Editorial
| Date | 01 June 2012 |
| Published date | 01 June 2012 |
| Author | Susan Easton |
| DOI | 10.1177/1358229112459401 |
Editorial
Susan Easton
In this issue Roseanne Russell discusses the problem of achieving equal pay in the UK,
where women still earn less than men, despite the enactment of equal pay legislation
42 years ago. She highlights the tension between business values and egalitarian princi-
ples and discusses the problems with a shareholder value paradigm. Russell argues that
while we need to involve companies to achieve advances for women, the ‘business case’
for equal pay is problematic. A narrow focus on shareholder values undermines other
interests, excludes women as employees and diverts attention from other causes inhibit-
ing pay equality. Russell highlights the issues of the gendered division of labour, con-
tinuing gender stereotypes and the notion of the male ‘ideal worker’ with domestic
support. What is needed, she argues, is to go beyond the instrumental appeal to equal pay
being good for business and to develop a new approach that is based on feminist legal
theory, which considers other stakeholders, including women employees, and focuses
on relational values.
Jogchum Vrielink considers the issues raised by the recent unsuccessful case brought
by Bienvenu Mbuto Mondondo, a Congolese student, under the Belgian Anti-Racist Act,
against the comic book, Tintin in the Congo, by Herge´. The applicant sought an injunc-
tion to prevent the sale and distribution of this work, or, at the very least, for the publish-
ers to include a disclaimer and introduction warning of the offensive content. Concerns
regarding this particular work, first published in 1931 and containing negative stereo-
types, have not been limited to Belgium. In the UK a request to bookstores by the Com-
mission for Racial Equality demanding its withdrawal from publication was refused,
although the comic book is now wrapped with a warning that it is unsuitable for younger
readers. In the United States it is available only in selected libraries with restricted
access. Vrielink considers the reasons why the case failed in the Belgian court and the
implications for free speech if the application had succeeded.
Christopher Monaghan discusses the problems in bringing a claim for dismissal
discrimination where the claimant is an illegal immigrant in the light of the recent case
of Hounga v Allen in the Court of Appeal. Here, the court refused to allow the claimant to
enforce an illegal contract of employment on public policy grounds because it did not
want to appear to condone the use of illegal labour. Ms Hounga argued that the dismissal
had been for racially discriminatory reasons and that she had also been discriminated
against during the course of her employment. Her claim for dismissal discrimination was
rejected because she had knowingly worked illegally in the UK. The court focused on the
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
12(2) 79–80
ªThe Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1358229112459401
jdi.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial