{"title":"Putting Race and Gender Together: A New Approach to Intersectionality","authors":"I. Solanke","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00765.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"European anti-discrimination legislation explicitly calls for member states to consider a legal response to multiple discrimination, either additive (arising from many grounds) or intersectional (a result of an interaction of grounds). In traditional Anglo-American anti-discrimination frameworks the structure of separate statutes forces complainants to choose one ground or another. In Britain, cases such as Nwoke v Government Legal Service indicate a judicial willingness to recognise additive discrimination, while cases such as Bahl highlight the difficulties of dealing with intersectionality. This article suggests that to overcome current difficulties with intersectional discrimination, first the qualitative difference of intersectional claims must be clarified; secondly, the logic of immutability underlying grounds must be replaced by one which accommodates intersectionality; and thirdly, a method is required which enables courts systematically to incorporate social context into judicial decision-making. With these three changes, the qualitative difference of intersectionality can be both understood and activated in the courts.","PeriodicalId":103361,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other European Economics: Political Economy & Public Economics (Topic)","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"31","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Other European Economics: Political Economy & Public Economics (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00765.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31
Abstract
European anti-discrimination legislation explicitly calls for member states to consider a legal response to multiple discrimination, either additive (arising from many grounds) or intersectional (a result of an interaction of grounds). In traditional Anglo-American anti-discrimination frameworks the structure of separate statutes forces complainants to choose one ground or another. In Britain, cases such as Nwoke v Government Legal Service indicate a judicial willingness to recognise additive discrimination, while cases such as Bahl highlight the difficulties of dealing with intersectionality. This article suggests that to overcome current difficulties with intersectional discrimination, first the qualitative difference of intersectional claims must be clarified; secondly, the logic of immutability underlying grounds must be replaced by one which accommodates intersectionality; and thirdly, a method is required which enables courts systematically to incorporate social context into judicial decision-making. With these three changes, the qualitative difference of intersectionality can be both understood and activated in the courts.
欧洲反歧视立法明确要求成员国考虑对多重歧视的法律回应,要么是累加的(由多种理由引起的),要么是交叉的(多种理由相互作用的结果)。在传统的英美反歧视框架中,独立法规的结构迫使投诉人选择一个或另一个理由。在英国,“nwake诉政府法律服务”(nwake v Government Legal Service)等案件表明,司法部门愿意承认累加性歧视,而Bahl等案件则突显了处理交叉性的困难。本文认为,要克服当前交叉歧视的困难,首先必须厘清交叉索赔的性质差异;其次,基于不变性的逻辑必须被适应交叉性的逻辑所取代;第三,需要一种方法,使法院能够系统地将社会背景纳入司法决策。有了这三个变化,就可以在法院中理解和激活交叉性的质的差异。