LSN: Political Process (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"Quotas for Women! The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002","authors":"A. Mcharg","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-6478.2006.00352.x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2006.00352.x","url":null,"abstract":"The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 is unusual in two respects. First, it is a rare example of the permissible (though not mandatory) use of affirmative action in the United Kingdom, in this case to reduce gender inequality in the selection of election candidates. Secondly, the Act contains a sunset clause and will expire in 2015 unless extended. This article examines the background to the legislation, the forms of affirmative action it permits, and the use so far made of it by political parties. It also considers the justifications for affirmative action to increase women's political representation, asking what sets this apart from other contexts in which women are under-represented, and whether the temporary nature of the legislation is appropriate.","PeriodicalId":173774,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Political Process (Topic)","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114907894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Boundaries of Antidiscrimination Laws","authors":"D. Bernstein","doi":"10.1017/9781108242226.006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108242226.006","url":null,"abstract":"Because of the long, sorry history of American racism, perhaps nothing is more harmful to the libertarian “brand” than skepticism of antidiscrimination laws that apply to private parties. Yet race is only one of many protected categories under modern anti-discrimination laws. The proliferation of antidiscrimination laws protecting groups ranging from people over age forty to members of motorcycle gangs explains why even libertarians who are especially sensitive to America’s history of racism are loath to concede the principle that the government may ban private sector discrimination. There is no natural limit to the scope of antidiscrimination laws, because the concept of antidiscrimination is almost infinitely malleable. To concede the general power of government to redress private discrimination through legislation would be to concede virtually unlimited power to the government. \u0000 \u0000Besides the political ramifications of opposing popular civil rights legislation, many critics of adopting a laissez-faire posture toward discrimination in the private sector seem to believe that antidiscrimination laws somehow magically transform members of despised minority groups into full equal citizens in the eyes of the majority. Antidiscrimination laws can plausibly accelerate trends toward greater tolerance of minorities. These laws can also force a local majority, such as southern whites in the 1960s, to heed the values of a national majority, such as non-southern whites, who by 1964 had turned strongly against racial segregation. Antidiscrimination laws are unlikely, however, to provide much protection to a minority group when the majority of the voting population is hostile to that group. \u0000 \u0000Given their strong anti-statist presumptions, libertarians will generally remain presumptively opposed to the panoply of modern private sector antidiscrimination laws. That said, the basic federal laws banning discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, as originally conceived in 1964—before the courts and civil rights bureaucracies devised problematic doctrines like “disparate impact” liability—were relatively benign. If everyone from farmers to military contractors to ACORN is able to successfully lobby the government to protect their interests, it’s not especially troubling that members of minority groups, who have more legitimate grievances than most legislative supplicants, also use legislation to protect their interests. Indeed, it would be troubling if there was a sudden popular move to repeal antidiscrimination legislation, if it were unaccompanied by broader libertarian political trends, because it would suggest that opposition to such laws came arose from hostility to minority groups, not from opposition to Big Government. \u0000 \u0000Libertarians can and should insist, however, that a line be drawn at the point where such laws infringe on the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, expressive association, and other civil","PeriodicalId":173774,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Political Process (Topic)","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129546321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}