Merit, Speech Disability and Discrimination

There is a substantial body of evidence – going back over decades – which indicates that the employment sphere is difficult for those who suffer a speech disability. To a large extent, I argue, this is due to the setting of merit in terms of orality and aesthetic. It also relates to the low perception of competence of the speech disabled. I argue that to be effective against discrimination the notion of merit and its assessment requires focus. ‘Merit’ as a concept in discrimination law has had its critics, yet it remains important to investigate it as social construct in order to help understand discrimination and how to counter this. For example, in this article I look at an instance where the resetting of what was viewed as ‘meritorious’ in judicial recruitment successfully improved the diversity in lower judicial posts.

Further, given the relative failure of the employment tribunal system to improve the general position of those who are disabled, I look to alternative methods of countering disability discrimination. The suggestion provided is that an enforced ombudsman type approach capable of dealing with what may be the core issue around employment discrimination (‘merit’) would provide a better mechanism for handling the general situation of disability discrimination than the tribunal system.

European Union non-discrimination law and intersectionality:Investigating the triangle of racial, gender and disability discrimination

This book contributes to a critical reflection of current legislative and jurisprudential developments in Non-Discrimination Law, focusing on the European Union. The book is focused on intersectionality between gender, race and disability and the question of whether, and to what extent, this intersection can be adequately addressed in (EU) law. The discussion rests on two basic assumptions. First, the multiplication of 'discrimination grounds' in EU law and other legal regimes should not result in a dilution of the demands of equality law. Accordingly, the book focuses on the three key grounds - race, gender and disability. These constitute nodes around which other discrimination grounds can be grouped. Second, any multi-ground non-discrimination law framework needs to engage with the question of discrimination on several grounds. This book provides a critical evaluation of some of the problems presented by such intersectionality and an opportunity to explore the issues in depth. This collection offers some new proposals relating to the regrouping of identity categories and to the general approach to socio-legal research in the field. It also contains a comparative section, which expands on practical experiences with intersectionality and law, and a section dedicated to juridical responses to intersectionality.

Gendered Violence and International Human Rights: Thinking Non-Discrimination Beyond the Sex Binary

The concept of non-discrimination has been central in the feminist challenge to gendered violence within international human rights law. This article critically explores non-discrimination and the challenge it seeks to pose to gendered violence through the work of Judith Butler. Drawing upon Butler’s critique of heteronormative sex/gender, the article utilises an understanding of gendered violence as effected by the restrictive scripts of sex/gender within heteronormativity to illustrate how the development of non-discrimination within international human rights law renders it ineffective to challenge gendered violence due to its own commitments to binarised and asymmetrical sex/gender. However, the article also seeks to encourage a reworking of non-discrimination beyond the heteronormative sex binary through employing Butler’s concept of cultural translation. Analysis via the lens of cultural translation reveals the fluidity of non-discrimination as a universal concept and offers new possibilities for feminist engagement with universal human rights.

Intersectionality and the Notion of Disability in EU discrimination law

Defining the characteristics targeted by banning discrimination constitutes a central challenge for EU discrimination law, and defining disability is particular-ly challenging due to the dispute around the very concept of disability. From 2006, the Court of Justice has wrestled with this definition in six judgments, five of which were delivered from 2013. Instead of classifying the case law definition as conforming to a medical or social model of disability, this article analyses the case law with a view to illustrate challenges of defining discrimination grounds generally, demanding that a sufficiently precise and non-exclusive definition of each discrimination ground can be achieved by re-focusing EU discrimination law around the nodes of sex, race and disability. The analysis exposes that the ECJ definition of disability neither complies with the UN CRPD nor adequately responds to intersectionality theory, for example because the definition is exclu-sionary in relation to female experience of disability.

Political Socialisation

The process of political socialisation (PS) has been classically defined as the “learning of social patterns corresponding to [an individual’s] societal position as mediated through various agencies of society” (Hyman, 1959, p. 25). Distinguishing PS from other types of socialisation (e.g. ethnic, cultural), this definition still serves as the foundation for the majority of empirical research in this area, despite methodological advances and new attention to previously under researched aspects of PS. As it was assumed that PS was relatively stable throughout life, early research focused on analysing this process during early childhood (Merelman, 1986). However, more recent studies found that ideas and attitudes acquired during childhood change through emerging adulthood due to multiple factors, such as personality, maturation and past experiences (“Beyond Political Socialization,” 2014). Therefore, current research has expanded beyond the effects of the classic socialisation agents (i.e., parents, peers, school) to include other relevant factors such as overarching context and individual cognitive development. Yet, the research to date offers a fragmented perspective of the process with heterogeneous results related to PS outcomes (e.g., voting behaviour, political engagement, identities, intergroup attitudes, prejudice, discrimination, etc.). This fact highlights the need for further research from childhood through emerging adulthood that also considers a wider-range of multiple socialisation agents, the over-arching context, and a greater numbers of outcomes related PS processes.