On Discrimination Laws

So, Nigel Farage wants to scrap discrimination laws.

And I sort of see where he’s probably coming from. The left and right have very different views of what’s in the driving seat of society. The left, with echos of Marxist-Leninist ‘vanguard of the proletariat’ thinks the habits of the people can and should be changed by law, and law can and should be driven by the elite, leading the way for the people. Most classical Liberals on the other hand think laws against behaviours tend to happen when a majority broadly support them, and not before. It’s the argument in society leading up to the change in the law which changes behaviour, not the law itself. I doubt greatly whether anti-discrimination laws have affected the level of discrimination much, if at all. I suspect they probably reflect a point where there was a change in society’s opinion, which started long before 1965 race relations act, and continued through the 1980s.

Pre 1965 it was common, apparently, (I was born in ’77) to see “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish” signs. Nowadays, anyone displaying that sign, wouldn’t get my business either. I am inclined to let people discriminate, but only if they do so openly, and see what it does for their businesses. Society’s distaste is more powerful at curbing behaviour than the law. But I am really not fussed about race discrimination laws, and certainly wouldn’t make repealing them a priority, partly because I don’t want to be misunderstood and thought to be racist, and partly because I might be wrong about society, and I cannot see what harm having these laws on the statute books does. If it ain’t broken, and I don’t think the architecture of Britain’s race relations are broken, don’t fix it.

But ‘KIPpers will not see this, because st. Nigel (PBUH) has spoken and their thick, ignorant activists will go around claiming now that race discrimination legislation allows for discrimination against whites and British, which of course they do not. If there is little racism in society as Farage claims, then race discrimination laws have little effect. And if there IS racism in society, then there is an argument that race discrimination laws are still necessary which is powerful.

This demonstrates UKIP’s amateurishness. If you’re a right-populist party, running on an anti-immigration ticket, constantly beset by accusations of racism, and with several high-profile activists being caught saying really ignorant, stupid things about race, then I cannot see why these laws should be a priority, unless you are openly gunning for the racist, ex-BNP vote in Labour’s northern fiefdoms.

Are you touting for racists’ votes, or are you, Nigel, a thicko with a tin-ear, who’s out of his depth?

7 replies
  1. Ravenscar.
    Ravenscar. says:

    Oh dear.

    Any law, which raises the rights of a minority above those of the majority is discriminatory and therefore such statute is fundamentally flawed, unequal – to you mate.

    The final nail in the coffin of equal rights was the Equality Act – driven on by that pillar of objectivity or, demon of left wing dogmatism aka Political Correctness – one Hattie Harman and then that sordid Act was enabled by the coagulation of tory and yellow deviants.

    It, this betrayal called the 'Equality Act' cemented into Parliamentary law – inequality and is when white British subjects became second class in all things – in their own land.

    Repeal it, it should never have made the light of day in the first place.

    If you cannot perceive, comprehend the basic inequity and the injustice of these laws, then, pretty much you are a lost cause.

  2. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    Well said Ravenscar.

    Jackart – as usual a shit article.

    And you're still a cunt.

    Is Dan Hodges still bumming you?

  3. rapscallion
    rapscallion says:

    What a load of old rubbish. Ravenscar's got your number pretty much spot on.

    Ah "Race"

    You'll be telling me next that there's a British race

  4. Luke
    Luke says:


    "Any law, which raises the rights of a minority above those of the majority is discriminatory and therefore such statute is fundamentally flawed, unequal – to you mate."

    What law do you have in mind? Name a law that puts the rights of a minority above those of a majority. Go on.

  5. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    If you run a business and interview say 12 applicants for a job, if all of the applicants are reasonably suited to fill the position but 11 are British white and one is Pakistani and said Pakistani is the most inferior candidate….the correct candidate is offered the job, a business choice is made. The Pakistani can claim discrimination on grounds of racial discrimination – irrespective of the actuality – he/she wasn't suitable for the job – that's not only insane but it's bad law and debilitates standards, see below.
    In the civil service, widespread positive discrimination is de rigueur – ie; where two or more candidates apply for a job, one of whom is Black – the employer is able to prefer the black candidate even though his qualifications may be inferior to those other applicants.

    A guest house, where a Christian couple decide not to allow a couple of blokes to sleep in a double bed in the same room……by law cannot insist who does what in their own property – minority group trumping the rights of the Christian majority.

    A terrorist who is a direct threat to the security of the community can be granted the 'right' to stay in the UK because of his rights to a family life – ECHR article 8 ref Abid Naseer, Abu Hamza.

    Bad law, sh*t law like the ECHR poorly drafted tort by making and elevating some people's rights above all others: produces inequity and injustice.

  6. Bill
    Bill says:

    The comments here express very eloquently why anti-discrimination laws remain absolutely essential. As usual A Very British Dude has analysed the situation pretty accurately.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *