Should we scrap The Equality Act?
The fights for equality and freedom have long been assumed to advance together. Yet as equality has become increasingly codified through laws such as the Equality Act 2010, some argue these two ideals now collide. With issues of identity, harassment and harms now centre-stage in political life, difficult tensions have emerged around equality claims, justice demands centred on protected characteristics, and rights such as free speech. Some – including the party that has been leading the opinion polls for much of the past two years, Reform UK – argue the Equality Act must be repealed to rid us of the ‘pernicious, divisive notion of protected characteristics’.
Introduced by the New Labour government, the Act consolidated postwar legislation on race, sex, disability and discrimination into a single framework. Supporters argue it strengthens protections for historically marginalised groups and encourages broader representation across public life, workplaces and education. By safeguarding groups defined by characteristics of religion, race, disability, sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment, defenders say the Act fosters pluralism, enabling once-marginalised groups to play a full role in debate and society more broadly.
Critics say the Act has adverse – if unintended – consequences. It laid the foundations for a proliferating EDI industry and encourages identity-based grievance claims around a growing list of ‘protected’ characteristics. One outcome is to pit social groups against each other – leaving officials, police or judges to act as referees between diverse social groups. For example, disputes over gender identity expose tensions between protections based on sex and those relating to gender reassignment, particularly in women’s sport, student societies and single-sex services. The murder of Henry Nowak, particularly the police handling the crime scene, led to claims that the Public Sector Equality Duty and Positive Action policies create special privileges that then discriminate against certain groups – in this case, white people.
Is it fair that those without designated protected characteristics, such as white men, do not enjoy these protections? On the other hand, isn’t it positive for free speech that the Act’s protected characteristics include philosophical beliefs? Supporters of the Equality Act say it is now indispensable to defending free expression of lawful, but unpopular, anti-woke views. Others argue the Act provides protection of gender-critical beliefs, for example, in the face of controversial accusations by activist lobby groups such as Amnesty International alleging organisations providing services limited to biological women are ‘anti-rights’.
Is free speech strengthened by protecting beliefs in law? Has the Equality Act struck the right balance between preventing discrimination and preserving liberty – or is it time for serious reform? And if we scrap the Act, do we risk opening the way to renewed discrimination?
