perhaps set up a profile, and post more links to articles such as this.
Slightly playing devil’s advocate here, but:
BDSM is a sexual fascination in relationships that are unequal, where one person has control over another, or where authority is used for sexual purposes. There is clear relevance here to the situations regulated by the ISA.
There is nothing at all illegal (or, arguably, immoral) about “naughty schoolgirl/boy” porn, but if a person obsessively collected such porn we’d have reasonable suspicions about their motivations for becoming a teacher!
In any case, the guidance merely _allows_ caseworkers to make judgements on these grounds, it does not prescribe them to do so. Whilst the difference between prescribing discrimination and allowing discrimination may seem petty, it should be recognised.
Alex, thank you for your comment. I see your point about the difference between prescribe and allow. When I said that the govenment mandates and demands sexual discrimination, I didn’t mean that the case workers are feces tonsiscriminate but rather employers . Decisions by case workers carry the full force of the law. If a case worker decides that somebody is unsuitable because they are into bdsm, an employer who decides that’s a load of bullocks and employs then anyway thy could go to jail. As regards the connection you posit, you to admit it does seem like a rather weak and vague connection – ie bdsm sex is unequal, teacher student relationships are unequal therefore people who are into the former might be into the latter. On a purely empirical level I would imagine that tens of thousands of teachers are probably into some kind of bdsm yet only a handful of teachers actually abuse kids. Can such a disjointed implication about what somebody might do really justify ruining the life of a person who has committed no crime?