DOCSLIB.ORG

I EASY CASES MAKING BAD LAW: the ENGLISH JUDICIARY

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I EASY CASES MAKING BAD LAW: the ENGLISH JUDICIARY EASY CASES MAKING BAD LAW: THE ENGLISH JUDICIARY, DISCRIMINATION LAW, AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Michael Connolly UCL PhD ‘I, Michael Connolly confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis.’ i ABSTRACT The definitions of discrimination provided by equality legislation are a measure of how far a society is willing to challenge deep-seated assumptions, attitudes, and patterns of inequality. The judiciary has a major role in shaping these definitions. This is evident from the antecedent American cases and those of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which worked with more aspirational than detailed legislative provisions. One might conclude that the legislation coming before the English courts was thus ‘ready- made’, presenting the judiciary with few interpretive difficulties. But on many occasions this has proved not to be the case, with the senior English courts producing a number of highly contentious decisions. Commentators, heavily critical of many of these cases, tend to analyse them by reference to external understandings of concept, theory, or policy. This work offers a unique internal critique of the process producing the cases subject to such academic scrutiny. It makes a textual analysis of leading English judgments on the definitions of discrimination, and does so through the lens of statutory interpretation - the judge’s primary function. The scrutiny finds that these judgments are technically flawed in terms of the process of statutory interpretation and the definitions produced; it also finds them to be overcomplicated, excessively long, and often unduly restrictive. As such, the thesis is that these cases were better, and more easily, resolvable using conventional methods of interpretation, which would also shape the definitions better to reflect the policies underlying the legislation. Although highlighting inexpert reasoning, the textual scrutiny reveals other threads, particularly notable in the narrow interpretations. There is an adherence to the common law’s notion of binary litigation, envisaging just two individual litigants (e.g. a worker and employer) necessitating a harmed individual and fault-based liability; this is at odds with the societal and group-based purpose of the legislation. One can also detect a lingering historical negative or indifferent attitude to matters of equality, often realised nowadays with an assortment of personal predilections. Consequently, suggestions for reform are based around these findings. ii SUMMARY OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1. COMMON TOOLS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 2. AN INTRODUCTION TO THEORIES AND AIMS OF DISCRIMINATION LAW 3. HISTORY OF JUDICIAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS DISCRIMINATION 4. THE BENIGN MOTIVE DEFENCE AND DIRECT DISCRIMINATION 5. THE BENIGN MOTIVE DEFENCE AND VICTIMISATION 6. PROBLEMS WITH INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 7. DISABILITY-RELATED DISCRIMINATION CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY iii CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................1 1. The key concepts, drafting, and judges today .............................................................................. 1 2. Existing commentary ................................................................................................................... 3 3. The thesis ..................................................................................................................................... 5 4. Methodology and layout .............................................................................................................. 6 1 COMMON TOOLS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION .......................................................... 15 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 15 AN OUTLINE OF THE HABITUAL RULES ....................................................................................... 18 1. The Literal Rule ......................................................................................................................... 18 2. The Golden Rule ........................................................................................................................ 21 3. The Mischief Rule ...................................................................................................................... 21 4. The Purposive Approach ........................................................................................................... 22 5. Context ...................................................................................................................................... 24 6. Intrinsic Aids to Construction ................................................................................................... 24 7. Extrinsic Aids to Construction .................................................................................................. 26 THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURTS ............................................................................ 30 THE APPROACH OF THE EU COURT OF JUSTICE ......................................................................... 30 1. Context ...................................................................................................................................... 30 2. Enforcement in Member States .................................................................................................. 31 3. Circumventing Direct Effect ...................................................................................................... 33 4. Some General Principles of Interpretation ............................................................................... 34 5. The Rules of Interpretation ....................................................................................................... 38 6. Summary .................................................................................................................................... 40 7. EU Law in the English Courts ................................................................................................... 40 THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STRASBOURG COURT ....... 41 The Convention in the English Courts ............................................................................................... 45 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 48 2 AN INTRODUCTION TO THEORIES AND AIMS OF DISCRIMINATION LAW .................... 51 THE MEANING OF DISCRIMINATION ............................................................................................. 51 THE AIMS OF THE LAW ..................................................................................................................... 