Categories
Discrimination

To Kill a Mocking Bird Racism

In the book To Kill a Mockingbird, written by Harper Lee, you will read that through all the hard times and hardship family and friends will always stay together in the end. Discrimination is a commonly used subject in To Kill a Mockingbird. With the setting of To Kill a Mockingbird being in the early 1900’s racism was very common. The author used this information to his advantage because he was able to show how discrimination changed everyday interaction and life with other people. Everyday of our lives we come in contact with racism and discrimination against people with different colored skin..
In the book To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee, there are inevitable examples on how racism has been used in Maycomb County. Bob Ewell accuses Tom Robinson, a young black man, of raping Mayella Ewell, a young white girl. Of course everyone knows that Tom Robinson is going to lose in the trial only because the court always favors white clients against black clients because: “In our courts, when it’s a white man’s word against a black man’s word the white man always wins. They’re ugly, but those are the facts of life” (X) Atticus tells Jem. This shows the power of racism in Maycomb County.
The power is that just because a man is black means he loses in court no matter what. In the court is not the only time that racism occurs. When Atticus decided that he was going to defend Tom Robinson Francis, Atticus’s nephew, he calls him a “nigger-lover”. When Atticus asks him what he means he says, “Just what I said. Grandma says it’s bad enough he lets you run wild, but now he turned out to be a nigger lover. ” (X) This shows that even though Francis is in his family it doesn’t matter, if you’re racist you will be put down and stereotyped by anyone and everyone.

Even when Atticus is defending a man in court he will be called names because of the man he is defending. Even though Atticus is everything but racist, Jem, Atticus’s son, were being brainwashed by the towns thoughts and opinions. One day as Jem and Scout were talking behind the courthouse Jem says something to scout that was very racist, “Once you have a drop of Negro blood, that makes you all black. ” This shows that the thought of racism is not only seen in adults, but it is now flooding into the minds of children. In conclusion there are many forms of racism that were showed and used in Maycomb county within children and adults.

Categories
Discrimination

Discrimination and Child

How current and relevant legislation and policy affects work with children and young people. Children’s individual needs Quality of care Choice of service Management ; staffing Complaints ; protections Plan to support child, working in partnership with social worker and adhere to policies. Individual needs are met. To maximise the chance of positive outcomes for children. All of the policies and procedures by which I work are defined by The Children’s Act 1989 which legislates for England and Wales.
All our Safeguarding measures, Health and Safety policies and Child protection procedures must follow the relevant egislations. As a children’s residential home we have to follow The National Minimum Standards too and it is these standards that we are inspected through Ofsted. SCMP3-1. 2 Describe the impact of social care standards and codes of practice on work with children and young people. SCMP3-1. 3 The importance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Children have the right to; Own Privacy, Dignity and Confidentiality. To be looked after and kept safe from harm. To be able to play and not to be used for cheap labour. To be with their birth family or extended family, in absence of, those who would look fter and care for their needs best. Good health care. An adequate standard of living and enough food and water. Disabled children have the right to special care and training. SCMP3-2. 1 The responsibilities of a: Corporate parent. To work with professionals following guidelines set i. e. o put the needs of the child first, seek the same outcomes for the child as you would if the child was your own and safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. Professional carer. To train those who will be in contact with children i. e. foster carers, to ensure the child is best placed/matched with a carer that can attend to their needs, to rovide the child with all services required, ‘e healthcare, dental etc. To ensure child has the best start in life and engage in ‘Every Child Matters’ 5 outcomes. What is meant by a duty of care.

