How Effective Were the Methods of the Wspu in Gaining...

How effective were the methods of the WSPU in their struggle for women’s voting rights The Women’s Social and Political union was founded by Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst, in her family home in Manchester, on the 10th of October 1903. Mrs Pankhurst and her husband Richard were members of the Independent Labour Party and had been since 1893. Emmeline and her eldest daughter Christabel became the leaders of the organization. The WSPU was the most notorious of all the suffrage movements; splitting from the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies after becoming disheartened by the groups lack of success in gaining votes for women. The WSPU used militant tactics to try and help gain women the vote adopting the slogan Deeds not Words; the†¦show more content†¦Emmeline and Christabel officially resigned from the ILP. In 1908 Herbert Asquith, replaced Cambell Bannerman as prime minister, Asquith was against women’s suffrage. This change caused the WSPU to intensify their militant methods they broke windows and threw stones. Mrs Fawcett, who had once praised the movement for the advancements it made to the suffrage cause, condemned these violent methods. Causing the WSPU to become further alienated. In 1909 as the arrests for these and such offence increased the WSPU campaigners who were imprisoned began to go on hunger strike, after a few months the prisons began force-feeding the women. This was a very dangerous process involving a 4 ft. long tube being forced down the woman’s throat. In 1910 the WSPU together with NUWSS persuaded the government to set up a conciliation committee and introduce a bill for women’s suffrage. Mrs Pankhurst called off all militant action, hoping this bill would finally bring an end to the struggle and give women the vote. The bill passed its second reading on the 12th of July, despite some opposition from Liberal Party MPs. The bill however progressed no further, Asquith declared there was no more time to spend on the bill and suspended parliament until November. On the 18th of November the WSPU called off the truce, over 400 women went to the House of Commons to protest. ThisShow MoreRelatedNegative Impacts Of The Suffrage Movement1657 Words   |  7 Pages Violence is a disease, a disease that corrupts all who use it regardless of the cause. In Britain during the early twentieth century, women were seen as inferior to men and were denied the civil right to vote. Thus, inspiring the Suffrage Movement. The militant action employed by the Suffragettes, however, to achieve the vote for women was self-defeating to the campaign, hindering the success and achievement of the Franchise Act in 1918. As though the violence raised awareness to the Cause. TheRead MoreThe Women s Suffrage Movement1343 Words   |  6 Pages(NUWSS), known as the Suffragists, along with the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), known as the Suffragettes. The violence of the WSPU is often the only aspect of the cause remembered, however, for every suffragette, there were a dozen non-militant suffragists and as such the movement was less violent than what was portrayed in the media at the time and how it is portrayed now, however the actions of the WSPU hel ped further the Women’s Suffrage Movement (WSM) more and therefore, to a greaterRead More Womens Suffrage Essay3961 Words   |  16 Pagescomposed faà §ade. A delicate disposition with a distain for all things violent and vulgar. However, by this point in time, an increasing number of women were becoming ever more frustrated with their suppressed position in society. Women eventually went to extreme, militant measures to gain rights, especially to gain women the right to vote. Although this controversy in the short term could perhaps be seen to delay the implementation of women’s suffrage, combined with the restRead MoreHow and Why Women Got the Right to Vote in Britain1800 Words   |  8 PagesHow and Why Women Got the Right to Vote in Britain In 1906 the Liberal Government swept the opposition to one side as they moved into power in a landslide victory at the general election. This gave birth to a new dawn of hope to women the length and breadth of the country as the new Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, was in support of the vote for women. Two years later this bright horizon was clouded as Bannerman steps down from the spotlight to make wayRead MoreAssess the significance of popular pressure in bringing about improved representation and greater democracy in Britain in the period 1830-19312683 Words   |  11 Pagesgovernment who were worried that it would give impetus to the British to remove power from the aristocracy and monarchy. However other factors also played a significant role in stimulating change such as the work of individuals and rivalry between the political parties themselves. The role of popular pressure in bringing about improved representation and greater democracy in Britain was both extensive and diverse. The movements involved the working and middle class and the methods used varied fromRead MoreWomens Failure to Gain the Vote Between 1900-1914 Essay8468 Words   |  34 PagesWomens Failure to Gain the Vote Between 1900-1914 There are many reasons why women failed to gain the right to vote between 1900 and 1914, these different reasons did not just appear overnight some were had been institutionalised into the very core of British society over a great length of time. The other reasons were public responses to, the then, recent actions of the groups looking to gain the vote for women. For the purpose of this coursework I will separate these

Necessary Physical Contant in D.H. Lawrences Women in...

