The sex discrimination lobby get the EU to pull back from their scheme to enforce equal insurance premiums for motor insurance despite different risks for each sex, thereby avoiding women having to pay the same as men. Would the EU have relented had it been women who posed the higher risk, and men who faced higher premiums?
A contrasting story is the intention of the Lake District National Park to scrap volunteer guided walks because they attract only middle class middle aged whites. There is no suggestion that the walks are not worthwhile in themselves, or that walks are not available to others. Sounds to me like discrimination against middle class people, middle aged people, and whites.
Examples of the politicians and officials institutionalising discrimination, and how easily rationality goes out the window.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's based on statistics, not discrimination. It's like saying they're also being age-ist (I think I made that word up) because younger drivers also have higher insurance. Stats are stats, whichever way they're favourable.
"Sounds to me like discrimination against middle class people, middle aged people, and whites."
There's a first time for everything...
If you're saying insurance premiums should be based on the stats, I agree. That the EU came close to enforcing equal premiums for everything is a sign of how far political correctness - the irrational - colours policy.
They still couldn't stop themselves entirely: the EU has nevertheless decreed that "insurance costs related to pregnancy and maternity [must be] attributed equally to both men and women": a clear interference with insurance by stats.
Attempts at 'positive discrimination' may be politically correct, but they are hypocritical, and ultimately as misguided and destructive as any other prejudice.
Post a Comment