Why I support all women shortlists

By way of a followup to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOqeXAZfX1o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOqeXAZfX1o) where I mentioned in passing that I support all-women shortlists

References

Ball, R. (2010). The case for all-women shortlists. Available: http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2010/04/the_case_for_al. Last accessed 10th Oct 2010.

Htun, M. (2004). Is gender like ethnicity? The political representation of minority groups. Perspectives on Politics. 2 (3), 439.458.

IPU. (2010). Women in National Parliaments. Available: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm. Last accessed 10th Oct 2010.

McSmith, A. (2006). The Big Question: Are all-women shortlists the best way to achieve equality in Parliament?. Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-are-allwomen-s...

Prince, R. (2010). David Cameron: I will impose all-women shortlists. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7265221/David-Cameron-I-w.... Last accessed 10th Oct 2010.
Wangnerud, L. (2009). Women in Parliament: Descriptive and Substantive Representation. Annual Review of Political Science. 12 (1), 51-69.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• all
• women
• shortlists
• uk
• politics
• labour
• feminism
• gender
• equality
• positive
• discrimination
• blaenau
• gwent
• dai
• davies
• peter
• law

[TheSpazzofMuffins]

You support all women shortlists because you're a sexist.

I suggest you go to Manwomanmyth 's channel, and educate yourself.

Also remember that equal opportunity is not equal outcome.

All women shortlists are sick.

We aught to have all white short lists for marathon runners. It's not that blacks are just faster than white people, and that's why nearly all competitors in Olympic's track events are black.

It's because white people are descriminated against.

But all white shortlists would be racist

[ethanB612]

@express0ne Irrelevant? Party policy vs. legislation is irrelevant?

You're a fucking imbecile. So I guess there's really no difference between me preferring not to drink and the government banning alcohol. Really it's "irrelevant" right?

I mean, clearly there's just no difference between me preffering Coca Cola to Pepsi, and the government legislating in support of Coca-Cola. Obviously that's "irrelevant."

Fucking moron.

[eddrebrab]

@malsidiputs Given the manifest lack of understanding you have displayed here of the ELS, of the place of arbitration within it, and of the kind of thing that actually occurs in UK sharia tribunals, it amuses me greatly to see that you consider yourself a competent judge of socio-political 'reality' in Britain.

Rather than being blinded by my immense stupidity, why not actually pay attention to the things I say and you will see that I recognise the dangers of sharia tribunals perfectly well.

[malsidiputs]

@eddrebrab

I do not question that there are some similarities in sharia and English law!

However it is still absolutely wrong to allow Muslim arbitrary to act in England!

This way you are creating a parallel society! That's not farsighted on the contrary!

You will have to resolve problems you do not wish to have!

Anyway, listening to the conversation btw dlondancole and ttf, and all I can see is you are stubborn hillbillies that live in your own world far from reality!

Go on dreaming!

[eddrebrab]

@DLandonCole Precisely.

That said, there is a problem apropos of ensuring that decisions aren't served that do conflict, which is why I suggested regulation below.

I think it also needs to be made clear - to the Muslim as well as non-Muslim public - that arbitration does not take place in state recognised courts, but rather in unofficial (from a state perspective) tribunals. Any perception that they are legitimate sites for the administration of justice is, I feel, deeply problematic.

[DLandonCole]

@eddrebrab I think this is the key point; we are dealing with a feature of English law that already existed that is being used in a slightly novel way. As you rightly say, if there's a conflict, the law of the land wins every time. No ifs, buts or maybes.

[eddrebrab]

@malsidiputs The immigrants are adapting to English law by making use of an already extant arbitration system. It is simply not the case that English law has adapted or is adapting to accommodate sharia.

Some elements of sharia clash with English law, and those elements are, as I've pointed out several times already, illegal. But there are other elements that are consonant with it, and yet others about which English law is silent.

[malsidiputs]

@eddrebrab

Give me a break!! You are ridiculous!

Who is going to live where?

Is it, that an English person is going to live in a Muslims society or is it a Muslim that is going to live in a western society (England)?

English law or arbitration does not have to adapt to immigrants! Immigrants have to adapt to English law!!!

Sharia and English law system, is like oil and water! They do not match they clash!

[malsidiputs]

@DLandonCole

Do you really think a Muslima, not having the ability to learn English properly, because she lives in a ghetto, would have the courage to speak out against her husband or the Muslim cleric?

How ingenuous are you?