|
|
|
|
The draft SOR have now been published - they're on http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/draft/20075920.htm , and are due to come into effect on 30th April.
As I understand it, these are what we in the UK will get - subject to a single "all or nothing" approval by parliament.
I find it interesting to see the areas that have been deemed worth of special notice - adoption, insurance, blood donation etc.
On the whole, looks like a reasonable deal to me.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
some interesting areas
Regs 16 17 and 18...
allows the existance of LGBT support groups and LGBT focused charities to continue, which is good. but the wording also allows for the setting up of groups solely for the support of straight people
reg 28, blood donation
changes nothing at all. the current discrimination in the blood service is not direct discrimination, its indirect. officially, we're not being targeted because we are gay, but because of the absurd belief that all gay and bi men are lifetime high risk groups. however, the assertation of being a high risk group would no doubt come under the medical exemption to the regulation, so long as it can be backed up by medical evidence.
i await the results of this one.
reg 14 - religion
adoption issues aside, this is the most interesting article, depending on how wide the scope of it will be considered to be
(3) Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful for an organisation to which this regulation applies, or for anyone acting on behalf of or under the auspices of an organisation to which this regulation applies—
(a) to restrict membership of the organisation,
(b) to restrict participation in activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices,
(c) to restrict the provision of goods, facilities and services in the course of activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices, or
(d) to restrict the use or disposal of premises owned or controlled by the organisation,
in respect of a person on the ground of his sexual orientation.
just that one line
or for anyone acting on behalf of or under the auspices of an organisation to which this regulation applies
that concerns me somewhat... a wide construction of this regulation could open it to providing an exemption for any religious affiliated body, not just churches, provided that body is not solely commercial.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The regulations state:
>(3) Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful for an organisation to which this regulation applies, or for anyone acting on behalf of or under the auspices of an organisation to which this regulation applies— (…) in respect of a person on the ground of his sexual orientation.<
His or her sexual orienatation, surely?
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
> His or her sexual orienatation, surely?
>
Those who draft laws and regulations are many years behind the times, and often still feel that "him" and "his" can appropriately be used in an inclusive / gender-neutral sense. No doubt they would claim it is because of a need to ensure utmost clarity, and the way a phrase is understood should be decided in the light of established legal precedent.
Personally, I believe that no person should be expected to obey a law or regulation that they do not understand, and that all such laws should be written in Plain English. For me, that would include the use of the singular gender-neutral "they" and "their" ... a construction which is rapidly becoming as generally-accepted as the singular "you" was when it took over from "thou".
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was reported in the press this week that our civil servants are looking into this on the behalf of our government. As a linguist I find it easier to accept he/him in legal contexts to cover both sexes (gender in this context has been hijacked from grammar in order to avoid the word 'sex'), rather than 'their' referring to a singular antecedent.
However, the point of my remark was to highlight a certain irony that only he/him should be used in the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations and therefore contained a certain element of tongue (my own) in cheek.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
> It was reported in the press this week that our civil servants are looking into this on the behalf of our government. As a linguist I find it easier to accept he/him in legal contexts to cover both sexes (gender in this context has been hijacked from grammar in order to avoid the word 'sex'), rather than 'their' referring to a singular antecedent.
I appreciate the tongue-in-cheekness.
However, I'm not at all sure about your assertion that "gender in this context has been hijacked from grammar in order to avoid the word 'sex'" - usage in Anthropology and allied disciplines has for many years been to use "sex" to denote a chromosomal/physical status, and "gender" to denote a social status (often a self-identified one).
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the 197X Interpretation Act states that every time a statute says Him/His/He it also means Her/She and that every time it states in the singular, it includes the plural, unless explicitly stated. its the same in every statute. if it were not, the anti-terror crime and security act would only apply to male terrorists...
even before the act was passed, the judiciary as a rule of interpretation always implied both genders into every instance. its just a matter of course that draughtsman always write in the male singular gender.
it saves the need to exponentially increase the length and apparent complexity of statutes by constant references to she/he and his/her etc
[Updated on: Sat, 10 March 2007 21:10]
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of "they" as a gender ambiguous construct. After all in such contexts you usually aren't referring to a specific person but rather making a statement about an individual that can be applied to all individuals in the same situation.
"If a person wishes to do X they should do Y", the number of people doing X and Y really is plural in a wider sense even though the quote only refers to a single individual situation.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
