Anti-discrimination law

The EU Equality Directives represented a key turning point in the field of anti-discrimination law in Italy. However, the Italian law-maker failed to implement the Directives systematically, and this generated confusion about their interpretation and application. This also affected the participation of collective actors. With the aim of understanding whether EU equality law has facilitated collective actors' access to courts, the paper examines the role that they have played in the anti-discrimination cases brought before the Court of Justice of the EU. In Italy, collective actors participated in a limited number of preliminary references, mostly in the field of discrimination on the grounds of nationality. The work of collective actors, both inside and outside the courtroom, has been crucial in creating a decentralized form of enforcement of EU equality law. Through litigation and campaigns, collective actors contributed to the full implementation of EU anti-discrimination law, filling the gaps left by the Italian law-maker. The paper concludes that, on the one hand, EU law introduced important tools to enhance protections against discrimination in Italy; but, on the other, the unsystematic transposition of EU law created some obstacles to the protection of migrants from discrimination and to collective actors' access to courts.

This article focuses on the rise of corporate religious freedom in EU law. In general, this legal category might be associated with a positive dimension (corporate freedom of religion) but also with a negative one (corporate freedom from religion). The present paper centres around the latter, underscoring how the CJEU has taken for granted the necessity of neutrality within the private business world in reaching a decision in the case of Achbita v. G4S Secure Solutions. And, in addition, to highlight how churches (but also the Belgian branch of a provider of secure global logistic services) can discriminate on religious grounds under Directive 2000/78EC. This article explains how the judicial extension of conscience exemptions from non-discrimination laws for religious institutions to a secular for-profit corporation has signalled a new 'religious institutionalism' in tension with employment and human rights law. Accordingly, if that is how secular commercial businesses have become 'religious' under the EU Single Market, this paper calls for a new approach to employer/employees conflicts through a 'freedom of the church' analysis.

https://academic.oup.com/ojlr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ojlr/rwaa008/5837193?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Εκδόσεις Σάκκουλα: Αθήνα-Θεσσαλονίκη, 2019, σελίδες ΧII + 139
Περισσότερες πληροφορίες στην ιστοσελίδα https://www.sakkoulas.gr/el/editions/d-goulas-oi-diakriseis-logo-thriskevtikon-symvolon-ston-choro-ergasias-2019/

[Discrimination on grounds of religious symbols, Sakkoulas Publications: Athens-Thessaloniki, 2019, XII+139 pages]

