Flat adverts that may be breaking the law

[Yamahahahahaha]

That was a cultural argument, if you read what I said I was specifically talking about an advert which said "no whites/blacks" etc - please explain how you would know what culture somebody is from skin colour.
You wouldn't know if somebody was atheist/Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh from skin colour, or anything about the individuals personality which could cause a clash.

Still irrelevant. You cannot directly or indirectly discriminate based on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
Indirect discrimination is quite weak legally, but if you can prove direct discrimination (as these flat adverts do) then you could win in court. Would you really want to live in a property owned by a racist though?

 

[Conscript]

I'm waiting for that example of a singular other reason for denying somebody a service due to being black, which isn't racist.

If it's not necessarily then you will be able to provide at least one example.

I didn't see any adverts which said "No blacks" but if they did, then you are correct, that's pretty blatant racism.

But most of the adverts didn't state "no x, y or z". They mostly stated "x/y/z/ only please".

Which to me indicates that rather than being definitively racist the landlord is simply trying to attract tenants of their own cultural background. I can't see so many landlords being so racist that they exclude everyone who isn't just one race; I can, however, see them specifying the same race as themselves in order to try and ensure a shared cultural background.

 

[Haggisman]

But then I assume many Jewish people still shop in Tesco, Sainsbury's et al even though they sell quite a few pork products. My point is that you would be excluding Jewish tennants because you are making assumptions about how they live their lives. In your example, I would simply mention to the prospective tennant that I was a massive pork sausage lover if the issue of their Jewishness came up, if it didn't then I'd imagine that religious issues such as this were not important to them.

But there's a world of difference between shopping in a shop that sells pork, and using the same fridge/cooking utensils that have been used for pork (in fact wasn't there a big hoo-haa a couple of years ago about prisons having to buy different sets of cutlery for muslim/jewish prisoners?

That was a cultural argument, if you read what I said I was specifically talking about an advert which said "no whites/blacks" etc - please explain how you would know what culture somebody is from skin colour.

You wouldn't know if somebody was atheist/Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh from skin colour, or anything about the individuals personality which could cause a clash.

I was referring to the adverts posted, many of which made references to a particular religion.

I didn't see any adverts which said "No blacks" but if they did, then you are correct, that's pretty blatant racism.

But most of the adverts didn't state "no x, y or z". They mostly stated "x/y/z/ only please".

Which to me indicates that rather than being definitively racist the landlord is simply trying to attract landlords of their own cultural background. I can't see so many landlords being so racist that they exclude everyone who isn't just one race; I can, however, see them specifying the same race as themselves in order to try and ensure a shared cultural background.

I think it's a lost cause

The most amusing thing about this is - even if you ban these non-racist adverts, the landlords are still going to assess prospective tenants on exactly the same criteria as they would have done, all that would be achieved by preventing them advertising those criteria is wasting everyone's time.

 

[elmarko]

Still irrelevant. You cannot directly or indirectly discriminate based on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
Indirect discrimination is quite weak legally, but if you can prove direct discrimination (as these flat adverts do) then you could win in court. Would you really want to live in a property owned by a racist though?

No I agree fully, I was just countering the point laid out beforehand by using the example I started with.

I wouldn't want to live in a property owned by one, but my point was that nobody has the right to discriminate & it shouldn't be given the green light.

 

[steve-h]

You don't have the right to discriminate is the point you seem ever keen on missing.

Refusing to do business with someone.
Forcing someone to do business with someone.

Which is worse?

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

None of the adverts said anything like "No blacks" so I don't see why you keep raising that point.
In fact, none of the ads said anything like "no x, y or z". They all said "x/y/z/ only please".

You are not allowed to discriminate by explicitly stating a preference based on the criteria outlined in the Equality Act, it's quite clear.
Edit: The act of explicit preference, has the effect of implicit denial on all others.

 

[elmarko]

Refusing to do business with someone.
Forcing someone to do business with someone.

Which is worse?

The former, as it serves no purpose - the latter protects minority's from small minded bigots.

 

[steve-h]

The former, as it serves no purpose - the latter protects minority's from small minded bigots.

Protects them from not doing business with them? LOL

 

[div0]

However how do you know if the part in bold is the reason?

Because the adverts being discussed specifically focus on race/ethnicity.

Just as an example;

I love bacon, and pork sausages. I can't imagine a Jewish tenant being particularly keen on sharing food making and storage facilities, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to adjust my diet based on their beliefs.

There are numerous other reasons why certain cultures/genders/ages/etc wouldn't necessarily be particularly good housemates for other certain cultures, but note how I'm at no point saying they are better or worse in themselves, simply different and perhaps incompatible.

Do you not accept that placing an advert for 'No Jews' would seem to be racist, seeing as you could quite easily have said 'No Vegans', 'No Vegetarians', 'No people who are just generally fussy about what I eat' etc.

I totally agree that if someone was to live with me then I'd want to find someone compatible, but focussing on one reason (their ethnicity) to exclude an entire group automatically, seems to be unfairly prejudiced to me.

 

[elmarko]

But there's a world of difference between shopping in a shop that sells pork, and using the same fridge/cooking utensils that have been used for pork (in fact wasn't there a big hoo-haa a couple of years ago about prisons having to buy different sets of cutlery for muslim/jewish prisoners?



I was referring to the adverts posted, many of which made references to a particular religion.



