International Journal of Discrimination and the Law

This article analyses the Discrimination Law Review, issued in June 2007, which proposes the introduction of a Single Equality Act for Great Britain. It argues that these proposals will lead to some valuable reforms especially through the harmonisation of legal definitions in areas such as disability discrimination and indirect discrimination. Yet, at the same time, the Discrimination Law Review has missed an opportunity to address some of the central problems that hinder the effectiveness of discrimination law. The analysis focuses on specific examples: the ‘comparator’ problem in equal pay and multiple discrimination cases; individual remedies; public sector duties; procurement; and positive action. The article concludes that although the proposals for a Single Equality Act will lead to greater protection for individuals they are unlikely to be an effective response to the problems of structural discrimination and social exclusion.

It is increasingly being recognised that an impressive and relevant presentation of job advertisements, combined with their strategic placing in an appropriate medium is key to a successful recruitment campaign. With increasing competition for certain jobs in this country this is vital although there are inherent dangers for an employer who, without considering the risks, simply asks for what he wants in terms of the skills attributes and characteristics of an applicant. The employer could face serious legal consequences where he wrongly discriminates against people not meeting his requirements or the content of the advert does not reflect the reality of the situation in the workplace. This could take the form of a claim under the equality legislation or a common law action under the law of contract or tort.

On 7 September 2005 the District Court in The Hague judged that it was unlawful for the Dutch State to continue providing party funding to the ‘Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij’. On the basis of religious considerations, this Calvinist political party excluded women from full membership and denied women the possibility of taking up political and administrative mandates on behalf of the party. This amounted to discrimination of women with regard to their right to political participation, according to the court. Public funding of the SGP was thus contrary to the obligations contained in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

This contribution analyses the court's decision and reasoning to conclude that it is premised on a number of untenable assumptions, regarding the nature and requirements of the principle of nondiscrimination — contained in CEDAW — vis-à-vis other rights and liberties.