Πίνακας περιεχομένων  -

IX    Κυριότερες συντομογραφίες
1      1. Εισαγωγή
5      2. Το γενικό νομικό πλαίσιο του δικαίου της απαγόρευσης των διακρίσεων
5      2.1. Η απαγόρευση των διακρίσεων στο ελληνικό Σύνταγμα
6      2.2. Η απαγόρευση των διακρίσεων στην ΕΣΔΑ και τις λοιπές διεθνείς συμβάσεις
6      2.2.1. Η απαγόρευση των διακρίσεων ως διεθνώς κατοχυρωμένο ανθρώπινο δικαίωμα
7      2.2.2. Η απαγόρευση των διακρίσεων κατά την ΕΣΔΑ
11    2.3. Η απαγόρευση των διακρίσεων στο δίκαιο της Ε.Ε
11    2.3.1. Ίση αμοιβή ανδρών και γυναικών: Η θεμελίωση της απαγόρευσης των διακρίσεων και η μετάβαση από το οικονομικό στο κοινωνικό πλαίσιο της προστασίας
16    2.3.2. Η επέκταση των λόγω διάκρισης πέραν του φύλου
20    2.2.3. Η Οδηγία 2000/78
29    3. Η πρόσφατη νομολογία σχετικά με τις διακρίσεις λόγω θρησκευτικών συμβόλων στον χώρο εργασίας
29    3.1. Γενική θεώρηση
30    3.2. Η νομολογία του ΕΔΔΑ
30    3.2.1. Dahlab κατά Ελβετίας
32    3.2.2. Eweida και άλλοι κατά Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου
34    3.2.3. Ebrahimian κατά Γαλλίας
36    3.3. Η νομολογία του ΔΕΕ: Οι αποφάσεις στις υποθέσεις G4S Secure Solutions και Bougnaoui και ADDH
36    3.3.1. Προλεγόμενα
37    3.3.2. Τα πραγματικά περιστατικά της υπόθεσης G4S Secure Solutions
38    3.3.3. Τα πραγματικά περιστατικά της υπόθεσης Bougnaoui και ADDH
38    3.3.4. Οι Προτάσεις της Γενικής Εισαγγελέα Kokott επί της υπόθεσης G4S Secure Solutions
44    3.3.5. Οι Προτάσεις της Γενικής Εισαγγελέα Sharpston επί της υπόθεσης G4S Bougnaoui και ADDH
49    3.3.6. Η απόφαση του Δικαστηρίου στην υπόθεση G4S Secure Solutions
51    3.3.7. Η απόφαση του Δικαστηρίου στην υπόθεση Bougnaoui και ADDH
53    3.4. Αποφάσεις εθνικών δικαστηρίων
53    3.4.1. Γαλλικό Ακυρωτικό Δικαστήριο - απόφαση Baby Loup
55    3.4.2. Γερμανικό Ομοσπονδιακό Συνταγματικό Δικαστήριο - απαγόρευση μαντίλας σε δασκάλα δημόσιου σχολείου
58    3.4.3. Γερμανικό Εργατικό Ακυρωτικό
59    3.4.4. Αυστριακό Ακυρωτικό
61    3.4.5. Δανικό Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο
62    3.4.6. Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο των Η.Π.Α. - υπόθεση Abercrombie & Fitch
63    3.4.7. Καναδικό Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο, υπόθεση Βhinder v. CN.
64    4. Η διάκριση λόγω θρησκευτικών συμβόλων
64    4.1. Η έννοια της θρησκείας και των θρησκευτικών συμβόλων
64    4.1.1. Η έννοια της θρησκείας και των πεποιθήσεων
67    4.1.2. Τα σύμβολα ως εκδήλωση της θρησκείας ή των πεποιθήσεων
79    4.1.3. Η παραίτηση από τη θέση εργασίας ως έσχατη δυνατότητα διαφύλαξης της θρησκευτικής ελευθερίας
80    4.1.4. Τα θρησκευτικά σύμβολα υπό την οπτική του φύλου και των πολλαπλών διακρίσεων
83    4.2. Η διαφοροποίηση μεταξύ άμεσης και έμμεσης διάκρισης
83    4.2.1. Η έννοια της άμεσης και της έμμεσης διάκρισης στο δίκαιο της Ε.Ε. και ο κρίσιμος ρόλος της διαφοροποίησης μεταξύ τους
85    4.2.2. Πόσο ουδέτερη είναι η πολιτική «θρησκευτικής ουδετερότητας» μιας επιχείρησης;
102  4.2.3. Η ερμηνευτική διεύρυνση του περιθωρίου δικαιολόγησης της άμεσης διάκρισης και η στάθμιση των αντίρροπων θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων
107    4.3. Οι δυνατότητες δικαιολόγησης των διακρίσεων
107    4.3.1. Οι προτιμήσεις των πελατών ως ουσιαστική και καθοριστική επαγγελματική προϋπόθεση
110    4.3.2. Η «επιχειρηματική εικόνα» και η «πολιτική ουδετερότητας» ως θεμιτός σκοπός για τη δικαιολόγηση διακρίσεων
120    4.4. Κρίσιμα στοιχεία κατά τον έλεγχο αναλογικότητας της δυσμενούς μεταχείρισης
120    4.4.1. Η δυνατότητα εύλογων προσαρμογών
125    4.4.2. Η αξιολόγηση των επιπτώσεων εις βάρος του εργαζομένου
127    4.4.3. Η νομική φύση του εργοδότη
129    5. Επίλογος - συμπερασματικές θέσεις
131    6. Πίνακας Βιβλιογραφίας

The Introduction draws together the chapters’ findings in relation to the two research questions which have animated the project. The first question asked how anti-discrimination law fares in civil law jurisdictions of Europe and how it fits into them. The Introduction notes that while anti-discrimination law is still seen as a foreign transplant and a legal irritant in many places, it does not uniformly fare poorly. Its success varies and appears to depend not only on the country, but also the area of law, the actors involved, a particular concept or ground of discrimination, and has often evolved over time. The second question asked what factors influence anti-discrimination law’s fit or lack of it. ‘Legal’ as well as ‘extra-legal’ aspects seem to favour or hinder anti-discrimination law, but as they are often not always clearly separable and distinguishable, we locate four types of factors on a spectrum. On the legal side, pre-existing legislation and case law have played a role as have institutional choices. Constitutional and legal foundations and narratives, such as the myth of ‘universalism’ in France, have also influenced the success of anti-discrimination law. Finally, the wider political and social context is discussed, noting that the individual, liberty-oriented politics of common law countries, with their greater reflection of issues of cultural recognition, might be more easily compatible with anti-discrimination law, while the more communitarian, collective approach of continental European countries, with their emphasis on dignity and social-welfare solutions to social problems, might be less so.

보수개신교는 차별금지법을 반대하는가? 이는 너무나 명확해 보이는 사실인데다가 그간의 입법과정에서 이들의 힘은 증명된 것으로 보인다. 보수개신교가 차별금지법을 왜 반대하는지에 대해서도 많은 연구자 들이 이미 다양한 설명들을 제시한 바 있다. 그렇다면 지금 우리에게 더 나은 설명(틀)이 왜 필요한가? 나는 이 글에서 이른바 “혐오선동세력”으로 통칭되는 보수개신교에 대한 보다 분석적이고 내재적인 이해를 통해 어떻게 차별금지법 제정과 평등의 연대를 보다 잘 구축할 수 있을지를 함께 고민해 보고 싶다. 이른바 ‘혐오선동세력’은 보수개신교 일반과 구분될 수 있을까? 종교 또는 개신교 고유의 선함을 믿고 그 진정성과 행위를 선의로 해석하는 많은 사람들은 혐오선동세력이 진정한 기독교, 참된 신앙인이 아니며 개신교 일반신자 대중을 ‘선동’하고 ‘이용’한다고 생각한다. 이러한 생각은 시민사회나 공적 정치의 영역에서 무고한 사람들을 정 죄하지 않음으로써 ‘더하기의 정치’에 괜찮은 전략이다. 실제로 어느 사회집단에나 권력자나 선동가는 존재하기 마련이고 ‘순수하고 순진한’ 보통사람도 많이 있는 것이 사실이다. 반면에 어떤 사람들은 모든 보수개신교인들이 혐오의 적극적 가담자라고 상상하는 듯하다. 그도 그럴 것이, 보통의 평범해 보이는 신자들이 우익 집회에 나오고 차별금지법이나 인권조례에 반대민원을 넣는 바로 그 사람들이기 때문이다. 각각의 정반대 사례들은 우리 주변에서 무수히 찾을 수 있고, 이 극단적으로 대립되는 경험을 현재로선 통계적으로 또는 빅데이터 기법으로 알아내어 우위와 경향성을 양적으로 확증할 수 있을 것 같지는 않다. 따라서 나는 여기에서 공공영역에서 영향력을 가진 것으로 표상되는 집단들과 상대적으로 안정적인 보수개신교의 담론(종교문화와 지식체계)의 관련성을 찾아냄으로써 차별금지법 반대운동과 혐 오구조의 문화정치학을 구성하고자 한다. 보다 구체적으로 나는 혐오선동세력과 개신교 신자대중 등을 분석적으로 구분하면서도 (차별금지법 제정에 걸림돌이 되는/차별금지법 반대의 토대 정동이 되는) 혐오 문화의 강화가 양자 간의 문화적/담론적 기제에 의한 것임을 보여주고자 한다. 이것은 기존의 선동-동원 체제 모델뿐만 아니라, 이하에서 언급하겠지만 선동세력(종교와 정치)의 이해관계 모델의 한계를 극복하려는 것이기도 하다.

La France a-t-elle peur de ses autres ? En revenant sur les discours et les pratiques qui se formalisent depuis une quinzaine d’années, Sarah Mazouz interroge les « politiques françaises de l’altérité ». À partir d’une double enquête ethnographique conduite dans les dispositifs étatiques de lutte contre les discriminations raciales et dans les bureaux de naturalisation d’une grande ville de la région parisienne, elle montre comment s’articulent dans l’espace social immigration, nation et racialisation. Par l’analyse de ces deux politiques publiques, elle questionne les processus d’inclusion et d’exclusion à l’intérieur même du groupe national (via l’examen des modalités prises par l’anti-discrimination) et à l’extérieur, entre le national et l’étranger (à travers l’étude des pratiques de naturalisation). Ce faisant, elle s’attache à saisir la relation paradoxale qui lie la République à ses autres et les logiques plurielles qui concourent à la production de l’ordre national.

The EU has slowly but surely developed a solid body of equality law that prohibits different facets of discrimination. While the Union had initially developed anti-discrimination norms that served only the commercial rationale of the common market, focusing on nationality (of a Member State) and gender as protected grounds, the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) supplied five additional prohibited grounds of discrimination to the EU legislative palette, in line with a much broader egalitarian rationale. In 2000, two EU Equality Directives followed, one focusing on race and ethnic origin, the other covering the remaining four grounds introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely religion, sexual orientation, disabilities and age. Eighteen years after the adoption of the watershed Equality Directives, it seems timely to dedicate a book to their limits and prospects, to look at the progress made, and to revisit the rise of EU anti-discrimination law beyond gender. This volume sets out to capture the striking developments and shortcomings that have taken place in the interpretation of relevant EU secondary law. Firstly, the book unfolds an up-to-date systematic reappraisal of the five 'newer' grounds of discrimination, which have so far received mostly fragmented coverage. Secondly, and more generally, the volume captures how and to what extent the Equality Directives have enabled or, at times, prevented the Court of Justice of the European Union from developing even broader and more refined anti-discrimination jurisprudence. Thus, the book offers a glimpse into the past, present and – it is hoped – future of EU anti-discrimination law as, despite all the flaws in the Union's 'Garden of Earthly Delights', it offers one of the highest standards of protection in comparative anti-discrimination law.

In this chapter, I argue that we need to think on the potential role or place of ADL within a theory of social emancipation, not only to give an account of our current anti-­‐discrimination legal regimes, but to question how ADL can become part of progressive political projects. To do that, we should address both the power and limits of ADL as part of broader emancipatory political projects. Here, I start from the basic assumption that
even if ADL is not a solution to every social problem, it is more revolutionary than what its critics sustain. In concrete, I argue that the current debates around different theories of ADL have not addressed the feasibility of the promises of anti-­‐discrimination legal regimes, neither attempted to provide reasons to place ADL within emancipatory political projects. How should we give a theoretical account of ADL if we understand it as part of a broader theory of social emancipation? What are the limits of the transformative potential of ADL? If ADL is not a solution to every problem, how should we understand the role of ADL in different spheres, such as the economy, culture and politics? Should ADL incorporate poverty, class or social origin as protected grounds if it is to serve broader emancipatory goals? What kind of economic harms can ADL properly address? How can we prevent ADL from being a mere legitimation mask to processes of marketisation, balkanisation or social disintegration? In sum, what is the truly revolutionary aspect of ADL that triggers reaction from different constituencies? These are the questions that motivate this chapter. To attempt an answer to these questions, I will supplement debates around the philosophical foundations of ADL with insights from critical social theories, more specifically, with the theory of social justice developed by Nancy Fraser. Although she has never specifically addressed ADL, there are many arguments in her writings to rationally reconstruct the potential place of ADL in her work. Within her theory, we can read ADL as an anti-­‐misrecognition device and display its transformative
potential. Borrowing from André Gorse, and considering Fraser´s contribution, we could label ADL as a paradigmatic case of ‘non-­‐reformist reform’.

Since the 1980s, the law of the European Union (EU) has become a substantial transnational source of political empowerment for LGBT actors in Europe. The Rome Treaty (1957), which established the European Economic Community, contained a gender equality clause. In the 1990s, this provision was used to protect employment rights of intersex individuals via litigation schemes based on EU law. Yet the subsequent attempts to push forward a similar legal protection for gay and lesbian equality at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), based on the EU sex-equality clause, failed. Since then, the position of the LGBT community in EU legislative politics has evolved significantly through two dimensions. First, the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) extended the number of grounds protected against discrimination in EU law, adding sexual orientation, among others, to this palette. The Amsterdam Treaty permitted the EU Council to adopt the Framework Equality Directive 2000/78/EC, an instrument of secondary Union law that has safeguarded minimum standards of protection against homophobia in relation to matters of employment in all member states. This framework EU legislation has been used by LGBT litigants in their fight for equal working opportunities and pension rights at the CJEU. Second, the introduction of EU citizenship by virtue of the Maastricht Treaty (1992) and the respective secondary law (the EU Citizenship Directive 2004/38/EC) have paved the way for status recognition of same-sex spouses in the member states that have not previously recognized same-sex partnership or marriage. The future of LGBT legislative politics and the LGBT community in Europe will largely depend on whether EU law is able to extend protection beyond the current confines of the employment area, broaden its scope to cover social dimensions such as health and education, and fully recognize same-sex marriages and partnerships throughout the EU.

