Repeal all anti-discrimination THOUGHTCRIME legislation

should be repealed because they are THOUGHTCRIME legislation

Why is this idea important?

should be repealed because they are THOUGHTCRIME legislation

repeal section 12 of Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829

"2.Offices witheld from Roman Catholics.

Provided also, that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend to enable any person or persons professing the Roman Catholic religion to hold or exercise the office of guardians and justices of the United Kingdom, or of regent of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted; nor to enable any person, otherwise than as he is now by law enabled, to hold or enjoy the office of lord high chancellor, lord keeper or lord commissioner of the great seal of Great Britain . . . ; or his Majestys high commissioner to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland."

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=Act+(UK+Public+General)&ActiveTextDocId=1030253

Why is this idea important?

"2.Offices witheld from Roman Catholics.

Provided also, that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend to enable any person or persons professing the Roman Catholic religion to hold or exercise the office of guardians and justices of the United Kingdom, or of regent of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted; nor to enable any person, otherwise than as he is now by law enabled, to hold or enjoy the office of lord high chancellor, lord keeper or lord commissioner of the great seal of Great Britain . . . ; or his Majestys high commissioner to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland."

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=Act+(UK+Public+General)&ActiveTextDocId=1030253

Repeal legislation requiring firms to reveal what they pay men & women.

I'm amazed the coalition are going to go-ahead with this law proposed by Labour, where employers must publish what they pay male versus female staff.

Why is this idea important?

I'm amazed the coalition are going to go-ahead with this law proposed by Labour, where employers must publish what they pay male versus female staff.

Review of Human Rights Act

A review of the Human Rights Act to consider that there has to be a balance between an individual's human rights and those of any victims of crimes they perpetrate or could perpetrate.

Humans do need rights and morally we have to extend them to criminals. However, the pendulum has swung too far and people must be able to be held accountable for crimes they have committed, crimes they are enticing others to commit and also where clear common sense dictates that people are using and abusing the legal system.

Why is this idea important?

A review of the Human Rights Act to consider that there has to be a balance between an individual's human rights and those of any victims of crimes they perpetrate or could perpetrate.

Humans do need rights and morally we have to extend them to criminals. However, the pendulum has swung too far and people must be able to be held accountable for crimes they have committed, crimes they are enticing others to commit and also where clear common sense dictates that people are using and abusing the legal system.

Repeal laws that deny equal civil rights to disabled people

Repeal section 21ZA of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, and also repeal the equivalent sections from the Equality Act 2010.

This sections permit airlines, cruise liners and ferries to discriminate against disabled people by refusing them carriage even when there is no safety justification whatsoever for the less favourable treatment.

This would give disabled people the same right not to be discriminated against when travelling by air or sea as they already enjoy when using any other method of transport.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal section 21ZA of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, and also repeal the equivalent sections from the Equality Act 2010.

This sections permit airlines, cruise liners and ferries to discriminate against disabled people by refusing them carriage even when there is no safety justification whatsoever for the less favourable treatment.

This would give disabled people the same right not to be discriminated against when travelling by air or sea as they already enjoy when using any other method of transport.

Nip the Equality (anti-men) legislation in the bud

Stop the introduction of the proposed laws scrutinising the average wage paid to women, as opposed to men.

Why say you are cutting down on pointless legislation and then propose this nonsense?

As someone has already pointed out, average earnings based on sex does not reflect the numbers in top jobs. The problem is that women have more fractured careers and therefore have less experience. They are also more likely to take lower paid (ie less skilled or less responsibility) or part time.

My wife doesn't WANT full time work. She doesn't WANT a stressful job and so deliberately takes work at £8 ph – when she could easily do work at £15-20 ph … but which would give her an ulcer.

Why bully employers to pay women over the odds? Why pay someone with 2 years experience the same as someone with 25 years – just because they are a woman? This discriminates against men (and their women partners!) because it will tend to  reduce their wages.

Why would the market pay an individual more because he is a man? Or less because she is a woman? The price mechanism is not that stupid.

Bin this legislation – drafted by those who profess to be gender neutral but who are determined to continue driving a wedge between men and women, undermining society.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the introduction of the proposed laws scrutinising the average wage paid to women, as opposed to men.