53 1. Formal Equality ........................................................................................................................ 54 2. Substantive Equality .................................................................................................................. 59 3. Human Dignity and Equality ..................................................................................................... 62 4. Equality, Pluralism, and Compassion ....................................................................................... 66 5. Statutory Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 68 3 THE COMMON LAW AND EQUALITY .......................................................................................... 71 1. The Common Law and Morality ................................................................................................ 71 2. Racial Discrimination ............................................................................................................... 72 3. Gender Discrimination .............................................................................................................. 73 4. Sexual Orientation Discrimination ........................................................................................... 75 5. Religious Discrimination ........................................................................................................... 76 6. A Common Law Principle of Equality? ..................................................................................... 76 4 THE ‘BENIGN MOTIVE DEFENCE’ AND DIRECT DISCRIMINATION .................................. 81 1. Direct Discrimination and Motive ............................................................................................ 81 2. R (on the application of E) v Governing Body of JFS ............................................................... 91 3. Direct Discrimination, the But For test, and the Benign Motive ‘Defence’ .............................. 97 4. Conclusion on JFS .................................................................................................................. 104 5. The Status of the But For Test ................................................................................................. 106 iv 5 THE ‘BENIGN MOTIVE DEFENCE’ AND VICTIMISATION ................................................... 109 1. The legislation .......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth
    Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites © Human Rights Consortium, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NCND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN 978-1-912250-13-4 (2018 PDF edition) DOI 10.14296/518.9781912250134 Institute of Commonwealth Studies School of Advanced Study University of London Senate House Malet Street London WC1E 7HU Cover image: Activists at Pride in Entebbe, Uganda, August 2012. Photo © D. David Robinson 2013. Photo originally published in The Advocate (8 August 2012) with approval of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) and Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG). Approval renewed here from SMUG and FARUG, and PRIDE founder Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera. Published with direct informed consent of the main pictured activist. Contents Abbreviations vii Contributors xi 1 Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity in the Commonwealth: from history and law to developing activism and transnational dialogues 1 Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites 2
    [Show full text]
  • Vriend V. Alberta, Supreme Court of Canada
    Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 Delwin Vriend, Gala-Gay and Lesbian Awareness Society of Edmonton, Gay and Lesbian Community Centre of Edmonton Society and Dignity Canada Dignité for Gay Catholics and Supporters Appellants v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta and Her Majesty’s Attorney General in and for the Province of Alberta Respondents and The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Alberta Civil Liberties Association, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), the Foundation for Equal Families, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Bar Association -- Alberta Branch, the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA), the Canadian AIDS Society, the Alberta and Northwest Conference of the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Focus on the Family (Canada) Association Interveners Indexed as: Vriend v. Alberta File No.: 25285. 1997: November 4; 1998: April 2. - 2 - Present: Lamer C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,* Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta Practice -- Standing -- Charter challenge -- Teacher’s employment at college terminated because of his homosexuality -- Provincial human rights legislation not including sexual orientation as prohibited ground of discrimination -- Whether appellants have standing to challenge legislative provisions other than those relating to employment -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 15(1) -- Individual’s Rights Protection Act, R.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion, the Rule of Law and Discrimination Transcript
    Religion, the Rule of Law and Discrimination Transcript Date: Thursday, 26 June 2014 - 6:00PM Location: Barnard's Inn Hall 26 June 2014 Religion, the Rule of Law and Discrimination The Rt Hon. Sir Terence Etherton Chancellor of the High Court of England and Wales 1. One of the most difficult and contentious areas of our law today is the resolution of disputes generated by a conflict between, on the one hand, the religious beliefs of an individual and, on the other hand, actions which that individual is required to take, whether that requirement is by a public body, a private employer or another individual. The problem is particularly acute where the conflict is directly or indirectly between one individual’s religious beliefs and another’s non-religious human rights.[1] 2. It is a subject that affects many countries as they have become more liberal, multicultural and secular.[2] The issues in countries which are members of the Council of Europe and of the European Union, like England and Wales, are affected by European jurisprudence as well as national law. The development of the law in England is of particular interest because the Protestant Church is the established Church of England but the protection for secular and other non-Protestant minorities has progressed at a pace and in a way that would have been beyond the comprehension of most members of society, including judges and politicians, before the Second World War. 3. This subject is large and complex and the law relevant to it is growing at a remarkably fast pace.[3] For the purpose of legal commentary, it falls naturally into two parts: (1) tracing the legal history and reasons for the developments I have mentioned, and (2) analysing the modern jurisprudence.
    [Show full text]
  • Bills of Attainder
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 2016 Bills of Attainder Matthew Steilen University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 Hous. L. Rev. 767 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/123 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE BILLS OF ATTAINDER Matthew Steilen* ABSTRACT What are bills of attainder? The traditional view is that bills of attainder are legislation that punishes an individual without judicial process. The Bill of Attainder Clause in Article I, Section 9 prohibits the Congress from passing such bills. But what about the President? The traditional view would seem to rule out application of the Clause to the President (acting without Congress) and to executive agencies, since neither passes bills. This Article aims to bring historical evidence to bear on the question of the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. The argument of the Article is that bills of attainder are best understood as a summary form of legal process, rather than a legislative act. This argument is based on a detailed historical reconstruction of English and early American practices, beginning with a study of the medieval Parliament rolls, year books, and other late medieval English texts, and early modern parliamentary diaries and journals covering the attainders of Elizabeth Barton under Henry VIII and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, under Charles I.
    [Show full text]
  • LGBT History Month 2016
    Inner Temple Library LGBT History Month 2016 ‘The overall aim of LGBT History Month is to promote equality and diversity for the benefit of the public. This is done by: increasing the visibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (“LGBT”) people, their history, lives and their experiences in the curriculum and culture of educational and other institutions, and the wider community; raising awareness and advancing education on matters affecting the LGBT community; working to make educational and other institutions safe spaces for all LGBT communities; and promoting the welfare of LGBT people, by ensuring that the education system recognises and enables LGBT people to achieve their full potential, so they contribute fully to society and lead fulfilled lives, thus benefiting society as a whole.’ Source: www.lgbthistorymonth.org.uk/about Legal Milestones ‘[A] wallchart has been produced by the Forum for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Equality in Further and Higher Education and a group of trade unions in association with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) History Month. The aim has been to produce a resource to support those raising awareness of sexual orientation and gender identity equality and diversity. Centred on the United Kingdom, it highlights important legal milestones and identifies visible and significant contributions made by individuals, groups and particularly the labour movement.’ Source: www.lgbthistorymonth.org.uk/wallchart The wallchart is included in this leaflet, and we have created a timeline of important legal milestones. We have highlighted a selection of material held by the Inner Temple Library that could be used to read about these events in more detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutory Code of Practice: Services, Public Functions and Associations
    Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice Equality Act 2010 Statutory Code of Practice Services, public functions and associations www.equalityhumanrights.com © Equality and Human Rights Commission (2011) The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental and agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Equality and Human Rights Commission copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at www.equalityhumanrights.com This publication is also available on www.official-documents.gov.uk ISBN: 9780108509728 ID P002411441 01/11 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Contents 01 Contents 15 Foreword 17 Chapter 1: Introduction 17 Purpose of the Equality Act 2010 18 Status of the Code 18 Scope of the Code 19 Age as a protected characteristic 20 Marriage and Civil Partnership 20 Purpose of the Code 21 Human Rights 22 Large and small service providers 22 How to use the Code 23 Examples in the Code
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Equality Act 2010 on Charities