Mémoire de synthèse de mon HDR, soutenue le 18 septembre 2020. Jury :
Philippe Chanial, Professeur des Universités, Université de Caen (garant)
Louis Quéré, Directeur de recherche émérite, CNRS-EHESS (rapporteur)
Daniel Cefai, Directeur d’études, EHESS (rapporteur)
Laurent Thévenot, Directeur d’études, EHESS
Laurence Kaufmann, Professeur ordinaire, Université de Lausanne (rapportrice)
Philippe Gonzalez, Maître d’enseignement et de recherche, Université de Lausanne Mathias Girel, Maître de conférences, ENS de Paris

Le présent ouvrage ouvre la voie à des travaux de recherche et de pratique professionnelle concrète et entreprend de répondre notamment aux questions suivantes:
Comment ce critère de discrimination prohibée s’est-il construit dans notre droit et quel sens a-t-il ? Quelle acception faut-il retenir de l’apparence physique ? La couleur de peau ? La taille ? La surcharge pondérale ? Le handicap ? Ou le port de signes religieux ? Mais aussi, où s’arrêtent les codes sociaux et où commence la discrimination ? C’est la question des piercings et tatouages, par exemple; Quel est le rôle des préjugés ou des stéréotypes dans ce motif de discrimination ? Quels rôles ont pu jouer dans notre éducation, dans nos représentations mentales, conscientes ou inconscientes, les images de l’apparence physique basées sur une appréciation subjective mais partagée des canons de la beauté ? Quelles conséquences exercent sur le recrutement et le management la séduction et la beauté ? Comment lutter contre la stigmatisation et la discrimination subie par les personnes obèses ? Existe-t-il des discriminations policières au faciès en France, comment les mesurer et comment les réduire ? Comment, dans une approche internationale comparée, les institutions de lutte contre les discriminations telles que la HALDE, ont-elles pris en compte la question des discriminations au motif de l’apparence physique ?
Actes du colloque de sciences-po Lille 2009

This paper investigates how deploying neoliberal discourses of equal rights, anti-discrimination laws, and hate crime legislation limits the advancement of equality and protection for trans persons under the law. The push for the legal recognition of trans persons, through the addition of "gender identity" and "gender expression" to
anti-discrimination and hate crime laws relies on neoliberal discourses of biological determinism and medicalization. This approach ultimately pathologizes trans persons and precludes their self-determination. As the trans community continues to gain rights in Canada and the United States, a backlash of anti-trans “bathroom bills” threaten to restrict trans persons from sex-segregated spaces that align with their gender identity. Moreover, hate crime legislation focuses on individual perpetrators, reinforcing systemic forms of transphobia and state-sanctioned violence against trans persons. In order to guarantee that trans persons have equal access to state services and are protected from discrimination and violence, systems of power must be dismantled and reimagined.

This article is available in Western Journal of Legal Studies: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/uwojls/vol6/iss1/3

This chapter in a book on the Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union analyses Article 23, which provides that a) equality between women and men must be ensured in the EU and b) that the principle of equal treatment does not exclude positive action. It makes the point that this provision marks the start of a new phase in EU gender equality law in that it places women first, and subjects the EU to an obligation to ensure equality between women and men. The statement that there must be scope for effective positive action, specified in paragraph 2 of the provision, is only one consequence of this. Another consequence is that the EU is under an obligation to take positive action  if equality between women and men cannot be ensured otherwise. Further, the EU must revise all their policies and laws regularly in order to ensure gender equality. The chapter also criticises that the provision repeats the binary structure of genders (women and men), although human beings are born in a variety of gender identities. Further, the focus of equality between women and men may be read as not encompassing a womens' rights perspective, as demanded in Scandinavian feminist discourse in particular.

