Aristotle and Jurisprudence
Aristotle was originally from an oligarchy but lived in a democracy. No surprise then that even with his writings which have a clarity of thought, and the 'Nichomachean Ethics' is a good read, he did not believe in equality for women.
In order to provide "democracy" all participants must do "equality".
I therefore have some issues with the Equality Bill (which I have not read) in the "form" being proposed by Harriet Harman on UK society - is there a "form" or more than one "form" of democracy and, if so, what are they and which one are we(she) attempting to follow.
What part of "discrimination" does a person not get with the word "positive" before it. Subtly calling it positive "action" is not going to evade a "negative" in society.
Flipping a coin [50:50] is likely to impact statistically far more, than positive discrimination in any guise, and moreover, you can never be pursued through the courts for doing so.
Equality for someone who achieved it through positive discrimination is not at all and is as shallow as having no inherent worth or value. Moreover, the person doing the positive discrimination may have a mutuality or reciprocity issue, and of course, it also "creates" a victim and therefore injustice, harm and at all times a "negative" in society.
The Equality Bill begs the question did Harriet Harman get her position in society because she was the most able candidate intellectually and/or capably or did she get it because someone out there who was intelligent and capable did not and who would never ever have used the concept of dressed up discrimination in the same format as "Equality".
If the Equality Bill's impact is on gender and pay gaps, then that should be what the Bill is called. In the 21st Century it is necessary in the UK to pay on an equality basis, it is just as probable that the main breadwinner is now a woman than a man. The impact on career and/or on the family in the 21st Century concerning earnings capacity and the stability of society through taxes and opportunities is the same concerning gender. Those that are capable to earn the most or be the main breadwinner should have the same.
For what its worth, as a paralegal at S J Berwin & Co, I was paid £20,000 raising to £22,000 per year and I was in the third year of my four year LLB degree. My paralegal colleagues, SW was paid £10,000 per year and doing the CPE course; GMcK was paid £12,000 per year and had a MA degree, ie two degrees; EZ was paid £14,000 per year and had completed the CPE course; SW was paid £16,000 per year and had completed the CPE course. GMcK found out, but kept it to herself. I was very worried as I was obviously not as qualified albeit more than capable doing what was required re workload for everyone other than Nick Carnell (he is being sued) and I did not want to be the "cause" of a run of Equal Pay claims in the company which would not have endeared me to the company viz-a-viz articles, which did not occur in any event. All my high salary served to do was cause me to be a "budget" issue from time to time contra others. It also meant that when my profit costs on a £24 billion project for 11 months and 1 month holiday of £146k, translating as 109% performance, I was not permitted to have a salary increase and had to ask for my contractual bonus and then contractually dispense with it because I was above market value. I argued that my contract had never been market value when I joined the firm, so why was I subject to market value now when my performance was 109% - there was no incentive to work or do well for the organisation. It was not my fault that the need the company had for me when they initially employed me on a £200m project diminished when the project settled early. I then received two pay increases of £900 and £1,100 for doing little or nothing for the company, but in contrast busting a gut and meeting my agreed targets translated as no worth or value, no pay increase, which eventually translated as not being invited to articles.
S J Berwin were an "ugly" employer then, I am still in litigation, and are still "ugly" now via Respondent's solicitors who have still not responded to knowledge that a conflict of interest on the case has caused a serious invasion of privacy and furtherance of corruption and organised crime activities on the case. I do hold Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, wholly responsible together with the Master in the Royal Courts, Queen's Bench Division - who should be answering to the Houses on an issue of democracy - I have asked my MP to deal, it should have meant some action from the Home Office and Jackie Smith MP, do I hold her accountable to Parliament and the electorate too for being in the courts for 13 years and having a civil liberty issue in England due to the failure of the judiciary to progress my case - someone is accountable and responsible!
An Equality Bill for me has more profound issues that need to be addressed in society - a dressed up Gender and Pay bill which advocates discriminatory practices is just "nonsense".
Flip a coin - you cannot be sued for selecting someone on absolute fairness.
As for Aristotle, I didn't read anything about what his wife did in her "inequality" or that she grumbled too much about any perceived "unequal" issues. Aristotle is about "degenerate, reasonable, excessive" - now there's something for the Cabinet to get into debate about - what is going on in our society that is degenerate or excessive!!!! Where does Aristotle sit concerning the Equality Bill?