    The Impact of the Equality Act 2010 on Charities Debra Morris, Anne Morris and Jennifer Sigafoos Charity Law & Policy Unit, School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool Published by: Charity Law & Policy Unit University of Liverpool Liverpool L69 7ZA August 2013 website: http://www.liv.ac.uk/law/research/charity-law-and-policy/about/ © Charity Law & Policy Unit ISBN 978-0-9536666-6-9 ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1 I Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 9 II Overview/ General Themes ......................................................................................................... 17 III The Legal Context: Charity Law ................................................................................................ 29 IV The Legal Context: Equality Laws ............................................................................................. 41 V The Legal Context: Interrelation between Charity and Equality Law ........................... 90 VI Case Studies .................................................................................................................................. 104 Religious Charities 104 Higher Education 117 Single-sex Provision 135 Challenges to Public Sector Spending Cuts 142 VII Conclusion and Recommendations ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Anothe
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 11/98 THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR GAY AND LESBIAN EQUALITY First Applicant THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Second Applicant versus THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE First Respondent THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Second Respondent THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE WITWATERSRAND Third Respondent Heard on : 27 August 1998 Decided on : 9 October 1998 JUDGMENT ACKERMANN J: Introduction [1] This matter concerns the confirmation of a declaration of constitutional invalidity of - (a) section 20A of the Sexual Offences Act, 1957; (b) the inclusion of sodomy as an item in Schedule 1 of the Criminal SACHS J Procedure Act, 1977 (“Schedule 1 of the CPA”); and (c) the inclusion of sodomy as an item in the schedule to the Security Officers Act, 1987 (“the Security Officers Act Schedule”); made by Heher J in the Witwatersrand High Court on 8 May 1998.1 These declarations were made and referred to this Court for confirmation under section 172(2)(a) of the 1996 Constitution.2 [2] The full order made by Heher J reads as follows: “1. It is declared that the common-law offence of sodomy is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996. 2. It is declared that the common-law offence of commission of an unnatural sexual act is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 to the extent that it criminalises acts committed by a man or between men which, if committed by a woman or between women or between a man and a woman, would not constitute an offence.
    [Show full text]
  • Equality Bill 7 MAY 2009 Bill 85 of 2008-09
    RESEARCH PAPER 09/42 Equality Bill 7 MAY 2009 Bill 85 of 2008-09 Legislation to outlaw discrimination has existed for over 40 years. Typically, new Acts have had as their focus one area of policy, for example, pay, equal treatment of women, race discrimination etc. Almost inevitably, the body of current law, introduced piece meal over such a long period, has developed inconsistencies of both content and approach. As well as introducing new requirements one of the main aims of this Bill is to harmonise existing law into a more coherent whole. Vincent Keter BUSINESS & TRANSPORT SECTION WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM, LOUISE BUTCHER, RICHARD CRACKNELL, TIMOTHY EDMONDS, OONAGH GAY, CHRISTINE GILLIE, HELEN HOLDEN, ALEX HORNE, SUE HUBBLE, RICHARD KELLY, STEVEN KENNEDY, ADAM MELLOWS- FACER, VAUGHNE MILLAR, BRYN MORGAN, JO ROLL, LOUISE SMITH, DJUNA THURLEY AND WENDY WILSON HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY Recent Library Research Papers include: List of 15 most recent RPs 09/27 Coroners and Justice Bill: Committee Stage Report 19.03.09 09/28 Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel 20.03.09 (Protocols) Bill [HL] [Bill 69 of 2008-09] 09/29 Members’ pay and the independent review process 31.03.09 09/30 Economic Indicators, April 2009 08.04.09 09/31 Members since 1979 20.04.09 09/32 Unemployment by Constituency, March 2009 22.04.09 09/33 Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill: Committee 23.04.09 Stage Report 09/34 The financial crisis in the US: key events, causes and responses 23.04.09 09/35 Russia’s Military Posture 24.04.09 09/36 Russia and
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Equality and Diversity in London
