Editorial
| DOI | 10.1177/1358229117730724 |
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
Editorial 17(3)
Some of the weaknesses in the protection offered by discrimination law are considered in
this issue in relation to the experience of Nigeria, the UK and the US. Cheluchi Onye-
melukwe considers whether persons living with HIV/AIDS are adequately protected by
the law in Nigeria and surveys recent changes in the law and their potential impact.
While acknowledging recent positive develo pments, she argues more is needed and
recommends an amendment to the federal Constitution to include health status as a
protected characteristic. More needs to be done to reduce the stigma and discrimination
suffered by persons living with HIV/AIDS. This stigmatisation inhibits efforts to reduce
the spread of the disease as individuals living with HIV/AIDS may be reluctant to
disclose their status, or to seek treatment. Stigmatisation has also led to unfair treatment
on basis of perceived HIV status. Onyemelukwe discusses discrimination in relation to
access to health care, employment and education.
Richard Pate revisits the equal opportunity harassment defence in US discrimination
law, which treats equal harassment of both genders as an absence of disparate treatment.
Pate argues strongly for a rejection of this defence which fails to take account of the
realities of a gendered society and the status of female employees. He applies Wittgen-
stein’s analysis of language, which focuses on the context of language as the source of
meaning, to the equal opportunity harasser. As he points out, the ostensive meaning of a
word may imply gender neutrality, but once immersed into the social context then the
gendered connotations become clear.
Michael Connolly considers the implications of Brexit for one aspect of discrimina-
tion law, namely the objective justification defence to claims of indirect discrimination.
He discusses relevant domestic and EU jurisprudence on this issue, as well as
the approach taken in the US. Connolly contrasts the more liberal approach of
the Luxembourg court with that of the domestic courts, which poses a challenge for the
UK government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. He argues for a legislative
restatement of the test and post-Brexit, for the introduction of a statutory rule of inter-
pretation, requiring a liberal and purposive interpretation of equality law to align the
British and EU interpretations and applications of this law.
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
2017, Vol. 17(3) 159
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1358229117730724
journals.sagepub.com/home/jdi
To continue reading
Request your trial