To take reasonable precautions to safeguard a child in your care from harm or injury by making plans to minimize risk. Use ethics in making decisions with regards to other people’s differing cultural or religious beliefs. Allow the child to risk assess themselves and take reasonable risks as part of normal growing up. Protect a child’s right to dignity and independence. SCMP3-2. 3 The impact of professional relationships on children and young people. PROS Child receives holistic care, feels loved, wanted and safe. Children are never left unsupervised with non CRB checked adults.
Risk assessment of equipment ensures safety of the child. Children’s past is kept confidential. Increased self esteem and confidence in child. Everyone works together put the child at the centre of focus, child therefore does not miss out on education and healthcare. CONS A looked after child cannot receive the same bodily contact i. e. no cuddles if child is ill in bed. Child cannot sleep with you when not feeling well or had nightmares. Child not to have bath with you or see you undressed. The child knows they are in care which has a negative impact, they feel neglected.
SCMP3-2. 4 Examples of poor practice and unprofessional conduct that may impact on outcomes for children and young people. Not remaining confidential with children’s details/ previous life experiences. Not teaching the child independence. Not teaching child self-hygiene. Calling their parents or extended family names in front of them. Having nothing positive to say to SW or in meetings at school etc. Drinking heavily or taking drugs. Not turning up to parent’s evenings and arranged meetings for the child. Not giving the child choices or allowing them to make their own decisions.
SCMP3-2. 5 The actions to take where poor practice and unprofessional conduct are having a negative impact on outcomes for children and young people. Note concerns and date details of poor practice before reporting to Manager (unless complaint against Manager, report to their Manager). Use team meetings to openly discuss and any concerns or issues Whistle blow to head of Social Services, Head Teacher at school etc. , dependent on who the complaint is about. SCMP3-3. 1 The professional responsibility to maintain current and competent practice.
Follow legislations and policies making sure they are clear, precise and up to date. Keep all children’s records confidential and all life story work up to date. Update CPD and follow all training. Attend reviews i. e. LAC; PEP; IPP etc. Attend support groups. Ensure chil d nas regular denta other welfare issues. SCMP3-3. 2 I checks and is reterr ed toa specialist it required tor Engage with professional supervision in order to improve practice. See attached supervision SCMP3-3. 3 Seek, and learn from, feedback on own practice from colleagues and children and young people SCMP3-3. 4
The importance of understanding the limits of personal competence and when to seek advice. Everyone has a limit of personal competence; training courses when offered should be taken where possible to ensure that you are competent to do the job and updated in new legislations etc. If we do not understand our own limit, we may take on a task that we are not comfortable with and can cause further harm to the child we may be dealing with, i. e. looking after a child that has been diagnosed ADHD and permanently chastising incorrectly as you have no knowledge of the condition and how best to deal with the child.
SCMP3-4. 1 Respect and value the professional competence and contribution of colleagues. I respect and value the professional competence and contribution of colleagues and Managers. All Residential Child Care workers have been trained to do the Job they do, putting the child’s interests first and providing support for Young people. Residential Child Care workers have a great knowledge of what children’s needs in care are and encourage/support carer’s to follow their lead in providing holistic care. SCMP3-4. 2 Rights and expectations as a professional and how to assert them.
As a professional I have a right to challenge anything I am told or asked to do, if I do not agree with what is being asked or said with regards to the care of a child. I expect my feelings to be respected and my own knowledge to be taken in to account when decisions are made with regards to the welfare of a child. I expect full support from my Supervising Manager to help me carry out my Job as a Residential Child Care Worker, using both professionalism and empathy. SCMP3-5. 1 How current equalities legislation affects work with children, young people and families.
Child’s individual needs are met and supported. Increased self-esteem and confidence. Additional needs are supported both physical and mental. Introduced to your family allows children to feel part of the family and loved. Examples of good practice in promoting equality and how they are effective. Equality and diversity should be a natural and embedded part of everyday work for those involved in health and social care work. With an increasingly diverse population it is vital that we should be continually looking at and developing our equality and diversity training.
We should be able to recognise discrimination and identify risks of discrimination. Whether direct discrimination, indirect discrimination or harassment. Understand the potential consequences of discrimination and be able to identify and respond to the specific needs of diverse, children which arise from their personal, social or cultural background. We should be accountable for providing a service which demonstrates good equality and diversity practice to Support the empowerment of children so that they may be involved in their own care and health improvement.
Good equality and diversity practice involves communicating with children in a way that is accessible to them making reasonable adjustments in the ay we do our work and deliver our services to take account of the particular needs. Understanding the role that cultural and religious beliefs play in children’s services Ensuring that everyone gets care which takes account of their individual needs treating everyone with dignity and respect at all times. SCMP3-6. 1 What is meant by diversity. The diversity is all about acceptance and respect.
It means understanding that each individual is unique, recognizing our individual differences. These can be race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, eligious beliefs, political beliefs, etc. It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embrace and celebrate the rich dimensions of diversity of each individual. SCMP3-6. What is meant by anti-discriminatory practice and examples of how it is applied in practice with children, young people and families. Ann-discriminatory practice is the main strategy in combating discrimination. It is action taken to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, class, gender, disability etc. nd takes into account how we behave towards other individuals. All employees in a care setting should promote this practice in the workplace as it is key to combating prejudice, in doing so they are trying to eradicate discrimination and promote equality for service users, staff and children.
Examples; children have the right to choose their own clothes, activities, food and religious beliefs. Their religious festivals should be celebrated and children treated SCMP3-6. 3 witn respect. The effects of discrimination and explain the potential results for children and young eople Children should not have your views and opinions forced upon them, they should be allowed to make up their own minds and make their own choices in life.
If children are discriminated this can lead to poor self-esteem, the child feeling different and not fitting in at school and in society. Don’t discriminate others in front of children or this is a habit they will pick up and use against others; bullying other children etc. Rarely the effect of discrimination on the child can be positive, producing a strong willed, confident adult who was able to stand up to bullies in society and fght for what they believed to be right.

Categories
Discrimination

Free Discrimination Essay

Introduction
This statement is true to an extent as s.15 of the 2010 Act was clearly intended to reverse the harsh effect of the decision in Malcolm which established that a requirement for less favourable treatment was necessary to found a discrimination claim in respect of a disabled person[33]. Malcolm has rightly been described as sending “shockwaves”[34] through the legal world and attempted to strike a balance between the rights of tenants with disabilities and the ability of landlords to manage their properties effectively without absurd results. The Equality Act 2010, of which the majority of provisions came into force in October 2010, is not flawless but does undo some of the damage done by Malcolm that favoured landlords and underfed indirect discrimination in respect of disability. S.15 does present some problems in respect of the knowledge of the employer in both direct and indirect discrimination cases and this will be discussed in part 2 which will follow a discussion of the decision in Malcolm in part 1.
Part 1: The decision in Malcolm

The facts of Malcolm were that a local authority (L) appealed against the dismissal, by the Court of Appeal, of its possession proceedings against the respondent (M) who had been diagnosed with Schizophrenia. M had become a secure tenant of L and before exercising his right to buy M had sublet the flat out and by virtue of the Housing Act 1985 s.93, he lost his secure tenancy. L then gave the notice to quit and initiated possession proceedings against M. It later emerged that M was not taking his medication for schizophrenia at the time of the subletting and crucially it appears that the local authority was completely unaware of M’s condition. This lack of knowledge was the catalyst for the judge to grant the possession proceedings and ultimately for the House of Lords to overturn the Court of Appeal which had dismissed the possession proceedings and allowed M’s appeal on the grounds that the notice to quit and the possession proceedings were unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 s.22(3). The Court of Appeal further found that there was a sufficient causal relationship, despite the subjective lack of knowledge on the part of the Local Authority when viewed objectively and consequently M was treated unfavourably[35]. The House of Lord’s appeal was based on two grounds as Orme opines and this part will look at the decision along these lines:
“First, in order for the alleged discrimination to “relate to” the disability within s.24(1)(a), just the fact of the disability has played some motivating part in the mind of the alleged discriminator when subjecting the disabled person to the treatment complained secondly, what is the correct comparator in order to determine whether the disabled person has been treated less favourably so as to have been subjected to discrimination?”[36]. Their Lordships dismissed the objective causal link established by the Court of Appeal with Lord Scott observing that: “It was not enough for M to show that objectively viewed there may have been a causal connection unknown to the local authority between the sublet and M’s disability”[37]. Their Lordships found assent in the case of Taylor v OCS Group[38] where a deaf claimant was dismissed for misconduct after a disciplinary hearing and the Court of Appeal, in dismissing an appeal which tried to establish an objective link, argued that without a subconscious or conscious frame of mind there could be no question of discrimination. Orme points out the implications of this reasoning: “It follows that the alleged discriminator must have at least some imputed knowledge of the existence of the disability in order for it to form a part of the motivation for the decision to inflict the treatment.”[39]
On the question of the comparator, which was a key question in determining whether a disabled person has been subjected to direct discrimination under the old Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Court of Appeal insisted along the lines of the case in Novacold[40], that the correct comparator was, in fact, a person without schizophrenia who has not sub-let their property as this “relates to” their disability. This tortured reasoning was dismissed by their Lordships with Lord Scott even commenting that the comparator used in Novacold which had inspired the Court of Appeal, was “pointless”. The typically used example from Novacold is the blind man with the dog who is refused entry into a shop[41] and the comparator extrapolated from this was that of a non-blind person with no dog. As Orme points out the reasoning behind using a comparator with like characteristics is to produce a more meaningful comparison and ultimately the House of Lords settled on: “the correct comparator was a person without schizophrenia who had sub-let without the consent of the landlord.”[42] But does this lead to an unfavourable situation against the claimantBamforth et al, writing before the Malcolm decision, thought that it would because of the difficulties of identifying a comparator in a similar situation albeit without the disability and a “add layers of complexity to the test”[43]. There were undoubtedly strong public policy reasons for the Malcolm decision but in denying any causal link and in changing the established comparator rule the decision was harsh towards potential disabled claimants.
Part 2: The Equality Act 2010 and s.15
Section 15 of the 2010 Act provides:
“(1) A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if—
(a) A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B’s disability, and
(b) A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.”
The chief difference is the wording of s.15(1)(a) which does not include the words “less favourably” and thus erases from memory the tortured stories of blind dogs: the comparator element has been dropped as the solicitor general confirmed in parliament[44]. Thus the legacy of Malcolm is in this respect erased. The difficulties posed by trying to find a suitable comparator are gone and this is to be welcomed from the perspective of the disabled claimants who, as Bamforth et al point out, struggled with the complexity of the test. The memory of Malcolm still lingers on however, in the causal memory requirements under s.15 (2) which provides an additional defence to those trying to rebut claims of disability-related discrimination. It should be pointed out that no knowledge on the part of the employer is required in respect to an s.19 claim for indirect discrimination[45] so there is in effect a recognition by Parliament that providing the knowledge defence in both situations would have been too conciliatory to landlords. The aims of the Equality Act 2010 were clear as the Solicitor-General pointed out in Parliament:
“The clause is intended to address the consequences of Lewisham v. Malcolm [[2008] UKHL 43], which frankly made it difficult for a disabled person to show that they had been subjected to disability-related less favourable treatment.”[46]
Conclusion
In conclusion, the statement regarding Malcolm is mostly true in that by removing the comparator for people trying to prove disability-related discrimination Parliament has removed a controversial element which divided many courts and put incredible burdens upon claimants undoubtedly to their detriment. However, in retaining the knowledge defence from Lewisham, Parliament has retained a part of the judgement which sent shockwaves through the legal community. The retention of this part will undoubtedly allow many to escape by claiming that they had no knowledge at all but perhaps this is better than trying to create links when none could exist. There is no definitive answer and absurdities will remain despite the Equality Act 2010. The public policy argument in Malcolm has survived intact to the new act and will stay.
Reference

Bamforth et al (2008) Discrimination Law: Theory and Context texts and materials
Arlow, Ruth (2009) ‘Sikh Bangle: Indirect Discrimination – race and religion’ in Ecclesiastical Law Journal vol 11(1) pp 126-127
Connolly, Michael (2011) ‘The Gender Pay Gap, Hypothetical Comparators and the Equality Act 2010’ Employment Law Bulletin Volume 101 (Feb) pp 6-8
Editorial (2010) ‘Equality Act 2010 – new legislative framework’ in Health & Safety at Work vol 16(10) p.4
Editorial (2011) ‘The Equality Act 2010 – Observations on the Disability Provisions’ in Employment Law Bulletin vol 101 (Feb) p.2-4
Leigh, Ian (2009) ‘Recent Developments in Religious Liberty’ Ecclesiastical Law Journal vol 11(1) pp65- 72
Orme, Emily (2008) ‘Malcolm v Lewisham LBC: Nasty Surprise or Logical Conclusion?’ in Journal of Housing Law volume 11(6) pp103-107 at p.103
Steele, Ian (2011) ‘Sex Discrimination and the Material Factor Defence under the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Equality Act 2010’ Industrial Law Journal vol.39(3) pp 264 – 274
Talbot, Alison & Brownsell, Liz (2011) ‘The Equality Act 2010: Changes to Previous Law’ in Private Client Business vol 2 pp104-109 at p.105
Coleman v Attridge Law (A Firm) (C-303/06) [2008] All E.R. (EC) 1105
Clark v Novacold Ltd [1999] ICR 951
Kulikaoskas v Macduff Shellfish [2011] I.C.R. 48
Leverton v Clwyd County Council [1989] IRLR 28, HOL
Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham (Appellants) v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43Sorbie and Others v Trust Houses Forte Hotels Ltd [1977] Q.B. 931
Taylor v OCS Group [2006] ICR 1602

