Victimising third parties:the equality directives, the European convention on human rights, and EU general principles

This article highlights a problem which has troubled courts in the United States in recent years, and like most equality issues arising in US litigation, it is likely to trouble Europe's courts in due course. It concerns the victimisation provisions expressed in equality legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act 1964 (US), the EU Equality Directives, or the Equality Act 2010 (UK). The problem is that none of these are expressed to prohibit the victimisation of third parties, for instance, dismissing a spouse of a worker who brought a discrimination claim. This "most ancient form of vengeance" is designed to deter the worker from pursuing the claim, and will also deter others from complaining, "the chilling effect". This article identifies a variety of scenarios where a third party could be victimised, highlights the shortcomings in the equality Directives, and searches for solutions in EU law and the European Convention of Human Rights. It concludes that the best existing solution lies in EU general principles, but for the sake of certainty, a simple amendment to the existing legislative formulas is required, which would resolve the problem without any undue side-effects

Multiculturalism, compassion, and the law

This paper looks at multiculturalism from a legal perspective. We have in the West equality laws. We also have popular resistance to anything beyond equal treatment, which falls well short of delivering equality. For instance, the law recognizes that different people require different (not the same) treatment. Thus, apparently neutral practices that adversely affect a protected group are outlawed unless justified. In limited cases, the law also recognizes the problems of historic discrimination, just as wealth tumbles down the generations, so does disadvantage. The legal solution here of course is positive discrimination. Both ‘different treatment’ and positive discrimination attract negative populists headlines. This suggests that there is a duty on lawmakers (politicians and judges) to enlighten the general public as the purpose behind these laws. The track record is not good. Government ministers and judges quite brazenly attack these laws in search of populist headlines. Be it Teresa May’s absurd ‘cat’ story, or David Blunket’s ‘airy-fairy civil liberties’ attack, or his observation that foreign children were ‘swamping’ British schools, or the mantra by nearly all politicians that the ‘Essex Travellers’ ‘should obey the planning law like anyone else’. Laws passed to redress prejudice are undermined by those who make them. What should be done? This paper discusses how equality law can be made more effective. The thesis is that first, in complex societies so much disadvantage is invisible to an uninformed public. Second, human rights laws - especially equality laws - are rooted in compassion. People generally have a sense of compassion, especially for the underdog. This appears at odds with the resistance by ordinary (so presumably decent) people to the more ambitious discrimination laws. The reconciliation, it is argued, can be achieved by lawmakers delivering positive messages about equality law, its purpose, e.g. compassion for the underdog, and the plight of those most vulnerable whom the law seeks to help

The chilling effect and the most ancient form of vengeance:discrimination and victimising third parties

The recent Equality Act 2010 includes a revised definition of “victimisation”, which (in the Act’s most litigated field of employment) prohibits employers from victimising workers who use the legislation. The underlying mischief should be the deterrent effect upon litigants, or potential litigants (the “chilling” effect). One particularly pernicious deterrent is the victimisation, not of the complainant, but of a third party, such as the complainant’s spouse, loved one, or friend, “the most ancient form of vengeance”. Yet the revised definition does not address the deterrent effect per se, and specifically excludes third party victimisation from its reach. This paper explores, first, why the deterrent mischief and the chilling effect should underpin the victimisation provision, so that it addresses third party victimisation, second, the potential of existing alternative solutions in domestic law; and third, the position EU law, and under the United States’ Civil Rights Act 1964. It concludes that the best existing solution lies in EU general principles, but for the sake of certainty, a simple amendment to the existing formula is required, which would solve the problem without any undue side-effects

On The Dimension of The Virtually Cyclic Classifying Space of a Crystallographic Group

In this paper we construct a model for the classifying space, BVCG, of a crystallographic group G of rank n relative to the family VC of virtually-cyclic subgroups of G. The model is used to show that there exists no other model for the virtually-cyclic classifying space of G with dimension less than vcd(G)+1, where vcd(G) denotes the virtual cohomological dimension of G. In addition, the dimension of our construction realizes this limit.Comment: 10 page

The Regulation and Development of Bioremediation

The authors describe how federal statutes regulating hazardous wastes create both incentives and disincentives for exploiting the large potential of bioremediation. Ultimately, they argue for regulation attending more to comparative risks and costs

Alien Registration- Connolly, Michael (Portland, Cumberland County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/25117/thumbnail.jp