Labour plans to introduce positive discrimination and quotas to increase the number of females and e - Polidicks

[quote] A Labour government would be prepared to introduce the "nuclear option" of quotas for female and black and ethnic minority judges to avoid a 100-year wait to achieve a judiciary reflecting the composition of the population. The shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, said reform had slowed to a snail's pace and called for radical thinking to ensure judges were selected from beyond the "male, white and Oxbridge" world. Khan, who accused the government of harming progress towards a diverse judiciary with swingeing cuts to the legal aid budget, has appointed Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC and Karon Monaghan QC, two of Britain's leading progressive lawyers, to "think big" on how to achieve a balanced judiciary. "Nothing is off the table," he said of the remit. Khan said: "This is such a big issue that I don't want Geoffrey and Karon to be afraid to recommend anything." Bindman and Monaghan are expected to focus on practical proposals such as introducing a mentoring and talent-spotting scheme to identify talented women and black and minority ethnic (BME) legal figures early on in their career. But the two QCs will be free to recommend the introduction of positive discrimination along the lines suggested in a speech this year by Lady Hale, the only woman who sits in the supreme court. Khan believes it is important not to rule out introducing quotas for women and BAME judges as a last resort. "Let us see what Geoffrey and Karon come up with," one Labour source said. "You would want to keep the option of more radical measures like quotas on the table as a last resort. It would be the nuclear option." The introduction of quotas would be controversial because they were rejected by the House of Lords, which in a report in 2012 laid bare the poor representation in the judiciary of women and BME candidates.[b] The committee heard evidence from the association of women solicitors that quotas would send out a message that a candidate had been chosen solely on the basis of gender or race[/b]. [/quote] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/apr/20/labour-introduce-judge-quotas-diverse-judiciary[/url]

how about we don't do that for anything ever

I don't know how positive and discrimination fit together.

[QUOTE=Mellowbloom;44603566]how about we don't do that for anything ever[/QUOTE] Yeah including in Australia where all evidence points towards the police having a monthly quota for Aboriginal people bashed and abused...

[quote]"Let us see what Geoffrey and Karon come up with," one Labour source said. "You would want to keep the option of more radical measures like quotas on the table as a last resort. It would be the nuclear option."[/quote] Doesn't sound like they currently actively plan to do it

Whether or not you agree that this is a good idea, it's a problem that the judiciary system is almost entirely made up of white males. It's not a fair nor accurate representation of the society that they're responsible towards. [QUOTE=KILLTHIS;44603573]I don't know how positive and discrimination fit together.[/QUOTE] I don't know how you don't understand it. Discrimination in and of itself doesn't imply a negative outlook. Sometimes "positive discrimination" (e.g. Affirmative Action) is a necessary process in order to give marginalized members of society a chance for opportunities otherwise not granted to them.

How about women get there based on their own merits rather than their own gender? I don't know why Labour loves positive discrimination so much, they do it with their MP selection to the point of having women only shortlists, in the 2005 election it cost them a safe seat as the people wanted their previous male MP. [quote]I don't know how you don't understand it. Discrimination in and of itself doesn't imply a negative outlook. Sometimes "positive discrimination" (e.g. Affirmative Action) is a necessary process in order to give marginalized members of society a chance for opportunities otherwise not granted to them.[/quote] The thing is that they do have the opportunity, they just don't have the motivation. If less women want to be judges than men why does that mean that the women who do get more priority over the men that do?

[QUOTE=smurfy;44603608]Doesn't sound like they currently actively plan to do it[/QUOTE] It is being planned but it has not yet been decided exactly what will be done.

Extremely wrong way to deal with a legitimate issue.

[QUOTE=JgcxCub;44603647]Extremely wrong way to deal with a legitimate issue.[/QUOTE] What issue??

How is positive discrimination even a thing. I agree that the system being full of white males is a bad thing, but this shouldn't be balanced out by force. When you get a job it should be based on preformance and merits. Doing it this way is just stupid.

[QUOTE=The mouse;44603638]How about women get there based on their own merits rather than their own gender?[/quote] Because it's not as easy as that. Society provides women as a whole with less opportunity for career paths like this. I'm not saying that the option being discussed is the best route to go, but this argument "well why don't they just do it on merit hurr durr" is ridiculous. There are plenty of women that would be just as good judges as the men that are already sitting in those seats. And yet almost entirely men fill those seats. And it's not because there weren't any women who weren't qualified. [quote]The thing is that they do have the opportunity, they just don't have the motivation. If less women want to be judges than men why does that mean that the women who do get more priority over the men that do?[/QUOTE] This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. Don't flatter yourself by thinking you know a simple solution to an intricate problem that people smarter than you haven't figured out. Really, you think that the judiciary system is dominated by white males because everyone who isn't a white male is too lazy to get the job? Please, spare me.