    Planning Guidance to the London Plan the London to Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance y ober 2007 Oct Planning for Equality and Diversity in London Planning for Supplementar Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning for Equality and Diversity in London MoL/Aug 07/MR D&P/GLA 989 020 7983 4100 020 7983 4458 ati www.london.gov.uk Hindi Bengali Arabic Gujar .uk 020 7983 4100 020 7983 4458 .london.gov w w w Enquiries Minicom urkish ondon SE1 2AA City Hall Walk The Queen’s L T Vietnamese GreekPunjabi Urdu Chinese If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please If you would like above. us at the address phone the number or contact You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the and state supply your name, your postal address will need to You and title of the publication you require. format London SE1 2AA London Greater London Authority London Greater City Hall Walk The Queen’s Telephone Minicom Public Liaison Unit For a large print, Braille, disc, print, Braille, a large sign language video or audio-tape version For below: us at the address of this document, please contact Other formats and languages Other formats Planning for Equality and Diversity in London Supplementary Planning Guidance to the London Plan October 2007 Copyright Greater London Authority October 2007 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN 978 1 84781 068 7 Photographs © Hayley Madden (pages 43, 44, 58, 90, 94), James O Jenkins (page 112), Liane Harris (page 3), Adam Hinton (page 6), Philip Wolmuth (pages 17 and 62), Nicki Tucker (page 52), TfL Visual Image Service (page 80), Visit London (page 87) and Belinda Lawley (all other images).
    [Show full text]
  • Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium
    Court File No: 26858 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: LITTLE SISTERS BOOK AND ART EMPORIUM B.C. CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION JAMES EATON DEVA AND GUY ALLEN BRUCE SMYTHE Appellants (Plaintiffs) and MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Respondents (Defendants) ______________________________ APPELLANT'S FACTUM ______________________________ PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The principal business of the Appellant, Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium ("Little Sisters") is the sale of books and magazines most of which are written by and for gay men and lesbians. Most of the books and magazines sold by Little Sisters are published in the United States and imported into Canada by Little Sisters. The Appellant, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has demonstrated a longstanding, genuine and continuing concern for the rights of disadvantaged groups or individuals in Canada and has likewise opposed censorship of allegedly obscene books and magazines. Amended Statement of Claim, paras. 6, 7 & 2. Appellants' Record ("AR") Vol. I, pp. 37, 36. 2. From about 1985 and from time to time to the trial, hundreds of books and magazines that Little Sisters has purchased and sought to import into Canada have been detained, prohibited and/or destroyed by customs officials pursuant to the Customs Legislation on the grounds that the books and magazines were "obscene". Amended Statement of Claim, para. 8. AR Vol. I, pp. 37-38. 3. This case concerns the constitutionality of Tariff Code 9956(a) of Schedule VII (now Tariff Item 9899.00.00) and s.
    [Show full text]
  • Dh-Min(2006)019
    Strasbourg, 23 October 2006 DH-MIN(2006)019 COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON ISSUES RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES (DH-MIN) EUROPEAN UNION LEGISLATION AND THE NORMS OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES Report prepared by Olivier DE SCHUTTER* * Professor of Human Rights Law, University of Louvain (Belgium) and College of Europe (Natolin); Member of the Global Law School Faculty, New York University. DH-MIN(2006)019 This report was prepared upon the request of the Secretariat of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and of the DH-MIN, for the fourth meeting of the Committee of Experts on Issues Relating to the Protection of National Minorities (DH-MIN), 19-20 October 2006, Strasbourg, France. The views expressed in the present expert paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the DH-MIN or its Members. 2 DH-MIN(2006)019 INTRODUCTION The European Union has not been attributed explicit competences in the field of minority protection. However, a number of provisions of the EC Treaty allow for the adoption of certain instruments which may contribute to improving such protection in the EU Member States. Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam on 1 May 1999, Article 13 of the EC Treaty allows the Community to ‘take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age of sexual orientation’. This enables the Council of the Union, acting unanimously, to protection ethnic and religious minorities from discrimination.
    [Show full text]