Compensation for Slavery?

Yesterday the Observer newspaper ran an article about a landmark case that would give fresh hope to people who have been held against their wishes in sub-human bondage. As I settled down to an enlightened read about the long overdue compensation from the West to Africa and its Disapora, the slowly erupting excitement quickly imploded as I realised they were not talking about the Atlantic Slave Trade. Alas, I had gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. The story was centred around Niger and related to the current enslavement of 40,000 Africans by Africans, not millions enslaved hundreds of years ago by non-Africans.

Of course, I join Anti-Slavery International in campaigning for an end to the practice. Slavery regardless of who enforces it is abhorrent, and the women held in Niger and other parts of the world deserve compensation and more. But as I recount the 'celebrations' of the bicentennial of the passing of the Abolition of Slavery Act 1807 and the muted outcry of the white world saying 'get over it; it is in the past; we did not perpetrate it', I wonder at the global structural hypocrisy. It seems that that the world is just not comfortable when we dare to remind them of the milions of black people that suffered beatings, unpaid work, gruelling hours, starvation and rape. My friends laugh and remark on my naivety at expecting anything less or more from people who continue to benefit from the spoils of their slave master ancestors. After all, that kind of slavery was a long time ago...wasn't it?

Much ado about nothing: UK Equality Bill

The new ‘Equality Bill’ has certainly got the UK talking as public sector employers must now account for inequalities regarding gender pay; ethnic minority employment and disability employment. But what has really got people shouting is the extension of positive action as employers “can take into account, where they feel it is appropriate, when selecting between two equally qualified candidates, under-representation of disadvantaged groups, for example women and people from ethnic minority communities”. What are they worried about? Could that statement be any more ambiguous? It changes nothing; recruitment and selection will still be the subjective domain of employers and their recruiters.

On the subject of all women shortlists, the directives are just as wishy-washy – “....extend the permission to use women-only shortlists in selecting parliamentary candidates...” It seems the only time that the language is definitive is when talking about ethnic minority shortlists, as government will “not legislate to allow for ethnic minority shortlists at this stage”. It's not that I am not advocating the use of women-only shortlists, as there are advantages and disadvantages to these schemes which merit a full exploration of the issues. But if the government is serious about doing something positive to reverse institutional and structural discrimination, the Equality Bill in its current state (despite strengthening the law for transsexual people, pregnant women and disabled people) is woefully inadequate. So the majority of the UK population can chill out, because the status quo remains, it is business as usual.

Gender Inequality – Choice or Sexism?

A few weeks ago the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published their Sex and Power Report 2008 and since then there has been thousands of column inches dedicated to the veracity, efficacy or indeed necessity of such a report and its findings. The report basically states that despite years of so-called progress and legislation, women still don’t have a fair share of power and influence.

If the mostly wealthy, male commentators and Melanie McDonagh are to be believed, this gender inequality is a matter of choice. Women simply do not want power or influence. Or rather, they are unwilling to give up the cushy job that is raising a family for the long hours, fast pace and stress of the corporate boardroom. Hence, it is a maternity gap, not a gender gap that causes any inequality, if it exists. And there may be some merit to this argument. After all, the Office of National Statistics reports that there's very little difference between the pay of young women and young men. Not only that, any pay differential is actually in the women's favour as long as they are single and childless. However, the problem with the maternity gap theory is that it only affects one gender – women.

But let’s get back to the choice thing. Pardon me for stating the obvious, but being born a woman is not a matter of choice, it is biology. But the prejudices faced by women are caused by socialisation. Why shouldn’t women be afforded the opportunity to pursue any combination of careers, child bearing and/or rearing they desire? No-one here is asking for guaranteed equality of outcomes, merely the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, without having to contend with old boys’ networks and misguided stereotypes of the nature of woman.

OK, not every woman wants to be in charge, but there are many women who do and are suitably qualified to do many of the jobs currently occupied by men. Maybe, the EHRC research should measure only those women who want to be in top management or judges or MPS. Would it have made any difference to their findings? I doubt it. For instance, when compared to the rest of the world, the UK is woefully outranked in terms of gender equality in Parliament, coming in 70th out of 155 countries behind Sweden, China, Canada, Rwanda and Argentina. It would be highly remiss of me not to mention that some (not all) of these countries have introduced legislative quotas to redress the gender imbalance.

Let’s not even talk about black women in the UK. They are at an even greater disadvantage – one high court judge and two members of parliament... I wonder if Melanie and her readers will attribute this, yet again to the maternity gap. Hmmmm, I wonder if she has children.