Why say you are cutting down on pointless legislation and then propose this nonsense?

As someone has already pointed out, average earnings based on sex does not reflect the numbers in top jobs. The problem is that women have more fractured careers and therefore have less experience. They are also more likely to take lower paid (ie less skilled or less responsibility) or part time.

My wife doesn't WANT full time work. She doesn't WANT a stressful job and so deliberately takes work at £8 ph – when she could easily do work at £15-20 ph … but which would give her an ulcer.

Why bully employers to pay women over the odds? Why pay someone with 2 years experience the same as someone with 25 years – just because they are a woman? This discriminates against men (and their women partners!) because it will tend to  reduce their wages.

Why would the market pay an individual more because he is a man? Or less because she is a woman? The price mechanism is not that stupid.

Bin this legislation – drafted by those who profess to be gender neutral but who are determined to continue driving a wedge between men and women, undermining society.

Right of each and every child born in UK to know his/her biological parents

I believe the very first right of a child is being able to know who his or her biological parents (i stress parents, both man and woman) are. I can understand that there are exceptional circumstances like rape in which case the identity of one parent may be concealed from the child.

 

It is weird that we live in an age where we have the right to know details as to who manufactured a product worth less than a pound. However, a child born outside wedlock is in the dark as to the two individuals responsible for his/her birth, unless born to a married couple or those in civil partnership.

 

Current Law: As i understand, under current UK (and i presume most of Europe) law, if a couple is married or in civil partnership both parents have to register their names as parents of the child. However, if the couple is neither in marriage nor civil partnership, the mother has the right to decide whether or not to include the father's (man) name.

 

My Petition: My conviction and argument is that each and every child (irrespective of whether he or she is born to parents who are married, in civil partnership or neither) has the right to know both biological parents. I know in many cases the mother may herself not know who the father is but shouldn't every effort be made under law to ensure that every child born in this country (and hopefully in the world) knows both biological parents? Does not the right of the child in this case supersede the rights of one parent who does not wish to disclose the information about the other parent? I use the term mother and father for everyone who has a child.

 

In a nutshell, are we not discriminating against children born outside wedlock or civil partnership by letting their mother choose whether or not to disclose the father's name? Also, it is possibly a discrimination against women as well in that they are forced to have parental responsibility of a child whereas the father (man) goes scot-free.

 

In cases where the woman fears her or the child’s safety, the man (father) should lose the privilege of having contact with either of them but continue to bear the responsibility of supporting the child just as it happens in certain divorce cases. This way the child’s expenses is taken care first by his/her biological or adopted parents and only in exceptional cases by others. This would also reduce burden of the taxpayer as there will be no single parent anymore as even if the second parent of the child is not physically present, he/she will be forced to support the maintenance of the child, just as a divorced parent would.

I believe if this is set right, a lot of social ills blighting our society will be a thing of the past.

Why is this idea important?

I believe the very first right of a child is being able to know who his or her biological parents (i stress parents, both man and woman) are. I can understand that there are exceptional circumstances like rape in which case the identity of one parent may be concealed from the child.

 

It is weird that we live in an age where we have the right to know details as to who manufactured a product worth less than a pound. However, a child born outside wedlock is in the dark as to the two individuals responsible for his/her birth, unless born to a married couple or those in civil partnership.

 

Current Law: As i understand, under current UK (and i presume most of Europe) law, if a couple is married or in civil partnership both parents have to register their names as parents of the child. However, if the couple is neither in marriage nor civil partnership, the mother has the right to decide whether or not to include the father's (man) name.

 

My Petition: My conviction and argument is that each and every child (irrespective of whether he or she is born to parents who are married, in civil partnership or neither) has the right to know both biological parents. I know in many cases the mother may herself not know who the father is but shouldn't every effort be made under law to ensure that every child born in this country (and hopefully in the world) knows both biological parents? Does not the right of the child in this case supersede the rights of one parent who does not wish to disclose the information about the other parent? I use the term mother and father for everyone who has a child.

 

In a nutshell, are we not discriminating against children born outside wedlock or civil partnership by letting their mother choose whether or not to disclose the father's name? Also, it is possibly a discrimination against women as well in that they are forced to have parental responsibility of a child whereas the father (man) goes scot-free.