Body height seems to be an universal problem when used as an employment criterion. When it comes to armed forces or law enforcement bodies, the use of such criterion is not universal. The criterion itself lacks uniformity. Various nations’ legislation and jurisprudence are highly debatable. Germany is an example of irregular jurisprudence, Italian and French governments, both took steps in eliminating the use of body height (steps being taken recently by Italy in 2015). North American continent uses court rules in establishing if using body height criterion is an act of discrimination, but not prohibiting its use. EU non discrimination regulations simply ignore the body height discrimination problem allowing European nations to legiferate, according with their particular needs.
Romania has the same problems, and an inventory of possible solutions is not possible without analyzing the body height criterion and other states experiences relating to this topic.
In Romania the National Council for Combating Discrimination has the legal right to sanction acts of discrimination. It acted accordingly when it reached the conclusion that using body height as recruitment criterion is an act of discrimination. Still, its jurisprudence is debatable.
The Romanian Constitutional Court reached a verdict that limits the National Council for Combating Discrimination rights to intervene whenever a law is applicable. The reason behind such a verdict is the constitutional separations of powers, where the National Council for Combating Discrimination has no rights to legislate. In case body height is mentioned in a law, it cannot be treated as a discrimination act. Of course all this can change if the law is declared an act of constitutional infringement, but otherwise, using this criterion is perfectly legal in such circumstances.
Using this criterion in its singularity in the 21-st century raises more questions than answers. Eliminating it raises problems like those faced by the Royal Canadian Air Force, where some jobs require a certain body height for an optimal performance.
An analysis concerning the usage of such a criterion in relation with job description is strongly encouraged as a general viable solution and particularly when accommodating exceptions from the rule.

Defining the characteristics targeted by banning discrimination constitutes a central challenge for EU discrimination law, and defining disability is particularly 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 exclusionary in relation to the female experience of disability.

Антидискриминационо право осваја све више подручја друштвеног живота и промовише заштиту угрожених друштвених група. Наука о праву посвећује дужну пажњу овом развоју, тако што описује, објашњава, критикује и предлаже рјешења која иду у прилог како конструисања једног уређеног скупа антидискриминационих норми, тако и гране права која се тим позитивним правом бави. Методолошки приступ који доминира у овој новој и нарастајућој грани права јесте теоријска подршка овом походу према раније незахваћеним подручјима друштвеног живота, позитивног права и правне науке. При томе су предмет ове гране права (друштвени односи који регулише) и метод (начин регулисања тих односа) остали у приличној мјери неразјашњени. Истраживање у том смислу је подухват вриједан труда. 
У трагању за предметом антидискриминационог права посматрају се његове интеракције и дејства, како на правни систем у цјелини, тако и на његове најсвеобухватније саставне дијелове, тј. јавно и приватно право. Како забрана дискриминације нема јасно идентификоване и класификоване правне односе које уређује, неизбјежан је сукоб њених норми са онима које те односе иначе уређују. За разрјешавање сукоба норми нужна је употреба колизионих правила. Истраживањем сукоба норми антидискриминационог права, на којим се оно судара са другим нормама, спознају се његов садржај, домашај и мјесто у правном систему.

'Debating Race in Contemporary India is one of those rare books that initiate a dialogue about the idea of India, seen through the prism of Northeast communities. With characteristic flourish and elegant prose, Debating Race touches on these core issues with care and sensitivity, and questions the very idea of what it means to belong in India.' - Arkotong Longkumer, University of Edinburgh, UK

'Who said race didn't matter in South Asia, that it is something of the past, something that only had to do with the British? Duncan McDuie-Ra turns such thinking on its head, showing with great force that race and racial discrimination is very much alive and kicking in India today. This is social science at its best; attention to ethnographic detail and a close reading of everyday experiences are coupled with theoretical insights, analytical sharpness and political commitment. McDuie-Ra's call for a more nuanced debate about race is timely, it is a must read for anyone concerned with the larger drama of social differentiation and racism in today's world.' Bengt Karlsson, Stockholm University, Sweden

This article will puts a gender variant perspective on anti-discrimination law and litigation. It analyze trans right claims by synthesizing queer theory’s concept of performativity and critical race theory’s concept of intersectionality, to offer a new and original concept of legal “intrasectionality”, with far-reaching implications for rights-based litigation. Instead of considering how “legal men” are treated different than “legal women”, this article will ask whether a given gender variant individual is treated differently than one whose gender performance coheres to social standards. These inquiries into the intrasectionality of the sex category with respect to equality will set the stage for the claim that anti-discrimination law and litigation intertwines with performativity.