Yeah gonna have to agree that the whole 'based on merit' thing doesn't work. People are already supposed to be hired/appointed/whatever by merit, and look where we are. Forcing people to fill quotas isn't the best option, but it will mean those who were turned down before because of their race/gender will have another chance at getting the job.

Anybody who thinks this means unqualified people are going to be hired simply due to their gender/ethnicity lives on another fucking planet. Please learn how affirmative action works before you get indignant.

holy fucking shit is every political party in this country absolutely fucking retarded?

[QUOTE=JgcxCub;44603647]Extremely wrong way to deal with a legitimate issue.[/QUOTE] What is the right way to deal with it then? [editline]21st April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Radley;44603656] I agree that the system being full of white males is a bad thing, but this shouldn't be balanced out by force. When you get a job it should be based on preformance and merits. Doing it this way is just stupid.[/QUOTE] So basically you get as far as recognizing the problem then proceed to 180 and say we should keep it as it is. Hmm.

why not just have the best people for the job, in the job regardless of their sex or race, rather than mandatory different races/sexes that could potentially not be good at the job. its not a difficult fucking concept to grasp.

[QUOTE=Wonderland;44603664]Really, you think that the judiciary system is dominated by white males because everyone who isn't a white male is too lazy to get the job?[/QUOTE] The truth is sometimes hard to swallow. :wink:

Quotas are just temporary and superficial plasters stuck over the symptoms of deeply ingrained problems. Prioritise tackling issues from their roots, not their surfaces please. also terrible title op

[QUOTE=Marzipas;44603812]why not just have the best people for the job, in the job regardless of their sex or race, rather than mandatory different races/sexes that could potentially not be good at the job. its not a difficult fucking concept to grasp.[/QUOTE] You're too racist to get it. ~~

[QUOTE=Wonderland;44603664]Really, you think that the judiciary system is dominated by white males because everyone who isn't a white male is too lazy to get the job? Please, spare me.[/QUOTE]Motivation does not always mean work ethic, The mouse even provided context so there shouldn't have been a misunderstanding. Here, let me explain: I don't have any interest in a career in education, therefore I lack motivation to become a teacher. I'm not lazy, I just hate children. I'd also feel like a failure if I passed somebody who is more interested in making sanctimonious quips than reading the rest of a goddamn sentence.

[QUOTE=Marzipas;44603812]why not just have the best people for the job, in the job regardless of their sex or race, rather than mandatory different races/sexes that could potentially not be good at the job. its not a difficult fucking concept to grasp.[/QUOTE] Because if there's an overwhelming majority of a specific race/gender in a specific area of expertise/job, then it will naturally attract more of those because everyone assumes they are best at that. Don't pretend white men are naturally better judges than women or people of another ethnicity. When you understand that, you will hopefully realize that positive discrimination is an attempt to tackle this bias and level the playing field so it isn't necessary any more later once everyone realises white men aren't the only ones who can do that job.

The point of affirmative action is not to have 1 white judge, 1 black judge, 1 Asian judge, etc. The point is to give those who actually have the skills and abilities, but are not considered due to not 'looking the part' because of their ethnicity, a chance to work. For decades and centuries minorities have been faced with discrimination, and just because those laws are no longer enforced doesn't mean that the attitudes behind them mysteriously disappeared as well. It is a temporary way to 'equalise' the job prospects, by balancing out prejudice with legal statute.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;44604062]white men aren't naturally better judges than women or people of another ethnicity.[/QUOTE] How do you know this? Do you have a source to back this up?

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;44603970]Motivation does not always mean work ethic, The mouse even provided context so there shouldn't have been a misunderstanding. Here, let me explain: I don't have any interest in a career in education, therefore I lack motivation to become a teacher. I'm not lazy, I just hate children. I'd also feel like a failure if I passed somebody who is more interested in making sanctimonious quips than reading the rest of a goddamn sentence.[/QUOTE] So in your fantasy scenario people who don't want to become judges spend their life trying to become judges? And that in this scenario, people who don't want to become judges are hired over people who do want to become judges? There's a reason I didn't interpret it this way: that's fucking dumb and absolutely detached from reality. As for "sanctimonous quips" in place of "reading the rest of a goddamn sentence" (or post, as it were), you're doing a much finer job of that yourself than I could ever do. The point being that the are plenty of females who are not only [i]motivated[/i] to become a judge, but would make damn good judges, and are still passed up for the job and the judiciary system continues to be dominated by white males. And this is not due to women, nor any other marginalized group, lacking "motivation" or "merit" to acquire these jobs. [editline]21st April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Marzipas;44603812]why not just have the best people for the job, in the job regardless of their sex or race, rather than mandatory different races/sexes that could potentially not be good at the job. its not a difficult fucking concept to grasp.[/QUOTE] Because "regardless of their sex or race" is difficult to achieve in an prejudiced society. It would be ideal if no one was turned down a job based on certain traits they were born with and cannot change and do not affect the job, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where racism and sexism exists.

