Saturday 28 June 2008

Beyond the letter of the law

Harriet Harman the, (in the circumstances) somewhat ludicrously titled “Equalities Secretary”, admits that her proposed Bill to enforce equality in the workplace will in fact lead to discrimination against white males saying “You don't get progress if there isn't a bit of a push forward.". However, she fails to admit quite how far this nasty and maliciously motivated piece of legislation will actually push, and what it's true agenda is.

In addition to requiring employers to be transparent regarding pay rates, the new legislation officially now makes it “legal to promote a woman or a black person over a white man if they are equally able”, the same would apply when considering two “equally able” candidates for a new position, where one is a white man and the other is either a woman or a non white person.

Officially the intention is to encourage equality, however, given the woolly manner in which the legislation is drafted, the real intention is clearly to encourage employers to employ woman or black people instead of white males.

Those who cynically drafted the legislation in the way they did, did so in the knowledge that, when it comes to employment legislation, the majority of employers err on the side of caution. They are confident that, once this bill becomes law, human resources departments across the land will adopt a default “If in doubt don't employ the white guy” policy.

The last thing any employer wants is to be sued for discrimination, especially when it is easier and far cheaper to dump on a white man. How many employers are going to risk facing a tribunal and having to prove that the white male whom they employed or promoted was the most able candidate?.

I suspect the answer is very few. It doesn't matter how the law is 'officially worded', it matters how it will be perceived by businesses across the land, who instead of consulting a grand an hour employment lawyer will simply not take the risk. The result will be to force more and more white males out of the work force, which is exactly what Harman and her agenda driven minions want.

We have been here before, governments are very skilled at drafting legislation which will have a more wide ranging effect on society than the letter of the law actually provides for, and the current government is a past master at it. For instance the recent legislation banning violent pornography was officially aimed only at the really extreme material originating from Asia and parts of the old soviet union, in which serious injuries are inflicted or appear to be. However, as a result of the legislation dozens of dirty movie makers specialising in the “grey areas” of consensual S/M and bondage have either upped stakes and moved their operations to Holland and the Czech Republic or simply closed down. Hence, legislation, although officially aimed at a very narrow target, has achieved a more wide ranging social effect than the letter of the law actually permits.

In respect of pornography, many of you may approve of what is happening, however, I take the view that all censorship is dangerous, because you never know where it will end, and we, as a group are, after all no less censored than any dirty film maker. Furthermore, it is another example of legislation achieving an effect through the public perception of it means, which it would never achieve if tested in a court of law.

The most infamous of such laws was the 1976 Race Relations Act the effect if which has gone far wider than the law actually prescribes.

The Act forbids discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic and national origin in the fields of employment, the provision of goods and services. There is nothing in the 1976 legislation which forbids argued opposition to immigration or the creation of a multi racial society, however, the perception of the legislation has silenced or muted the voices of many thousands of their opponents.

The ban on “Stirring up racial hatred”, has stifled much non-hateful debate, effectively discouraged legitimate criticism of non-whites, and has been abused in attempts to suppress political comment, albeit not always successfully.

The ban on racial discrimination in the work place has unquestionably resulted in black people being promoted beyond their abilities often with disastrous results and to many a blind eye being turned incompetence and bad practice by non-whites, because employers have adopted an “If in doubt don't risk it” default position, which this new legislation will reinforce.

Harriet's law will not result in blacks and woman being treated equally to white men, it will result in more blacks and woman being promoted and less white males irrespective of ability.

As a woman I strive for advancement on my own merit and would be outraged were I to gain it on merely the basis of my gender or race, and I hold in contempt those woman or non-whites who would accept such an unequal advantage as a right. However, many will do so, and many employers will grant them unfair advancement rather that test the law, which is exactly the intention of this invidious legislation.

The 1976 Race Relations act became law because it's relatively modest wording disguised its true intent, however, it has been the main tool of social engineering which has been used to transform the face of Britain, to the significant disadvantage of her citizens, and Harriet's new regulations are in the same mould.

Make no mistake, what ever the media may say about the supposed benefit to women and older workers, the main beneficiaries will be non whites.

The forces of Common Purpose achieve their goals by deception, and this yet another set of regulations which were drafted to achieve more than they appear to. The target again is primarily young white males, because they are the group our enemies resent most, but do not be fooled, we are all in their sights. The programme continues and will do so unless or until the people of Britain wake up and realise what is being done to them.


Also posted to the Home of the Green Arrow


Anonymous said...


"The Association of Muslim Police is auditing the distribution of minority officers by rank and specialism...
Some forces had very few Muslim officers in units set up to tackle terrorism or in Special Branch and others had none."

Don't worry, Harriet will fix it.

Anonymous said...

You should check the ethnicity of Harriet Harman. That explains it all.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Harridan Harman has past form in discriminating against men and white people, to quote Wikipedia:
In 1990 Harman co-authored a report entitled "The Family Way". It criticised the family unit and mothers who stay at home. In particular it questioned whether men were an asset to families at all and whether "the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion". Critics such as Erin Pizzey described such statements as a "staggering attack on men and their role in modern life".

She also commissioned a report on allowing political parties to draw up all-black shortlists designed to increase the number of black MPs in Westminster.

She clearly has an agenda

Anonymous said...

"You should check the ethnicity of Harriet Harman. That explains it all."

You aren't suggesting that she's a J** are you? Well take a look at

"She was born in London to the Harley Street physician John Bishop Harman FRCP (who was an expert witness in the trial of suspected serial killer John Bodkin Adams[3]) and his wife Anna, a solicitor, the only child of Group Captain Malcolm Spicer, RAF,[4][5] son of James Spicer of Eltham, who was a member of the paper manufacturing family and a brother of the Liberal MP Sir Albert Spicer and also a brother of the surgeon and campaigner for women's rights, Louisa Martindale.[6] Her parents both came from non conformist backgrounds "

She is definitely ONE OF YOU gone bad. So don't blame us. Get your own house in order.

Anonymous said...

Having been in business all my life, it is interesting to note that companies dominated by men are the most successful and where there is a large percentage of women, the least successful. Not to say there are not capable women, there are, but they are very much in a minority. Or is this sexist to point this out?

Darrin Hodges said...

Has this been passed into law yet?

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

"Darrin Hodges said...
Has this been passed into law yet?"

I don't believe so, I think it is still being planned.

Anonymous said...

very true Goldstein...anonymous doesn't realize that many Jews also wish to maintain a sense of continuity in Britain (tradition,Constitutional monarchy, common law etc.) as any sane Englishman or woman does. Smart conservative Jews can also see the insanity of this Harman woman.