In order to provide "democracy" all participants must do "equality".
I therefore have some issues with the Equality Bill (which I have not read) in the "form" being proposed by Harriet Harman on UK society - is there a "form" or more than one "form" of democracy and, if so, what are they and which one are we(she) attempting to follow.
What part of "discrimination" does a person not get with the word "positive" before it. Subtly calling it positive "action" is not going to evade a "negative" in society.
Flipping a coin [50:50] is likely to impact statistically far more, than positive discrimination in any guise, and moreover, you can never be pursued through the courts for doing so.
Equality for someone who achieved it through positive discrimination is not at all and is as shallow as having no inherent worth or value. Moreover, the person doing the positive discrimination may have a mutuality or reciprocity issue, and of course, it also "creates" a victim and therefore injustice, harm and at all times a "negative" in society.
The Equality Bill begs the question did Harriet Harman get her position in society because she was the most able candidate intellectually and/or capably or did she get it because someone out there who was intelligent and capable did not and who would never ever have used the concept of dressed up discrimination in the same format as "Equality".
If the Equality Bill's impact is on gender and pay gaps, then that should be what the Bill is called. In the 21st Century it is necessary in the UK to pay on an equality basis, it is just as probable that the main breadwinner is now a woman than a man. The impact on career and/or on the family in the 21st Century concerning earnings capacity and the stability of society through taxes and opportunities is the same concerning gender. Those that are capable to earn the most or be the main breadwinner should have the same.
For what its worth, as a paralegal at S J Berwin & Co, I was paid £20,000 raising to £22,000 per year and I was in the third year of my four year LLB degree. My paralegal colleagues, SW was paid £10,000 per year and doing the CPE course; GMcK was paid £12,000 per year and had a MA degree, ie two degrees; EZ was paid £14,000 per year and had completed the CPE course; SW was paid £16,000 per year and had completed the CPE course. GMcK found out, but kept it to herself. I was very worried as I was obviously not as qualified albeit more than capable doing what was required re workload for everyone other than Nick Carnell (he is being sued) and I did not want to be the "cause" of a run of Equal Pay claims in the company which would not have endeared me to the company viz-a-viz articles, which did not occur in any event. All my high salary served to do was cause me to be a "budget" issue from time to time contra others. It also meant that when my profit costs on a £24 billion project for 11 months and 1 month holiday of £146k, translating as 109% performance, I was not permitted to have a salary increase and had to ask for my contractual bonus and then contractually dispense with it because I was above market value. I argued that my contract had never been market value when I joined the firm, so why was I subject to market value now when my performance was 109% - there was no incentive to work or do well for the organisation. It was not my fault that the need the company had for me when they initially employed me on a £200m project diminished when the project settled early. I then received two pay increases of £900 and £1,100 for doing little or nothing for the company, but in contrast busting a gut and meeting my agreed targets translated as no worth or value, no pay increase, which eventually translated as not being invited to articles.
S J Berwin were an "ugly" employer then, I am still in litigation, and are still "ugly" now via Respondent's solicitors who have still not responded to knowledge that a conflict of interest on the case has caused a serious invasion of privacy and furtherance of corruption and organised crime activities on the case. I do hold Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, wholly responsible together with the Master in the Royal Courts, Queen's Bench Division - who should be answering to the Houses on an issue of democracy - I have asked my MP to deal, it should have meant some action from the Home Office and Jackie Smith MP, do I hold her accountable to Parliament and the electorate too for being in the courts for 13 years and having a civil liberty issue in England due to the failure of the judiciary to progress my case - someone is accountable and responsible!
An Equality Bill for me has more profound issues that need to be addressed in society - a dressed up Gender and Pay bill which advocates discriminatory practices is just "nonsense".
Flip a coin - you cannot be sued for selecting someone on absolute fairness.
As for Aristotle, I didn't read anything about what his wife did in her "inequality" or that she grumbled too much about any perceived "unequal" issues. Aristotle is about "degenerate, reasonable, excessive" - now there's something for the Cabinet to get into debate about - what is going on in our society that is degenerate or excessive!!!! Where does Aristotle sit concerning the Equality Bill?
posted by Lesley McDade at 8:54 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home