News Items:

• Shoppers Help PARITY Funds at no Cost to Them!
• The Domestic Abuse Bill
• What is “Equality”? Part 1: The Pay Gap
• What is “Equality”? Part 2: Equality is Unequal Treatment
• What is “Equality”? Part 3 – Politician’s Equality
• Men, Mental Health and Suicide
• Women Pension Age Case Goes to High Court
• From Russia with Love
• From Gillette to “Jill”ette

NOTES OF OPEN MEETING SESSION HELD ON SATURDAY 8th JUNE 2019 AT 2:00pm
IN DISNEY ROOM, UNION JACK CLUB, SANDELL STREET, LONDON SE1 8UJ

PARITY AGM Open Session – Talk by Neil Lyndon – Has the Age of Feminism 1

Brought About a Form of Totalitarianism?

1. Introduction and Welcome:

Chair opened the open session by introducing our guest speaker Neil Lyndon (NL). He highlighted NL’s various past contributions to the gender equality debate outlining the many publications NL has contributed to. He was in 1965 the first pupil from a
comprehensive school to be offered an unconditional place at a Cambridge college. Following university, he worked for the BBC and the Sunday Times. He then became a columnist for The Times, Sunday Times, Daily Mail, Sunday Telegraph and The Scotsman.
NL’s book No More Sex War: the Failures of Feminism was republished in an unexpurgated, uncensored edition in 2014 in the anthology Sexual Impolitics. He added that whatever NL will have to say will be most entertaining and interesting. All applauded
and welcomed NL.

Comment from the Speaker:

The speaker agreed that this is a valid point and has no answer to it, as he cannot see how it is to be countered. However, on reflection he said it may be countered by growth of direct democracy, because we have the capacity through the internet for forms
of direct democracy in which whole lots of people vote on the issues that come up thereby to supplant the political institutions. Although we don’t know when this may come about (in 30 to 50 year?), but through this route an elite liberal left may impose its
own values. Chair added this was a whole new subject and the evidence of the last three years suggests this will be a principal possibility. Chair gave NL a vote of thanks on behalf of the audience and all applauded.

SHOPPERS HELP PARITY FUNDS AT NO EXTRA COST TO THEM!

Easy Fundraising:

PARITY is raising money with @easyfundraising and we’d love you to help us. Visit our easyfundraising page to make a donation to PARITY-UK or raise money for us for FREE just by doing your everyday online shopping with all your favourite online retailers. However
you choose to help us, we’ll be very grateful for your support.

Step 1 – Start at Parity page at easyfundraising:
https://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/parity-uk/ – (Link to above is available from PARITY website too)

Press “Support us for free” button
Step 2 – Create an Account using Facebook or Email by pressing appropriate button: Enter your details on the form and press “Create my account” button:

Step 3 – Login to your Account, Shop Plus More!!!

Using Donation Reminder means you will never miss a donation when shopping! If you want further information about EasyFundRaising – How it works video, see link below: https://youtu.be/Sn2dsQGAe_w

Amazon Smile:

If you have already created an account with EasyFundraising, you will be able to access Amazon Smile through that. Otherwise, please follow the steps 1 -4 below. PARITY is now registered as a charity that can receive donations with Amazon Smile and you may now nominate
PARITY to be the charity of your choice to receive from Amazon 0.5% of the net purchase price (excluding VAT and returns and shipping fees) of your orders fulfilled.

Step 1 – Start at smile.amazon page – https://smile.amazon.co.uk/ (Link to above is available from PARITY website too)

Step 2 – Log into your Amazon account as normal

Step 3 – Under “Your Accounts & Lists” menu item, choose “Your AmazonSmile”

Step 4 – Shop as you normally do and PARITY will receive some money from Amazon!

WOMEN’S PENSION AGE CASE GOES TO HIGH COURT:

“Back to 60” Campaigners have taken the government to the High Court for a judicial review into how ministers raised the retirement age for women and is seeking repayment of all the pensions people born in the 1950s would have received if they had been able to retire
earlier. Women born in the 1950s claim the rise is unfair because they were not given enough time to make adjustments to cope with years without a state pension. The Campaign Group argues that the speed of the change and what it calls the lack of warnings has disadvantaged
millions of women.

Under the 1995 Pensions Act, the female state pension age was to rise from 60 to 65 in a phased process between 2010 and 2020. The coalition government of 2010 decided to accelerate the timetable, and the 2011 Pension Act brought the qualifying age of 65 for women forward 2018 the qualifying age for both men and women will rise to 66 by October 2020. The retirement age of both men and women will increase to 67 by 2028 The government said the rise had been “clearly communicated”. A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “The
government decided more than 20 years ago that it was going to make the state pension age the same for men and women as a longoverdue move towards gender equality, and this has been clearly communicated.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48520176 5 June 2019.

Campaign group Women against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) says it is not against equalisation: “But we do not accept the unfair way the changes to our state pension age were implemented with inadequate or no notice.” Government lawyer also says those affected had no right to
expect notification of changes https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/06/no-duty-of-fairness-to-women-hit-bypension-age-rise-court-told Sir James Eadie QC also argued that the group had no right to expect either notification of the changes or legal remedy to soften its impact.

“Parliament has no substantive, freestanding obligation of fairness,” Eadie told a courtroom so packed that many supporters of the action had to wait outside. “It’s clear from case law that the enactment of primary legislation carries with it no duty of fairness to the public.”
But Michael Mansfield QC, representing the protest group, argued that a “subclass – of women, not men – has been created by this discriminatory legislation.” Eadie said there was no onus on the government to advertise changes to primary legislation or to individually inform the
3.8 million women affected by any changes.

Pressed by Lord Justice Irwin on whether there could be legal remedy for the women for the lack of notice of the changes, Eadie said there were no principles of natural justice or principles of fairness in play. “There can be no legal remedy,” he said.

View Full Article Here.