Discrimination laws: An analysis

distinction justices An analysisWhat ar the strengths and weaknesses of the law relating to either wash secernment, sex disagreement or disability discrimination?Relating to disability discriminationDisability discrimination is legitimately prohibited and controlled in the UK via two chief(prenominal) statutory instruments, the Disability favoritism impress 2005 (DDA) (previously the Disability Discrimination exertion 1995) and the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) Act 1999. Further command ext raritys the scope of reportage for example, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 providing children equal coming to education regardless of their ability. The main aims of these legislative pieces is to effectively end discrimination towards change people and provide them an egalitarianism in nightclub mainly reflected by dint of equal rights in employment access to goods, services, facilities, products and places buying, selling and renting land and/or prope rties and to maximize ease of use of the usual transport system (to be implemented by the g overnment). The law in this argona remains rather unclear, however, despite the limited and rather open statutory coverage provided. This opacity has generated a collection of strengths and weaknesses in the law relating specific all toldy to disability discrimination, some of which exit be discussed and explored below. These strengths and weaknesses demonstrate how the law is virtually ineffective in attacking such a apprehension as discrimination be curtilage of enforceability. For the purposes of this essay, focus will reside with anti-discrimination in employment.The superlative weakness in the law in relation to disability discrimination is, as touched upon above, its recondite ness. The legislation suffers from the proof problem, qualifying for protection under the Acts. How is a does one de elegant who is and who is not disenable? What is and what is not discrimination? How can you be sure you ar beingness discriminated against as these tests are all a matter of perception, excepting of course when on that point is clear-cut objective discrimination like a dismissal or non-accommodation of natural ability (Corker, 1999). With regard to defining who is and who is not disabled the DDA states those who befuddle a physical or mental impairment which has a corporeal and long-term effect on his ability to carry out frequent day-to-day activities are disabled (DDA 1995 s1.1). The DDA was further extended on April seventh 2005 to include those with some mental illnesses and those suffering from cancer, HIV and MS (multiple sclerosis), that it did not encapsulate those suffering from depression. The reason given by the parking land for this exclusion was because the illness was re-occurring rather than fundamentally long-term and the DDA only covers those illnesses which are long-term (BBC 2005). Depression may be a severely enfeeble disquiet and muc h(prenominal) research has attri only whened depression with biological roots, therefore being an effect of a physical long-term disability which merely manifests sporadically. besides the purpose of the DDA, to render those with disabilities every bit amongst lodge by removing the constraints their disability places on them, is lost with depressed persons. Many argue however, that a line moldiness be drawn somewhere in order to prevent the floodgates from origin and every even minor disability, from scraped knees to headaches, to fall subject to the anti-discrimination legislation.This lack of explanation within definition is supplemented with a series of focus notes, issued by the DRC, on interpreting the various terms. Yet, as would be perceived, these notes are merely guidance and not fundamental law and therefore submit no enforceable effect. Only a judge could make the decisions as to whether or not a person qualifies as disabled. To activate the process of filing and p ublicise proceedings, paying court fees and actually going to court while hold for a potentially adverse outcome is not a walk in the park. Of course this is all providing the perpetrator is difficult. This discrepancy mingled with legal theory and practical application is an obvious flaw in the anti-discrimination code and will be touched upon again later.The greatest strength in the law relating to discrimination is its generation of awareness. A simple effect, but a nonetheless extremely central one. Awareness is the first step in a winning battle against discriminating, changing the mind-set of the population en masse. Employers are focused on accommodating the disabled, businesses think more to the highest degree how effective a disabled person remains. Colleagues are alerted to the fact that a disabled person functions equally well as one who is in full abled if given the right environmental conditions. Yet this legislation may alike suffer from institutionalization. W hen a person is diagnosed as being depressed, checked into an make for and treated by all being depressed then the disorder is perpetuated. On a simpler note, a child who is told they are mentally subdued at a young age may begin to run short up to that expectation, having been institutionalized into stupidity (Cohen, 2002). With physical disabilities this concept applies less but with mental disorders it may have some