 

In cases where the woman fears her or the child’s safety, the man (father) should lose the privilege of having contact with either of them but continue to bear the responsibility of supporting the child just as it happens in certain divorce cases. This way the child’s expenses is taken care first by his/her biological or adopted parents and only in exceptional cases by others. This would also reduce burden of the taxpayer as there will be no single parent anymore as even if the second parent of the child is not physically present, he/she will be forced to support the maintenance of the child, just as a divorced parent would.

I believe if this is set right, a lot of social ills blighting our society will be a thing of the past.

PC laws

Repeal the sexual orientation regulations which forced catholic adoption agencies to close. Repeal the gender recognition act. Repeal the that part of the human fertilisation regulations which dropped the the need for a father in a child's life. Drop the equality bill in how it affects churches. Drop the smoking ban in pubs.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the sexual orientation regulations which forced catholic adoption agencies to close. Repeal the gender recognition act. Repeal the that part of the human fertilisation regulations which dropped the the need for a father in a child's life. Drop the equality bill in how it affects churches. Drop the smoking ban in pubs.

Repeal Religious Discrimination Employment Legislation

Of all of the employment discrimination legislation the protection of religious beleif is the only one that is about choice. Employees (or potential employees) are not able to choose their gender. age, race, sexual orientation etc and as such thses pieces of legislation are necessary. People choose their religious belief and, as such, should accept that all choice brings consequences.

This does not mean that I advocate any form of bullying, harrasment or other nasty things towards people who hold particular beliefs – this would all remain covered by other laws anyway. However, I do think we should have the right to consider a person's beliefs (if relevant) when making recruitment and career decisions about them.

Why is this idea important?

Of all of the employment discrimination legislation the protection of religious beleif is the only one that is about choice. Employees (or potential employees) are not able to choose their gender. age, race, sexual orientation etc and as such thses pieces of legislation are necessary. People choose their religious belief and, as such, should accept that all choice brings consequences.

This does not mean that I advocate any form of bullying, harrasment or other nasty things towards people who hold particular beliefs – this would all remain covered by other laws anyway. However, I do think we should have the right to consider a person's beliefs (if relevant) when making recruitment and career decisions about them.

End Church-State Link

Repeal all laws and sub-sections of laws which create a formal tie between the established Church of England and the mechanisms of the State.

End the practice of Prime Ministers exercising the Royal Prerogative to appoint senior church officials

Remove the right of Bishops to sit in the House of Lords

End the state recognition of marriage and strike out all reference to marriage in any act of parliament.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all laws and sub-sections of laws which create a formal tie between the established Church of England and the mechanisms of the State.

End the practice of Prime Ministers exercising the Royal Prerogative to appoint senior church officials

Remove the right of Bishops to sit in the House of Lords

End the state recognition of marriage and strike out all reference to marriage in any act of parliament.

Remove the equality act

Get rid of the part of the equality act which discrimates against people because of their ethnicity.  A person should get a job based on merit not on race.  This is the law that requires employers to employ people of a specific ethnic minority introduced by Harperson if they are equal to another applicant.  What if they're both from minorities.  It's a stupid law and surely you can't tackle descrimiation by descriminating.

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of the part of the equality act which discrimates against people because of their ethnicity.  A person should get a job based on merit not on race.  This is the law that requires employers to employ people of a specific ethnic minority introduced by Harperson if they are equal to another applicant.  What if they're both from minorities.  It's a stupid law and surely you can't tackle descrimiation by descriminating.

Remove disabilites suffered by Roman Catholics and Jews

Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 make it an offence for Roman Catholics and Jews to advise Her Majesty on matters to do with ecclesiastical offices which is a disability not suffered by all other non Anglican religions.  We should either remove the disabilities or rewrite them in a way that includes all non-Anglicans.

Why is this idea important?

Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 make it an offence for Roman Catholics and Jews to advise Her Majesty on matters to do with ecclesiastical offices which is a disability not suffered by all other non Anglican religions.  We should either remove the disabilities or rewrite them in a way that includes all non-Anglicans.