11:28 am: Overheard in the Forest Cafe: and thoughts about the hierarchy of equality
Man, furiously: "And now a court says I can't see my kids!"
Other man, sympathetically: "Mumble mumble, rough, mumble, man, mumble rhubarb rhubarb."
Man, furiously explaining: "There's an exclusion order! If I go near them I could get arrested! My own kids!"
Other man, still sympathetically: "Mumble mumble rhubarb rhubarb."
Man, even more furiously: "And I've still got to pay! Why the hell do I have to pay if I can't see my kids!"
Other man, still sympathetically though his mumbles were getting shorter and shorter: "Mumble rhubarb."
Me, cravenly: *silence*
I was standing at the computer, and the two men were sitting at the table behind me (or possibly, going through the Free Shop stuff, I didn't turn to see).
What is an exclusion order? (from
Shelter):
An exclusion order is a court order that suspends the right of a married person, civil partner or cohabitee to live in the family home. You can apply for an exclusion order if your spouse or partner has done or is threatening to do something that has harmed or would harm you or your children either physically or mentally. This will probably need to be more than one isolated incident that was out of character. It can be difficult to get an exclusion order and it will depend on your individual circumstances.
I don't want to say anything like "The courts don't make mistakes!" etc, but the fact is: there is a strong principle in the UK, in European law in general, that a parent has not just the right but the
obligation to get to spend time with his kids. (I say "his" advisedly: mothers, having usually been the primary caretakers from birth, and in general remaining so even after a relationship splits, won't usually have the same difficulties in exercising this obligation.)
Courts don't serve an exclusion order lightly. If the man had been served with an exclusion order it was probably because he had, more than once, turned up at the family home since he and his partner split, and terrified the hell out of her and the children - terrified
at least, and possibly struck his ex-partner or their children. The police had probably been called, at least once, to get him to leave. Or it could be worse. And given the way this man was behaving in the Forest, yelling and scaring his ex and his children seemed certain, and the rage in his voice made it more certain.
I wouldn't ordinarily even have considered joining in a conversation that I was not included in, but the Forest is one of those places where you can. But as the only things I would have had to say would have been on the lines of "Yes, you still have to support your children because their legal right to your support isn't tied to or affected by your legal right to see them, which it sounds like you've voided by your own fault" the main reason I didn't say any of that was because I was chickenshit.
There are seven equality strands (six recognised, but seven ought to be): race/ethnicity, religion/belief, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and poverty.
( And while there are individual differences, individual circumstances, it is surprising how consistent we are in Western culture about what order it's acceptable to be openly prejudiced: poverty, age, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, gender, religion, race. )Having sorted all this out in my head - and I will accept agreement, disagreement, re-ordering, shuffling, in comments - looking at my list, which is based on "what I feel the situation to be in Scotland at this time", I notice that it's very strongly based on legislation and law enforcement. It's been illegal since 1975 to incite hatred on the grounds of race; anti-sectarianism has been strongly enforced in Scotland, both socially and legally, precisely because Protestant and Catholic have been (and are) big issues for so long. (Edinburgh and Glasgow, and other cities in Scotland, have a city football team for the Protestants, a city football team for the Catholics,
and if the city's big enough, a third team for - as a Catholic fan of Partick Thistle told me - the ones who don't like getting beaten up.)
There is no legislation banning incitement of hatred against people for their gender or their sexual orientation or their disability. (There might be in England and Wales soon, for sexual orientation at least, but there isn't in Scotland, nor likely to be.) There is a kind of fumbling recognition that it's not a good thing, expressed in some local authority guidelines and government language, but no legislation.
Not only is there no legislation about it, it's actually considered a positively good thing for children to be harassed/bullied about their gender identity, because of course children need to learn to
conform.
No one talks about the problem of inciting hatred against people because of their income level at all. Contempt for people on a low income is considered, perhaps not positively good, but perfectly normal.
Which is worth thinking about, when considering if legislation will "make a difference". Eventually it will, though expecting instant results is not something that happens. A generation or two who grow up under the
new legislation grow up at least knowing that it's
unacceptable to express such hatred. Which is a step in itself, as I think anyone would agree who has ever been made uncomfortable by open expression of prejudice by someone who sees nothing wrong with it...
Current Mood: 
thoughtful
,
i am a feminist,
outcasts should stick together,
powerful speech vs. powerless silence,
scottish politics,
working at the forest
![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
afrai has more.
![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
