The proposal by the Home
Office, to extend the terms of the Race Relations Act to cover employment in and
around the home, is both misconceived and potentially damaging says the lawyer
and libertarian activist David Carr:
"The government's decision to force the equal opportunities laws on
householders seeking to employ nannies, cleaners or gardeners cuts a swathe
through the meritorious distinction between the private and the public and
places upon those householders an added dimension of risk in a process that is
already fraught with potential pitfalls and dangers.
"This alone would be bad enough but the effects will be exacerbated by the
proposal that, in the event of a claim of discrimination being made, the Common
Law tradition of the burden of proof being on the Claimant, be reversed.
"This means, that once the Claimant has made a prima facie case, it will up
to the Defendant to prove that he or she was not racist. It is always decidedly
difficult to prove a negative and any putative employers so accused face the
prospect of a ruinous law-suit which they stand very little chance of being able
to successfully defend.
"Not to mention that blanket powers to accuse without the burden of
consequence are a gilt-edged opportunity for charlatans and rogues to make
malicious claims (or threaten the same) with a view to obtaining money or other
favours by dint of their menace.
"Presumably, the motive behind this proposal is to promote better race
relations in this country. For sure, a laudable goal but one that will not be
achieved by this measure, which will, in fact, tend to have the very contrary
effect. It means that home employers are being invited to view Black or
Asian people not just as fellow human beings but as harbingers of potential
bankruptcy.
"The pursuit of racial harmony should not be an excuse for the government
to so imperil otherwise law-abiding citizens nor traduce long-established Common
Law safeguards from which we all benefit regardless of our racial
background."
Yes indeed. Racial
discrimination is a terrible thing when done by governments and public servants.
It’s no more than a private preference when someone favours a potential
marital partner of the same race.
This is what Carr means by the public/private distinction.
It should be defended.
Jim Thornton Nottingham 5 Nov 2002
