A weak defence of an indefensible caste law
| Published date | 01 March 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1358229115627517 |
| Date | 01 March 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Book reviews |
Book Review
A weak defence of an
indefensible caste law:
A reply to David Keane
Prakash Shah
David Keane has not understood the arguments in my book. Whilst it does articulate a
position against the caste provision of the Equality Act, it is not for the reasons or on the
grounds that he thinks. His reading of my book raises questions as to how far proponents
of the legislation are really able to take on the lessons of critiques of their support for it.
My book critiques Keane’s position on the caste legislation as well as that of his close
collaborators, who have helped engineer the law, and subsequently justified it, not least
through their participation in the Equality and Human Rights Co mmission (EHRC)
reports on caste.
Although Keane argues that the EHRC team of which he was a part did not have a
mandate to question the principle of the legislation, they could easily have done so had
they considered the legislation was badly thought through. They could have even
reported that the legislation, although by then in place, is simply unworkable and would
have disastrous consequences for the communities of concern in my book. They do
neither and, examining the EHRC reports closely, one will see passages justifying the
legislation and advocating its problem-free implementation, with the widest possible
scope and therefore the narrowest possible exemptions and exceptions. In so doing, they
ignore the consequences the law would have, which I identify at some length in my book,
whilst Keane’s review skirts that discussion. The EHRC reports that Keane co-authored
are therefore not merely a fait accompli but actively endorse the EHRC’s own support of
the legislation, and its widest possible application, expressed well before reports issued
forth from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research and the EHRC’s own
‘independent’ investigation. Our national equality body and the researchers it hired to
write the reports on caste had decla red their pro-legislation proc livities well before
researching the matter rather like Keane’s collaborator in parliament, Lord Lester, who
complained why legislation had to await research, which in his view was not required. It
is not merely a matter of adequate research, as Keane suggests, but the structural context
Centre for Culture and Law, Department of Law, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
2016, Vol. 16(1) 55–58
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1358229115627517
jdi.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial