Prosperous and harmonious nations share a strong sense of unity and common identity. States comprising factions competing against each other are often beset with problems.
The political arena should not be dominated by special interest groups battling to gain favourable treatment from the state, each bearing its own set of purported grievances, with parties competing to curry favour with them.
Such identity politics leads to resentment among those observing the special treatment of other groups, a passive mentality among those in allegedly victimised groups, and a never-ending spiral of competing claims from special interest groups. Once the grievance arms race has begun, it is in the interests of each special group to seek out ever more evidence of injustice against them. This ‘evidence’ is usually in the form of statistical differences that a show a special group seeming to do less well on some indicator. The complex array of factors involved is then overlooked, and the distinction is blamed on prejudice and discrimination. Where statistics show the allegedly oppressed group doing better, they are ignored.
Identity politicians target sex, sexuality, gender, nationality, race, religion, income and age groups
always arguing that a group is getting a raw deal somehow.
In the same way that Marxists divide the population into economic oppressors and the oppressed, those fuelling identity politics seek to divide society into the oppressors and the oppressed on other grounds, breaking down allegiance to family and nation by diverting loyalty to identity groups instead, each feeling an aggrieved sense of victimhood and looking to government intervention to resolve these problems of “inequality.”
None of this is to say that genuine discrimination does not exist: it should be tackled as necessary, but not every statistical distinction shows an injustice.
We do not support Hate Crime legislation. Criminal activity should be punished according to its seriousness, not its motivation. All should be equally protected by the law. Anyone contemplating assault, for example, should fear the law equally, regardless of their motivation and intended victim. The proposed misogyny offense will create a crime of sexist behaviour towards a woman by a man, but equivalent behaviour by a woman towards a man would not be a crime. This is plainly unjust and reflects the use of the legislation to curry favour with favoured campaigners.
The 2010 Equality Act mandates “positive action,” stating that a candidate can be selected for a job because of their race, sex etc in order to meet statistical targets. This is unjust and discriminatory and should be repealed.
The Equalities Act also makes harassment based on protected characteristics an offence. This is unnecessary. The law should apply equally to all. This provision actually makes some employers reluctant to employ applicants with certain “protected characteristics,” fearing that they will use their special protection to raise complaints and manipulate.