[1] s.39
[2] Equality Act 2010 s.80(2)(a)
[3] s.39 (1)(b)
[4] Equal Pay Act 1970 s.??
[5] Connolly, Michael (2011) ‘The Gender Pay Gap, Hypothetical Comparators and the Equality Act 2010’ Employment Law Bulletin Volume 101 (Feb) pp 6-8
[6] Equality Act 2010 s.69
[7] Equality Act 2010 s.66(2)(a)
[8] Ibid p.6
[9] Leverton v Clwyd County Council [1989] IRLR 28, HOL
[10] Equality Act 2010 s.64(1)(a)
[11] Ibid explanatory notes
[12] [1977] Q.B. 931
[13] S.65 (2) (a) and (b)
[14] Steele, Ian (2011) ‘Sex Discrimination and the Material Factor Defence under the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Equality Act 2010’ Industrial Law Journal vol.39(3) pp 264 – 274
[15] Connolly, Michael (2011) ‘The Gender Pay Gap, Hypothetical Comparators and the Equality Act 2010’ Employment Law Bulletin Volume 101 (Feb) at p.6
[16] [2008] EWHC 1865 (Admin)
[17] Leigh, Ian (2009) ‘Recent Developments in Religious Liberty’ Ecclesiastical Law Journal vol 11(1) pp65- 72
[18] See in relation to the Niqab veil and article 9: R (on the application of X) v The Headteacher of Y School; and in relation to a purity ring symbolising celibacy as a manifestation of Christianity and article 14: R (on the application of Playfoot) v Governing Body of Millais School Governing Body [2007] EWHC 1698 (Admin)
[19] Arlow, Ruth (2009) ‘Sikh Bangle: Indirect Discrimination – race and religion’ in Ecclesiastical Law Journal vol 11(1) pp 126-127
[20] Section 1(1)(1)(A) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and s.45(3) of the Equality Act 2006
[21] Editorial (2010) ‘Equality Act 2010 – new legislative framework’ in Health & Safety at Work vol 16(10) p.4
[22] Equality Act 2010 part 6 chapter 1 explanatory notes
[23] s.85(3)(b)
[24] s.85(4)(a)
[25] s.212 provides an unsatisfactory definition but see Bamforth et al (2008) Discrimination Law: Theory and Context texts and materials Sweet & Maxwell: London p.314
[26] S.85(9)
[27] Equality Act 2010 s.13 explanatory notes para 81
[28] Talbot, Alison & Brownsell, Liz (2011) ‘The Equality Act 2010: Changes to Previous Law’ in Private Client Business vol 2 pp104-109 at p.105
[29] [2011] I.C.R. 48
[30] This Act has now been repealed as of 5th April 2011
[31] Coleman v Attridge Law (A Firm) (C-303/06) [2008] All E.R. (EC) 1105
[32] Kulikaoskas v Macduff Shellfish [2011] I.C.R. 48 at para 25
[33] Editorial (2011) ‘The Equality Act 2010 – Observations on the Disability Provisions’ in Employment Law Bulletin vol 101 (Feb) p.2-4
[34] Orme, Emily (2008) ‘Malcolm v Lewisham LBC: Nasty Surprise or Logical Conclusion?’ in Journal of Housing Law volume 11(6) pp103-107 at p.103
[35] Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham (Appellants) v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43 from para 21 per Lord Scott of Foscote
[36] Orme, Emily (2008) ‘Malcolm v Lewisham LBC: Nasty Surprise or Logical Conclusion?’ in Journal of Housing Law volume 11(6) pp103-107 at p.103
[37] Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham (Appellants) v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43 from para 21 per Lord Scott of Foscote at para 40
[38] Taylor v OCS Group [2006] ICR 1602
[39] Orme, Emily (2008) ‘Malcolm v Lewisham LBC: Nasty Surprise or Logical Conclusion?’ in Journal of Housing Law volume 11(6) pp103-107 at p.104
[40] Clark v Novacold Ltd [1999] ICR 951
[41] Ibid per Mummery LJ at p.964
[42] Orme, Emily (2008) ‘Malcolm v Lewisham LBC: Nasty Surprise or Logical Conclusion?’ in Journal of Housing Law volume 11(6) pp103-107 at p.105
[43] Bamforth et al (2008) Discrimination Law: Theory and Context texts and materials Sweet & Maxwell: London p.1059
[44] Hansard, HC Public Bill Committee, 8th Sitting, June 16, 2009, col.275
[45] Editorial (2011) ‘The Equality Act 2010 – Observations on the Disability Provisions’ in Employment Law Bulletin vol 101 (Feb) p.4
[46] Hansard, HC Public Bill Committee, 8th Sitting, June 16, 2009, col.275