I have had the chance for further reflection on the proposed new Core Duty - and I still hate it. If it comes into force - will I be allowed to remain a barrister?
Hopefully this can be stopped ASAP, because where would it leave GC Barristers like yourself & Naomi Cunningham for example?! From a Laypersons perspective, this move to "Advance EDI "' (or words to that effect,) seems to be yet another way to silence the protected characteristics of 'Sex', let alone 'Belief' under EA 2010. Well done, and thank you Sarah for your unrelenting fight, tenacity & resilience in this awful mess which has been thrust upon us all, whatever our Profession 👏 ❤️
I watched the FSU panel debate/discussion and I found it fascinating - even to this layperson.
I share your almost visceral dismay at 'DEI' - or 'DIE' as I and many others prefer to call it. To me, it seems as though it is a 'sticking plaster solution', that is. it attempts to ameliorate important issues, but only in a superficial and clearly authoritarian manner and in an entirely unmeritocratic fashion.
The evidence now suggests that in the USA - in corporations and universities (even Harvard, for goodness sake) that DEI is being rolled back and hoofed out of influence because it has now been shown to have pretty much the opposite effect of its intended virtuous aims.
And why is it being rolled back? Because those same organisations and Colleges are losing customers and income as a direct result of the forced teaming of them and DEI.
As ever, in certain social issues, the UK is a couple of years behind the US in 'waking up' to large scale scams, but we are slowly following suit and accepting the clear evidence that forced DEI is a negative thing. This proposed acceptance of this clear ideology is a surprise to me. Of all the well-functioning institutions that adhere to evidence as their core utility, to find out that the BSB are even considering adopting this dreadful, sinister authoritarian ideology is appalling.
As an interested lay-person, I've read the consultation document, your articles, and now the FAQ the BSB has put out. I've also watched the video of the FSU discussion you referred to and attended.
As I read the FAQ, I got the same feeling of disconnect between what the FAQ was saying and what the core duty actually states, as I did with Poorinam's responses to everyone's quite justifiable concerns raised in the video.
The strongest defence of the proposal I can think of is that when it comes to implementing the core duty they really just mean implementing the equality rules they propose (which really do seem focused on issues of practice management, recruitment, HR, etc).
Implementing these would thus represent the sum total of the obligations a barrister will have under the new duty, and would thus be a primarily administrative affair rather than something that affects which clients you take on, what advice you give, how you represent them, etc. That is clearly what Poorinam and whoever wrote the FAQ want you to think at least.
But that is not what the new core duty states - and if that is all the BSB really want to achieve it raises the question of why it needs a new core duty rather than just a revised set of equality rules?
I am very suspicious of this since it seems to me that it would strike at the heart of the ability of barristers to take on unpopular cases, or cases that offend a loud ideologically driven faction in society, to ensure the people's rights are defended and the law properly applied and upheld. It would thus undermine the rule of law in this country.
Finally, I'd be interested to know if the BSB's FAQ reassures you at all?
I've just been watching the FSU video with interest. Bravo for your trenchant contribution, Sarah.
I missed any sense that the BSB had identified any practical detriments from the operation of the current rules, so can only assume the new rules are being introduced for doctrinal purposes.
Say you have a client who is suing for unfair dismissal after having fallen foul of his employer's EDI policy. How can he have confidence in his counsel when that counsel is obligated to advance EDI?
There are a number of different ways in which this new duty is problematic, even if limited to practice management. I keep coming back to what I think is the core problem, which is that those promoting DEI and these changes don't seem to understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome (by which they really mean proportionate representation). They think that input = output, when in the real world equality of opportunity is likely to result in disproportionate outcomes. The problem is that much of this comes down to the regulators from above.
You say a few times that EDI is "a contested ideology", and seem to treat that as conclusive proof that barristers shouldn't be required to adhere to it.
But you know what else is a contested ideology? The idea that black men should be called by their names rather than 'boy'. Yet barristers are already obliged to refrain from calling black men 'boy', whether or not they like the ideology underlying that rule.
Similarly, the idea that a person can own property is contested. Plenty of Marxists and others strongly dispute it. Yet solicitors are under duties to protect client funds even if they dispute the idea that a client can ever 'own' anything.
The entire basis of regulation is that those professionals who are regulated have to follow some rules they might prefer not to follow and that's just their tough luck.
You seem a little confused. I am already under a duty to obey the law. I may not unlawfully discriminate, harass individuals or steal money. So all your examples are already verboten to me and rightly so. I object to being placed under a positive obligation to promote something which is undefined, controversial in its application and not required by law.
But I am sure you can help me out! Define the terms for me.
Sir, this is not about "not being an abusive racist," it's about refusing to bow before a totalitarian ideology that puts performative virtue signalling ahead of genuine equality, diversity, and inclusion.
Hopefully this can be stopped ASAP, because where would it leave GC Barristers like yourself & Naomi Cunningham for example?! From a Laypersons perspective, this move to "Advance EDI "' (or words to that effect,) seems to be yet another way to silence the protected characteristics of 'Sex', let alone 'Belief' under EA 2010. Well done, and thank you Sarah for your unrelenting fight, tenacity & resilience in this awful mess which has been thrust upon us all, whatever our Profession 👏 ❤️
Keep up the good fight!
