[sexmag]

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/...-37514739.html

"THE Minister for Higher Education is to create women-only professorships in a radical move to address persistent gender inequality at senior levels in universities and third level colleges."

Does not fall under discrimination based on gender if a male was to apply for a role and be rejected as the position in this university is only open to females?

[Under His Eye]

Absolutely. Free money for any males that apply.

[Rodin]

Discrimination by another name.

Should not happen.

How can a minister promote excluding someone from a job because of their gender ?

[judeboy101]

Surely men can declare themselves female and apply?

[OmegaGene]

Such an apt username op

[bfa1509]

Last year I applied for this return to work program for women in engineering at Medtronic (all while being a male):

https://www.irishjobs.ie/Jobs/Return...r-8081481.aspx

My application was refused as I "did not meet their criteria for the position". I made a complaint to the irish jobs website for hosting the ad. They held their hands up and put me in direct contact with the company and told me to sort it out with them, which I did. I got a whole load of legal jargon back from them referencing different laws claiming that what they were doing was not discriminiation based on gender :|

All of this is a pretty convoluted way of trying to eradicate gender based discrimination...

[Victor]

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1.../en/html#sec24

Positive action on equal opportunities.

24.—(1) The provisions of this Act are without prejudice to measures to promote equal opportunity for men and women, in particular by removing existing inequalities which affect women's opportunities in the areas of access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1.../en/html#sec33

Positive action permitted.

33.—(1) Nothing in this Part or Part II shall prevent the taking of such measures as are specified in subsection (2) in order to facilitate the integration into employment, either generally or in particular areas or a particular workplace, of—
(a) persons who have attained the age of 50 years,
(b) persons with a disability or any class or description of such persons, or
(c) members of the traveller community.

(2) The measures mentioned in subsection (1) are those intended to reduce or eliminate the effects of discrimination against any of the persons referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection.

(3) Nothing in this Part or Part II shall render unlawful the provision, by or on behalf of the State, of training or work experience for a disadvantaged group of persons if the Minister certifies that, in the absence of the provision in question, it is unlikely that that disadvantaged group would receive similar training or work experience.

[bfa1509]

Originally Posted by Victor

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1.../en/html#sec24

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1.../en/html#sec33

That is very much like the response that I got. I'm no legal expert but I'm pretty sure that statutes are laws in their weakest form. They get passed easily by the government but have never been exercised or challenged in a court.

I can picture a few landmark cases coming down the line. I hope sense will prevail.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by bfa1509

I'm no legal expert

Originally Posted by bfa1509

I'm pretty sure that statutes are laws in their weakest form.

I'm happy with the first quote, not the second.

[bfa1509]

Originally Posted by Victor

I'm happy with the first quote, not the second.

Are you going to elaborate for our benefit with your wisdom of the law or just take the chance at a cheap quip?

Here's a paragraph taken from https://www.oireachtas.ie

The Acts passed by the Oireachtas are the primary legislation of Ireland. There is another category of laws known as secondary legislation or statutory instruments.

The Oireachtas does not enact statutory instruments. Instead, the power to enact them is delegated to certain people or bodies including Government Ministers, local authorities and regulatory bodies.

Secondary legislation must be consistent with, and based on, the legislation adopted by the Oireachtas. If it is not, it can be overturned by the courts.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by bfa1509

That is very much like the response that I got. I'm no legal expert but I'm pretty sure that statutes are laws in their weakest form. They get passed easily by the government but have never been exercised or challenged in a court.

I can picture a few landmark cases coming down the line. I hope sense will prevail.

Statutes are laws, full stop. There are only two ways you can overturn a statute; have a court find that it is repugnant to the Constitution, or have it amended or repealed by the Oireachtas through political action.

Having said that, I'm not sure that the provisions quoted by Victor will do the heavy lifting needed to justify the creation of women-only positions in universities. S. 24 appears to be focussed on "removing existing inequalities . . . in the areas of access to employment"; I don't think it offers much justification for positive discrimination. Which presumably explains why s.33 is included; it is clearly intended to permit positive discrimination, but on the basis of age, disablity or membership of the traveller community, but not sex. The Minister could possibly rely on s. 33(3) to justify the provision of training or work experience to women only but not, I think, university chairs.

[GM228]

Originally Posted by Victor

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1.../en/html#sec24

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1.../en/html#sec33

Note S33 has been amended by the S22 of the Equality Act 2004 to specifically exclude positive measures based on gender:

33. Nothing in this Part or Part II shall render unlawful measures maintained or adopted with a view to ensuring full equality in practice between employees, being measures —

( a ) to prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to any of the discriminatory grounds (other than the gender ground),

( b ) to protect the health or safety at work of persons with a disability, or

( c ) to create or maintain facilities for safeguarding or promoting the integration of such persons into the working environment.

Also S24 does not apply, "without prejudice" would indicate it relates to any existing right or claim and clearly such a position would not be an existing right or claim.

That said the courts have been known to interpret equality laws in strange ways, remember for example Portmarnock Golf Club's "men only" policy, they won that case in the Supreme Court in 2009.

[BattleCorp]

Positive action on equal opportunities.

24.—(1) The provisions of this Act are without prejudice to measures to promote equal opportunity for men and women, in particular by removing existing inequalities which affect women's opportunities in the areas of access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.

Is equal opportunity the same as equal outcome?

[sexmag]

The irony of trying to gain equal opportunity by not providing equal opportunity is dumbfounding.

[GM228]

I noticed a discussion earlier on TV (Virgin ONE I think) where it was stated that advice (and approval) on the issue came from the Attorney General (not sure where their source for this is though as they did not quote anyone).

If true I really can't see where the AG has found a legal basis for this especially in light of the amended S33 I quoted earlier which excludes gender issues from positive action.