European Court of Justice (1999)

1. European Court of Justice (1999) The outcome was unexpected because the court's advocate general had questioned in a preliminary opinion the British government's claim that a complete ban on women was necessary to maintain the Marines' "military effectiveness".

2. Liberal view of equality Liberal view • Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights • Equality of opportunity. • Extensive freedom of thought and speech, • Limitations on the power of governments, • The rule of law, • The free exchange of ideas, • A market or mixed economy, • A transparentsystem of government.[2] All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3] Once this is achieved there is little more to do

3. Radical view Interventionist • To promote equality • Level the playing field • Remove glass ceilings and walls • Open all jobs to all people Positive action • Positive Action means that an employer can do more than ensure employment neutrality. The phrase implies that employers can make additional efforts to recruit, employ, and promote qualified members of groups formerly limited or excluded. • DCU recognizes that, where imbalances exist, a policy of positive action is necessary to actively promote equality (as envisaged by the Employment Equality Act, 1998) and is committed to undertaking such a programme. Positive discrimination Actually discriminating in favour of minority groups Setting and following targets

4. Equality Legislation It is unlawful for a public authority exercising a function of a public nature to perform any act which constitutes discrimination. This applies to all the legal grounds for discrimination (race, gender, age, religion sexuality, disability). Organisations in the public sector are expected to lead the way in carrying out their functions with demonstrable respect for equality and human rights. • In the delivery of services, • in the devising of policies and procedures Public authorities have a crucial role to play in promoting the values and practices of a fair and democratic society.

5. General benefits Some of the benefits of promoting race, disability and gender equality include improvements to: • policies and practices • representation of different communities at all levels • customer satisfaction within all communities • involvement of all communities • targeted services and information about public services • accessibility of all services.

6. As a result of diversity Policy makers are better informed about • the issues concerning all communities, • groups within communities Public Services must • demonstrate that they have properly consulted and involved • all communities • groups • affected by their policies.

7. Advantages of diverse employment Promoting race, disability and gender equality can also bring considerable advantages to public authorities in terms of their employment functions. It can, for example, help them to: • achieve a more representative workforce • attract and keep able staff • improve staff morale and productivity • improve staff management • identify and develop good practice • identify discriminatory outcomes for any groups of employees • avoid claims of unlawful discrimination.

8. Gender Duty Although the processes of the specific duties can seem complex at first, it is important to remember that your overall aim is to eliminate unlawful sex discrimination and harassment, and to promote equality of opportunity between women and men This is done by • Having a fair policy • That avoids harassment • Men marginalising women and women marginalising men

11. Public Service and Equality 1/ Muir, H. (2003) Yard 'needs more black officers' to solve murders’ Guardian, 13-10-03. 2/ Travis, A. (2003) ‘Police racism need not lead to dismissal’, Guardian 11-8-03. 3/ Muir, H. (2003) ‘Racist - from the inside out’, Guardian, 16-9-2003. 4/ Goldenberg, S. (2003) ‘Sex abuse at US air force’, Guardian, 30-8-03. 5/ Smith, J. (2003) ‘Sexism: who's calling the shots’? Observer, 29-6-03. 6/ Ward, L. (2003) ‘Feminism: outmoded and unpopular Guardian, 2-7-03.Lucy Ward 7/ Allison, R. (2003) ‘The term has been equated with hatred of men’, Guardian, 2-7-03. 8/ Equal Opportunities Submission to Independent Review of the Fire Service 9/ The limits to diversity: gender, women and the British Army. Rachel Woodward and Patricia Winter Paper presented at the 3rd International Gender, Work and Organisation Conference, University of Keele, 25th-27th June 2003. 1/ Muir, H. (2003) Yard 'needs more black officers' to solve murders’ Guardian, 13-10-03.

12. Clayton -v- Hereford and Worcester Fire Brigade; Sub Officer Ronald East; Sub Officer Gordon Perkins, Case no, 27856/93,, Industrial Tribunal. • 17. l3,. Gordon Perkins. We were not impressed by this gentleman. Wherever his evidence is in conflict with the applicant's, we prefer the evidence of the applicant. In our respective view lie distorted the truth. • 17,1.4, TwWcrary ADO Keith Nowman. This witness was particularly evasive. Whilst giving testimony, on a number of occasions, he asked for the questions to be repeated, took a considerable period of time to answer them , and at the end of the day failed to properly answer the questions. We took the view that he was deliberately using these tactics in order to consider more appropriate answers to ' the questions, rather than being thoughtful or reflective in an objective way. He was quick to produce what he considered to be useful evidence for the respondents, without necessarily being asked to provide it, such evidence at the end of the day being hearsay in any event, We found his attitude very surprising indeed bearing in mind his rank within the Force. • 17.15 Timothy James. He was a training officer at Droitwich. He was called in effect to counter some of the expressed judgments of Station Officer Shutt. We did not find him particularly helpful. Wherever his testimony was in conflict with station Officer Shutt, we preferred the evidence of Station Officer Shutt. • 17.16, The other witnesses called on behalf of Mes&U Perkins and East. • We heard evidence from no less than 15 other witnesses, all of whom had been called on behalf of the respondents, Messrs East and perkins, to indicate to the Tribunal that there could not possibly be any substance or truth in the allegations made by the applicant against them. We have no hesitation whatsoever in rejecting most of the evidence that they gave. It tended to be anecdotal, which contrasted with the documentary evidence, and also the evidence of more reliable witnesses, such as Station officer Shutt, It tended to be extreme; for example, one witness stated that the exam passed by the applicant was so ' easy that a monkey could have passed it. The Tribunal were also unimpressed by the way in which some of these witnesses attempted to explain away some of the more damaging assertions that they had made to Assistant Chief Fire officer Haynes in his internal enquiry, which are recorded.in their