#Always
Thank you.
I watched the FSU panel debate/discussion and I found it fascinating - even to this layperson.
I share your almost visceral dismay at 'DEI' - or 'DIE' as I and many others prefer to call it. To me, it seems as though it is a 'sticking plaster solution', that is. it attempts to ameliorate important issues, but only in a superficial and clearly authoritarian manner and in an entirely unmeritocratic fashion.
The evidence now suggests that in the USA - in corporations and universities (even Harvard, for goodness sake) that DEI is being rolled back and hoofed out of influence because it has now been shown to have pretty much the opposite effect of its intended virtuous aims.
And why is it being rolled back? Because those same organisations and Colleges are losing customers and income as a direct result of the forced teaming of them and DEI.
As ever, in certain social issues, the UK is a couple of years behind the US in 'waking up' to large scale scams, but we are slowly following suit and accepting the clear evidence that forced DEI is a negative thing. This proposed acceptance of this clear ideology is a surprise to me. Of all the well-functioning institutions that adhere to evidence as their core utility, to find out that the BSB are even considering adopting this dreadful, sinister authoritarian ideology is appalling.
Thanks for your continuing campaign against these disastrous proposals, Sarah
I have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-long-good-friday
Dusty
As an interested lay-person, I've read the consultation document, your articles, and now the FAQ the BSB has put out. I've also watched the video of the FSU discussion you referred to and attended.
As I read the FAQ, I got the same feeling of disconnect between what the FAQ was saying and what the core duty actually states, as I did with Poorinam's responses to everyone's quite justifiable concerns raised in the video.
The strongest defence of the proposal I can think of is that when it comes to implementing the core duty they really just mean implementing the equality rules they propose (which really do seem focused on issues of practice management, recruitment, HR, etc).
Implementing these would thus represent the sum total of the obligations a barrister will have under the new duty, and would thus be a primarily administrative affair rather than something that affects which clients you take on, what advice you give, how you represent them, etc. That is clearly what Poorinam and whoever wrote the FAQ want you to think at least.
But that is not what the new core duty states - and if that is all the BSB really want to achieve it raises the question of why it needs a new core duty rather than just a revised set of equality rules?
I am very suspicious of this since it seems to me that it would strike at the heart of the ability of barristers to take on unpopular cases, or cases that offend a loud ideologically driven faction in society, to ensure the people's rights are defended and the law properly applied and upheld. It would thus undermine the rule of law in this country.
Finally, I'd be interested to know if the BSB's FAQ reassures you at all?
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/static/dc5c7b75-c41f-4074-8a41ceb71e40f5cb/1c21ec5f-3923-4b72-8f5658cac825ea28/Equality-Rules-Consultation-FAQs-7-October-2024.pdf
No. Because the foundations of all this are rotten. EDI is a quasi religious contested political ideology. I will never advance it.
I've just been watching the FSU video with interest. Bravo for your trenchant contribution, Sarah.
I missed any sense that the BSB had identified any practical detriments from the operation of the current rules, so can only assume the new rules are being introduced for doctrinal purposes.
Say you have a client who is suing for unfair dismissal after having fallen foul of his employer's EDI policy. How can he have confidence in his counsel when that counsel is obligated to advance EDI?
Well, despite the words of the consultation apparently it only applies to recruitment and Chambers Management issues!
There are a number of different ways in which this new duty is problematic, even if limited to practice management. I keep coming back to what I think is the core problem, which is that those promoting DEI and these changes don't seem to understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome (by which they really mean proportionate representation). They think that input = output, when in the real world equality of opportunity is likely to result in disproportionate outcomes. The problem is that much of this comes down to the regulators from above.
You say a few times that EDI is "a contested ideology", and seem to treat that as conclusive proof that barristers shouldn't be required to adhere to it.
But you know what else is a contested ideology? The idea that black men should be called by their names rather than 'boy'. Yet barristers are already obliged to refrain from calling black men 'boy', whether or not they like the ideology underlying that rule.
Similarly, the idea that a person can own property is contested. Plenty of Marxists and others strongly dispute it. Yet solicitors are under duties to protect client funds even if they dispute the idea that a client can ever 'own' anything.
The entire basis of regulation is that those professionals who are regulated have to follow some rules they might prefer not to follow and that's just their tough luck.
You seem a little confused. I am already under a duty to obey the law. I may not unlawfully discriminate, harass individuals or steal money. So all your examples are already verboten to me and rightly so. I object to being placed under a positive obligation to promote something which is undefined, controversial in its application and not required by law.
But I am sure you can help me out! Define the terms for me.
Sir, you are confused. See https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/media/Bailey-v-Stonewall-Garden-Court-Chambers-gender-critical-belief for details of how problematic EDI is.
Sir, this is not about "not being an abusive racist," it's about refusing to bow before a totalitarian ideology that puts performative virtue signalling ahead of genuine equality, diversity, and inclusion.