Necessary Physical Contant in D.H. Lawrences Women in Love and Platos Symposium D.H. Lawrence’s novel, Women in Love, presents a complex model of female-male and male-male relationships. Lawrence’s model relies heavily on a similar model presented in Plato’s Symposium. The difference between the two works lies in the mode of realization; that is, how one goes about achieving a ‘perfect’ love relationship with either sex. Lawrence concentrates on corporal fulfillment, characterized in his recurring reference to obtaining a â€Å"blood oath,† while Plato concentrates on a mental, or â€Å"divine† bond. Lawrence’s concentration on corporal fulfillment of love only superficially differs from Plato’s concentration on the mind: both come to the†¦show more content†¦This interpretation does not draw a distinct enough line between Plato and Lawrence’s philosophies: whereas the â€Å"dark flood of electric passion† may be transcendental, the connection itself, rooted solely within co rporal exchange, is not. Lawrence narrates that the â€Å"strange fountains† of Birkin’s body are â€Å"more mysterious and potent than any she had imagined or known, more satisfying, ah, finally, mystically-physically satisfying† (359). The mysteriousness of this connection is how, â€Å"in touch,† the body functions to bring about â€Å"the maximum of unspeakable communication †¦ that can never be transmuted into mind content †¦ the mystic body of reality (366). Lawrence is stating that the body functions much like the soul in Plato’s philosophy in that both are â€Å"mystic.† Lawrence’s description of bodily exchange being â€Å"mystically-physically satisfying† conveys that both the mind and body are inextricably linked: the body is needed to establish a mental connection. That mental connection is explained when Ursula describes to Hermione that Birkin â€Å"wants [her] to accept him non-emotionally,† and, â€Å"He wants [her] to accept him as †¦ an absolute (333). In other words, Lawrence’s view of a perfect union comprises of two human beings accepting each other as they are: neither has to conform to the other: they exist as separate and distinct entities. When their love is finally consummated, Lawrence states that â€Å"[Ursula] acquiesced—but it was accomplished without her

Free Discrimination Essay Free Essays

string(67) " reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability\." ‘The prohibition of discrimination arising from disability in the Equality Act 2010 s.15 has, to a great extent, rectified the damage done to the protection of disable people by the House of Lords decision in Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham (Appellants) v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43’ 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 founding a discrimination claim in respect of a disabled person[33]. We will write a custom essay sample on Free Discrimination Essay or any similar topic only for you Order Now Malcolm has rightly been described as sending â€Å"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 undermed 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 a 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 were 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 Lords appeal was based on two grounds as Orme opines and this part will look at the decision along these lines: â€Å"First, in order for the alleged discrimination to â€Å"relate to† the disability within s.24(1)(a), must the fact of the disability have played some motivating part in the mind of the alleged discriminator when subjecting the disabled person to the treatment complained ofSecondly, 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: â€Å"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: â€Å"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 schrizophrenia who has not sub-let their property as this â€Å"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 â€Å"pointless†. The typically used example from Novacold is the blind man with the dog who are 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: â€Å" 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 â€Å"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: â€Å"(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. You read "Free Discrimination Essay" in category "Essay examples"† The chief difference is the wording of s.15(1)(a) which does not include the words â€Å"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 a s.19 claim for indirect discrimination[45] so there is in effect a recognition by Parliament that providing the knowledge defence in both situatio ns would have been too conciliatory to landlords. The aims of the Equality Act 2010 were clear as the Solicitor-General pointed out in Parliament: â€Å"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. Bibliography Books: 1. Bamforth et al (2008) Discrimination Law: Theory and Context texts and materials Journals: Arlow, Ruth (2009) ‘Sikh Bangle: Indirect Discrimination – race and religion’ in Eccesiastical 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 Case Law: 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 43 Sorbie and Others v Trust Houses Forte Hotels Ltd [1977] Q.B. 931 R (on the application of Watkins-Singh) v Aberdare Girls’ High School Governors [2008] EWHC 1865 (Admin) 8. R (on the application of X) v The Headteacher of Y School R (on the application of Playfoot) v Governing Body of Millais School Governing Body [2007] EWHC 1698 (Admin) Taylor v OCS Group [2006] ICR 1602 Statutes Hansard: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Housing Act 1985 Equality Act 2010 Equality Act 2006 Equal Pay Act 1970 Race Relations Act 1976 Hansard, HC Public Bill Committee, 8th Sitting, June 16, 2009, col.275 [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 Eccesiastical 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 How to cite Free Discrimination Essay, Essay examples