side effects. Further, even with physical disabilities, many disabled persons attempt to integrate themselves into society as much as possible. This legislation, when implemented as intended may instead cause it to be more difficult for the person to move beyond their pigeon-holing.A further strength in the law regarding disability discrimination is the furnish it makes for those who defend the disabled. It falls under the term victimisation in the statute and covers both disabled and able people who have either provided prove or information in a case of discrimi nation or brought proceedings of discrimination under the DDA, regardless of whether these proceedings were followed through or not (Corker, 1999 and Halsburys, 2005). This applies particularly in the scope of employment, where colleagues may become involved. This proviso enhances fair justice as the witness, in this instance the colleague, will be they are protected from being discriminated from by statute and can tattle up.However. The case is never that straightforward. A fundamental weakness with this facet is overly the proof problem. What is discrimination, who is being discriminated, who is disabled and so on. Further, a point moldiness be made on the incompatibility (often) between theory and practice. It is fine for a business to change the pissing sphere of influence of a disabled person, allowing them greater benefits than other dieers, but it doesnt often follow that the abled workers will not continue to socially discriminate against those who are disabled who ar e now, due to the anti-discrimination legislation even bigger targets through their labeled, identification border like treatment. Students suffering from dyslexia often receive special treatment through time extensions during exams and even the possibility to take exams on a calculator versus writing. Many have argued that this should be abolished as finally they will have learned the same amount than others and just because they have a larn disability does not mean that they should receive special treatment over others, especially not those who are of lower than average intelligence. Ultimately could this excessively not be classed as a disability? Conceptually the anti-discrimination regulations would work well to enhance egalitarianism but how individual people react to it, thereby shaping the environment in which we work, is questionable. The silent treatment, passing work on to others, not being invited to travel and to particular meetings can all feel like discriminatio n but an abled person can equally be passed over due to lower performance ratings (Butler and Drakeford, 2003). How to find the necktie between corporate behaviour and discrimination is a problem. The behaviour is excessively often a matter of perception and some people may be more sensitive than others, reading everything against a gumptiondrop of disability.The anti-discrimination legislation has another side to it too. The party who is to accommodate the disabled and implement the regulations. This area of law is effective in so far as it all the way lays out for an employer, or other persons who interact with disabled people, what it is that they must do to comply. It also imposes limitations. Employers with 20 or less employees do not pick up to comply (DDA 1995 s7.1). This prevents the regulation from causing a monetary hindrance to those businesses which are smaller and potentially therefore generate less turnover. This is important so as not to become a cause of possib le financial and economical ruin. There is a fine balance to be met between protecting the discriminated and imposing rules on the discriminator.Acceptance and equality within society are fundamental facets, and at that perhaps even the most important ones, that define and shape our society (here in the UK) yet capitalism, consumerism, competition and entrepreneurship ultimately generate the economical and fiscal foundations upon which our high standard of living is based. The weaknesses this area of law experiences are perhaps rather just reflections of a equilibrate act, attempting to maintain the core backdrop to our standard of life while dabbling at moving the concept of total egalitarianism from ideology to reality.References BBC, April 7 2005. Peers back down on Disability Law. London BBC News.Berlins, M. and Dyer, C. (1994) The Law Machine (4th Edition). Harmondsworth Penguin. Butler, I. and Drakeford, M. (2003) sociable Policy, Social Welfare and Scandal. Basingstoke Palgr ave.Cohen, S. (2002) Folk Devils and Moral Panics (3rd Edition). London Routledge.Corker, M. (1999). The UK Disability Discrimination Act disabling language, justifying inequitable social participation. In Silvers, A. and Francis, L. (2000). 10th day of remembrance of Americans with Disabilities. New York Routledge.Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Disability Discrimination Act 2005. Queens Printer of Act of Parliament (internet version). The Stationery Office restrict (hardcopy). London.Halsburys Laws Disability Discrimination. Butterworths Legal Series, 2005. www.butterworths.co.uk/halsburysSlapper, G. and Kelly, D. (2003) The English Legal System (6th Edition). London Cavendish.Smith, O. (2000) contest the Closed Class Concept of Disability under Disability Discrimination Legislation. Liverpool University of Liverpool, School of Law