Geese and Gander
Parliamentarians aren't subject to the same laws as the rest of us when it comes to misrepresenting the facts, making misleading statements etc. . We've seen a whole bunch of explanations on this blog. Unwritten constitution, 300 years of history, self regulation...
Dominic Lawson found the answer in the Independent.
The fact is, they don't want to be subject to the same law as us. We've just seen the kind of fallout the 2006 Equality Bill can produce with gay adoptions v. the Catholic. Nevertheless, the government put it's foot down - "We are all equal. No discrimination. No exceptions."
So it's a little suprising to find that there are in fact some exceptions to the Equality Bill. They're a fairly well known collective, almost always in the news for one thing or another, but neatly summarised in Section 52 of the Act, sub-section 3.
| Public authorities: general | |
| (1) It is unlawful for a public authority exercising a function to do any act which constitutes discrimination. | |
| (2) In subsection (1)- | |
| |
| |
| (3) The prohibition in subsection (1) shall not apply to- | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Just about says it all really.
Hat tip to dizzythinks
wow thats so interesting, might be worth taking a little look to see if the Human Rights Act has any inbuilt inequalities for politicians as well....
ReplyDeleteThis is completely absurd, although not entirely surprising- the people creating the law make sure they are exempt from it. We are not living in a democracy, it's a complete joke
ReplyDeleteThere's the Pigs and then there's the Pigs. Some more equal than others. Get used to it.
ReplyDeleteIn the real world, power is always going to create inequality - get with it.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the point that we should be working towards our ideals rather than talking about a 'real world' in which people who wish to abuse power get away with it because people lke you are too willing or apathetic to do anything about it?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't have to be the case that there is inequality in any society - only a jaded person would say that
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
ReplyDeleteabsolutely 'whatswrong'. The answer seems to be the guardians!
ReplyDeleteIf Catholics cannot be granted an exemption from legislation that goes against deeply held moral beliefs, why should ministers be permitted it when they inevitably use such privileges for the purpose of their own self-aggrandizement?
ReplyDeleteWhy don’t we have another set of guardians, like the Supreme Court in America? Although not democratically elected, they would be able to hold MPs (or even the PM) to account if there were a law against them lying.
ReplyDeletest quintin - why not elect those guardians too?
ReplyDeleteanon 12.39 - I agree, we don't just need an elected second chamber and a written constitution and we'd be a lot more sorted.
ReplyDeleteThe more checks and balances the better: if we ever get a House of Lords that is anything other than an appointed house packed with political puppets, then it might be fit for the purpose of policing the government. I don’t think it is capable of playing that role right now.
ReplyDeleteEven if the House of Lords became a fully elected second chamber, I think there is still something to be said for having an independent (unelected) panel of legal experts: any elected body in that position would be distorted by party allegiance. Better perhaps for them to be apolitical and (hopefully) less likely to be biased.
Who writes this ? I love them. Back home we never had such craftsmen, such draftsmen. The people who write this kind of legislation are poets. I think I'm getting an erection.
ReplyDelete