I think you’ve somewhat misconstrued what I said. I wasn’t suggesting that this is what Sadiq Khan is proposing; I’ve read your link to what his calling for, and I understand it isn’t anything to do with Sharia, hence my commendation.

Whether you be Jewish, Muslim, Christian, etc, you should show a little committment to British legislature, considering that we’ve got a decent enough judicature that’s perfectly capable of emending any discrepant legislation, when the British public press on for a change.

“What he’s saying is – if there is a better qualified Muslim candidate, but he’s being discriminated against a non-Muslim candidate, purely because of his religion, then that should be made impossible.”
Yes. I agree with that. And it doesn’t quite sound like positive discrimination. But there’s bound to be some people out there thinking that that’s what Sadiq Khan is asking for.

What is bizarre, Sunny, is your claim to be a mind reader, and if you put your prejudice a side for a moment, I will explain exactly what I said in plain English. Please do try and keep up.

1) This country is England, it is governed by English law. It is not a Islamic country, which is governed by Sharia law.

2) I do not take issue with Muslims conducting their own affairs according to Sharia law, providing that there is consent between parties.

3) I do take issue with those involving domestic violence. These should be resolved using the law of the land, that is English criminal law. Sharia law calls for the death of Mickey Mouse, a cartoon character created by Walt Disney, on the ground that he is evil. In my view, this is Muslim extremism. People like that cannot be trusted to act fairly. My understanding is that Sharia law is very male orientated, it does not give the female equal status. As the majority of cases of domestic violence are male upon female, my feeling is that it is wrong to allow this to be determined by Sharia law. Those calling for this argue that Muslims should be treated differently, separately, it is apartied.

4) Along comes Sadiq Khan saying that Muslims can be integrated with the law.

5) One set are calling for apartied. The other for inclusion.

6) I accept the inclusion.

7) I reject the apartied.

I hope this clarifies your clouded thinking?

If not, then I won’t be able to discriminate against the religious, but the religious will still be able to discriminate against atheists like me. And that’s wrong.

Also, surely it reinforces the victimhood mindset, that I must be specially protected because I believe in certain things and I’m not able to stick up for myself.

Bullying and harassment are already pretty strictly fought against in the courts, sometimes with huge settlements.

Is there a barrage of islamophobia in the work place? My previous work place had a barrage of extra special attention to Muslim employees, and an extremely harsh view taken on anti-religious ideas.

I am not playing the victim here at all, but, if I were to play the victim I’d say I’d be the least able to sue my employer if my boss took a dislike to me. It’s happened a few times!

White, male, English born, able-bodied, non-religious, heterosexual. On what basis can I claim discrimination?! Err none!

It does cause a bit of resentment when somebody is successfully able to sue for large amounts of money due to claiming discrimination of one of variations of the demographics mentioned above.

Probably has something to do with the fact that many in muslim world are far more parochial,predujiced…”

I don’t thonk that’s true, digitalcntrl. However, most followers of parochial and restrictive forms of judaism in the U.K.- and similar forms of christianity- want to stay away from the rest of sinful huamnity- discriminate against and want to be discriminated against- in a way that their muslim equivalents do not. They tend to be self-employed or employed by their co-religionists.

Is this proposal actually necessary, however? Present employment law make it illegal to discriminate against candidates because of their beliefs or non-beliefs rather than because of their behaviour unless the job required a belief as a basis for it.

Consider the example of a person who thinks religion is a load of irrational and pernicious nonsense that tends to cause people to kill or harm others.

This person is discussing their beliefs at work with a fellow employee, who happens to be religious. Now its quite possible that the religious person might find those beliefs offensive. If they do, and they complain to their employer that their work ewnvironment is oppressive to them, would this constitute constructive unfair dissmissal?

What if the person with the anti-relgious viewpoint is the employer. Would they be required, by law, to keep their views to themselves? What iof, as a result, they just refused to employ anyone who they thought might be religious, e.g. if they had a Muslim-sounding name? Such discrimination would be unlikely to be found out and prosecuted.

Just nit picking! Can’t believe you said that. If your promoting ‘faiths’ then you have to be able to present atheism as perfectly acceptable too. Otherwise this is discrimination too.

I don’t really understand how you ‘promote’ equality by giving special attention to certain groups at the expense of other groups. Social engineering only leads to resentment anyway.

The problem with even more legislation is that some employers are bound to interpret this as literally giving favour to Muslims, or at least better to be safe than sorry, and favour Muslims anyhow, in order to prevent any accusations of ‘islamophobia’.

What is fear of Christians btw?

Khan; a legal duty to promote equality between faiths,

Spot the difference.

If Khan had thought to add ‘and non-faiths, I’d have been happier, but that’s just me nit-picking.

As I said, I imagine that Khan has the best of motives, but your quote sums up the problem with his approach.

What you suggest is quite benign, but how long is it until, ‘watching out,’ for discrimination becomes a catch-all for a very wide range of claims regardless of merit?

It goes back to the whole idea of judging intent. Race relations are over-regulated as it is without addint intent to the list.

What are they going to be forced about? Affirmativa Action, or Positive Discrimination is illegal right now and that can’t be altered. Similarly, Positive Discrimination on the basis of religion is also illegal and he’d be pretty stupid to argue for it.

He’s saying that orgs should take more responsibility to ensure that orgs are watching out for religioud discrimination.

Similarly, Harman did not say there should be positive discrimination towards women. You’re misreading the Indy’s exaggerated editorial.

MM – maybe. I have sympathy for that view. I still think its unfair to attack Sadiq Khan. Tories aren’t exactly big on small state either. Its just they want the laws to focus on different things.

Leave to one side the very good comment by Letters from a Tory (9) about the apparent artificial creation of discrimination and also the wider question of why it is that various faiths need legislation to encourage/promote their closer working.

Khan may well have the best of intentions – I don’t doubt it. But he is attempting to legislate away feelings and in doing so he is attempting the impossible.

This is an issue for civil society, not statute.

To my mind there is a far greater problem in that this appears to propose is an attempt to legislate for intent, that is treacherous territory and one that is doomed to fail at any level more substantive than the superficial.

Governments should always avoid the temptation to legislate for intent.