Editorial
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1358229118814938 |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
Editorial 18(4)
In this issue Stuart Goosey focuses on age discrimination in relation to judicial retire-
ment in the UK, which is set at the age of 70. Goosey advocates a pluralist theory of
discrimination to explain when such differential treatment is justified. This theory
focuses on efficiency, equality of opportunity, social equality, autonomy and respect
and it is argued that using these criteria, the UK’s judicial retirement age may be justified
as it advances equality of opportunity and social equality by increasing the turnover of
judges and the number of vacancies available to younger candidates and groups, such as
women, who are currently under-represented. This outweighs the detriment to older
judges subject to that requirement, which is also mitigated by the fact that the majority
elect to retire before 70 and the age threshold was set following consultations between
senior members of the judiciary and the Lord Chancellor.
Natalie Alkiviadou focuses on hate speech and hate crime reviewing the instruments
currently available which are intended to deal with these issues. She argues that the
failure to include homophobic and transphobic speech and transphobic crime constitutes
a ‘hierarchy of hate’ with some forms of hate considered more significant than others.
The focus within the international and European framework on hate speech and hate
crime has been to focus primarily on speech targeting racial and religious groups, with
other forms of hate, relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, treated as less
important. She is critical of UN, the Council of Europe and the EU approaches to this
issue because of their prioritization of specific types of hatred. Despite growing aware-
ness of the need to improve protection in these areas, change has yet to be implemented.
Alkiviadou notes that there is one exception, namely Cyprus, whose Criminal Code does
include incitement of violence or hatred on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity, but even there the penalties for homophobic and transphobic speech are lower
than for racist and xenophobic speech.
Jamil Mujuzi considers the measures taken by the Seychellois courts to protect the
right to freedom from discrimination. Under Article 27 of the Seychellois Constitution
‘every person has a right to equal protection of the law including the enjoyment of the
rights and freedoms set out in this Charter without discrimination on any ground except
as is necessary in a democratic society.’ Exceptions are made for programmes aimed at
the amelioration of the conditions of disadvantaged persons or groups. But Article 27
does not make clear the specific grounds on which a person has the right not to be
discriminated against. As Mujuzi notes, this contrasts with other Constitutions, including
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
2018, Vol. 18(4) 195–196
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1358229118814938
journals.sagepub.com/home/jdi
To continue reading
Request your trial