I think it's a lost cause

The most amusing thing about this is - even if you ban these non-racist adverts, the landlords are still going to assess prospective tenants on exactly the same criteria as they would have done, all that would be achieved by preventing them advertising those criteria is wasting everyone's time.

Well, let's examine them.

"Double bedroom available… Asian only" - That could be a number of religions or races, it pretty much only excludes Africans/Europeans.

"Double room to let Gujarati (Indian) only" - This may have some cultural relevance, but it's still discrimination.

Close to the station and bus stops (Filipino only) - Same as the first one.

"Professional single lady or Sri Lanka professional couple" - This may have some cultural relevance, but it's still discrimination.

"House for rent… only Asian families" - A house, not house-sharing & Asian only - clear racism.

Are you reading a different article?.

 

[inogen]

I think what's important here is that the people renting their rooms to "Bangladeshi only" or whatever admitting that they're not assimilated into mainstream British society. It's their choice to not assimilate, I think it's a bad choice, but it's not inherently racist. It's their loss.

"White only" is completely different as it would be discriminatory against non-white people who are culturally British, or who's lifestyle is entirely compatible British culture, which is racist.

 

[Conscript]

You are not allowed to discriminate by explicitly stating a preference based on the criteria outlined in the Equality Act, it's quite clear.
Edit: The act of explicit preference, has the effect of implicit denial on all others.

I'm not arguing with the black and white wording of the law of the Equality Act.

But fine, in this case, I do not believe the equality act should apply, as I don't think the motivation of these adverts is definitively racist, even if according to the Equality Act, the wording is.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

I think what's important here is that the people renting their rooms to "Bangladeshi only" or whatever admitting that they're not assimilated into mainstream British society. It's their choice to not assimilate, I think it's a bad choice, but it's not inherently racist.

It is inherently racist. Although not malicious, it is casual, explicit and importantly anti-British. The law is there to protect people (minorities and majorities) and society as a whole from the undesirable aspects of casual racism like this.

But fine, in this case, I do not believe the equality act should apply, as I don't think the motivation of these adverts is definitively racist, even if according to the Equality Act, the wording is.

The motivation might be benevolent, "I'll give someone in my community a hand up" or "I might meet a new friend", but the effect is divisive.

 

[inogen]

I'm not arguing with the black and white wording of the law of the Equality Act.

But fine, in this case, I do not believe the equality act should apply, as I don't think the motivation of these adverts is definitively racist, even if according to the Equality Act, the wording is.

I agree. The whole point of the Equality Act is to defend minorities from discrimination and to facilitate everyone's participation in mainstream society.

I see nothing in these adverts that contravenes the spirit of that particular law. If there's any discrimination going on, it's themselves excluding themselves.

 

[inogen]

It is inherently racist. Although not malicious, it is casual, explicit and importantly anti-British. The law is there to protect people (minorities and majorities) and society as a whole from the undesirable aspects of casual racism like this.

No it's not, it's to protect sections of society from from being excluded on grounds of race/gender/age/disability etc.

Who is being excluded by "Bangladeshi only"?

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

I agree. The whole point of the Equality Act is to defend minorities from discrimination and to facilitate everyone's participation in mainstream society.
I see nothing in these adverts that contravenes the spirit of that particular law. If there's any discrimination going on, it's themselves excluding themselves.

I'm confused by your statement. First you rightly point out that the law is there to facilitate everyone's participation in mainstream society.
You then go on to say that these people should be allowed to exclude other people in society? Clearly not allowing everyone a fair pop at living in that property is bad for society as a whole. Denying services based on some tag and all the associated connotations (real or imagined) is not fair for anyone if applied to society as a whole.
If people want the advantages afforded by living in this country (black, white, rich, poor, purple, alien) then they have to follow the laws of this country. The two are synonymous, you cannot have freedom and liberty if people are allowed to exclude others.

 

[Conscript]

The motivation might be benevolent, "I'll give someone in my community a hand up" or "I might meet a new friend", but the effect is divisive.

As I said earlier, I think any multicultural society will always be naturally quite divided. As good people I'm sure we all try to integrate with other culturally different members of our society, but there will always be differences.

Trying to force integration on all races and branding anyone simply wishing to identify only with others of their own culture in their personal lives as racist might be noble, but I think as an attempt at a force cohesive society, it might be ultimately counter productive.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

No it's not, it's to protect sections of society from from being excluded on grounds of race/gender/age/disability etc.
Who is being excluded by "Bangladeshi only"?

Anyone who is not Bangladeshi. Is that hard to understand?

 

[inogen]

I'm confused by your statement. First you rightly point out that the law is there to facilitate everyone's participation in mainstream society.
You then go on to say that these people should be allowed to exclude other people in society? Clearly not allowing everyone a fair pop at living in that property is bad for society as a whole. Denying services based on some tag and all the associated connotations (real or imagined) is not fair for anyone if applied to society as a whole.
If people want the advantages afforded by living in this country (black, white, rich, poor, purple, alien) then they have to follow the laws of this country. The two are synonymous, you cannot have freedom and liberty if people are allowed to exclude others.

They aren't excluding anyone from society, they're just excluding people from their house. It is after all, private property.

 

[inogen]

Anyone who is not Bangladeshi. Is that hard to understand?

So you think there are non-Bangladeshi's who want to live in a house full of Bangladeshi people who only speak Bangladeshi?

I mean seriously? Who are these people?