i don't get how you can say that a minority in a job lacks motivation to obtain it, and act like that's somehow more natural than if they just weren't being given the job cos of discrimination. if women don't want to become electrical engineers you don't say "oh yeah that's just their anti-electrical engineer genes stopping them, us men don't have those," you say "there must be something in society discouraging women from becoming electrical engineers," and then you fix it. saying that they just lack motivation is just adding an extra stage to the problem. if people of X minority aren't getting hired, [I]why[/I] aren't they getting hired? if they lack motivation and that's why they're not getting hired, [I]what is it in society that kills their motivation?[/I] it's very clearly just a really roundabout way to add onto the question and not say anything of actual substance.

[QUOTE=Wonderland;44603664]Because it's not as easy as that. Society provides women as a whole with less opportunity for career paths like this. I'm not saying that the option being discussed is the best route to go, but this argument "well why don't they just do it on merit hurr durr" is ridiculous. There are plenty of women that would be just as good judges as the men that are already sitting in those seats. And yet almost entirely men fill those seats. And it's not because there weren't any women who weren't qualified. This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. Don't flatter yourself by thinking you know a simple solution to an intricate problem that people smarter than you haven't figured out. Really, you think that the judiciary system is dominated by white males because everyone who isn't a white male is too lazy to get the job? Please, spare me.[/QUOTE] it doesn't take a genius to work out why this shit doesn't work hey cool you now have a load of people who got into positions because they were fulfilling a quota, I'm sure that'll get people to respect X gender/race more!!!!

[QUOTE=Wonderland;44603631]Whether or not you agree that this is a good idea, it's a problem that the judiciary system is almost entirely made up of white males. It's not a fair nor accurate representation of the society that they're responsible towards. I don't know how you don't understand it. Discrimination in and of itself doesn't imply a negative outlook. Sometimes "positive discrimination" (e.g. Affirmative Action) is a necessary process in order to give marginalized members of society a chance for opportunities otherwise not granted to them.[/QUOTE] The issue with affirmative action is, at least in some profession it creates a larger more negative outlook on members of the marginalised group. You'll start hearing stuff about them only getting the post because of the affirmative action, and in the case of solicitors you might be getting into the second instance more often because of this. It's the reason why that association of female solicitors is against this idea as well. Discrimination, be it positive or negative, will always cause issues on some level. Look at it from the side of the WMO applicant who didn't get it. The realisation, that the level for them has risen significantly, because the amount of available positions has dropped can be pretty brutal as well. So you suddenly get a much a much stronger competition within one group, with a potential reduced competition in the others. This in a rule is a danger in high competition jobs.

Meritocracy would work in a perfect world, but the thing is that we don't live in a perfect world. Minorities and women have always faced disadvantages, and continue to do so today. Even if institutionalised racism and sexism is eliminated from the system, echoes from the past will continue to live on to the present. Take the Australian indigenous population. 'White Australia' policies ended decades ago, but the descendants of the people subject to those policies remain disadvantaged because their parents and grandparents had been disadvantaged through institutionalised racism. Many are still born into poverty and crime. Affirmative action makes it easier for those demographics to break away from that cycle, into a life that is shared by white men. People that are against affirmative action and for meritocracies who claim they aren't racist and that meritocracies are the fairest way to deal with the issue really should stop eating their own shit. If we lived in such a society, minorities such as indigenous men and women would have a hard time finding opportunities that many of us here take for granted, and because they fail to find those opportunities, their descendants are born into that life of being disadvantaged and the cycle continues.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;44604513]it doesn't take a genius to work out why this shit doesn't work hey cool you now have a load of people who got into positions because they were fulfilling a quota, I'm sure that'll get people to respect X gender/race more!!!![/QUOTE] idk. Showing that the minorities are actually capable of their job, quota or not, will improve general perception of them and their abilities. Now, we aren't hiring women and non-white people into judicial positions for some reason, that isn't going to change when we point it out because it's constantly being pointed out. The only option left is to enforce change, if people don't want to change for the betterment of society, you fucking well make them. The people who will fulfil these quotas will be properly trained, possibly even some of the best people around, but because of their race and/ or gender, were not hired. There are literally zero downsides to quotas when the balance is so massively skewed like it is in a variety of careers. Yes getting turned down because of the quota is going to suck, but if you were turned down you're probably a white male and will have plenty of other places to try anyway.