People of Mexican Origin lacked broad based mobilization for civil rights during the midtwentieth century and failed to gain attention with national leaders unaware of the unique conditions in the Southwest. In the absence of these factors, elite leadership and issue networks filled the gap. In this paper I explore the case of New Mexico. I argue that the elite leadership of New Mexico Senator Dennis Chavez helped to shape national debates regarding fair employment and other civil rights legislation and led to passage of a strong fair employment law in 1949. However, a lack of national legislation, policy implementation and the rise of backlash politics prevented the creation of a strong policy and strong agency. I argue that this lack of national mobilization and backlash politics at the state and federal level have continued to hinder the creation of policies to assist and incorporate people of Mexican origin and explore ways other moments in the history of civil rights policy are related to the efforts of Senator Chavez.

The paper aims to explain a highly differentiated use of the law by two transnational collective actors, the European Women’s Lobby (EWL) and the European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF), and this despite them belonging to the same domain of anti-discrimination policy at the EU level. It addresses the more general topic of the response of collective actors to policy change. Empirical data has been collected on the basis of a triangulation between secondary sources, documentary sources and semi-structured interviews and has been analysed in terms of process-tracing. In the first part we explore different strategies to promote human rights (the law as a reference and the law as a resource). Then we focus on the main factors behind the contrast studied : the role of groups’ organizational resources and of collective identity frames. In the final section we discuss the relevance of iterative effects associated with interactions between groups and their positioning within the European system of governance. The most important result of the comparison shows that to respond to changes in governance arrangements, collective actors have had to adapt reflexively. To do so, they not only assess the available margins of manœuvre and incentives, but look deeply at their own composition, seeking organizational and strategic formulae able to cope with internal conflicts and at their competitive environment.

Cet article part d’un premier constat, relatif à un usage très différencié des mobilisations juridiques par deux acteurs collectifs transnationaux, le Lobby européen des femmes (LEF) et le Forum européen des Roms et des gens du voyage (FERV) qui pourtant appartiennent au même secteur européen de la lutte contre les discriminations. Il a pour objectif d’expliquer les raisons de cet usage différencié, et de discuter les dimensions d’analyse pertinentes. Il s’inscrit dans la problématique plus générale de la réponse des acteurs collectifs au changement de l’action publique. Les données empi- riques ont été recueillies sur la base d’un principe de triangulation entre sources secon- daires, sources documentaires et entretiens semi-directifs et elles ont été élaborées dans une optique qualitative de process-tracing. Dans une première partie nous explo- rons les différentes stratégies de promotion des droits du LEF et du FERV (le droit comme référence et le droit comme ressource), pour nous concentrer ensuite sur les principaux facteurs à l’origine de cette situation contrastée : le rôle des ressources organisationnelles des groupes et des cadres d’identité collective, mais également le rôle des effets itératifs liés aux interactions entre groupes et leur positionnement au sein du système européen de gouvernance. L’apport principal de ce travail comparatif est de montrer que face aux évolutions des modalités de gouvernance, les acteurs collectifs ont dû s’adapter de façon réflexive, pas seulement en regardant les marges de manœuvre et les incitations existantes, mais avec une forte attention à leur propre composition, à la recherche de formules organisationnelles et stratégiques capables de prendre en compte les conflits internes et à leur environnement concurrentiel.

"The article examines those developments in the field of feminist theory that have dealt with the (disappearance of the) notion of the subject of feminism, both as collective agent and as subject matter. In particular, it aims at examining how these developments might influence or relate to critical reformulations of the concept of discrimination and, consequently, of main topics in antidiscrimination law. The article starts by assessing the issue of intersectionality, that might be considered a common concern of both contemporary feminist theory and the more technical feminist legal theory. The original concern about the exclusion produced by the interaction of more grounds of discrimination (typically sex and race, or sex and class) has, at some point, been crossed by post-modern and post-structuralist criticism of general and abstract categories, such as subject, gender, women. The article examines, then, the criticism to the fragmentation of the subject produced by these theories and the alternatives proposed in the name of the subject of feminism and its project of emancipation. In the last two paragraphs, the relations of these developments with critical feminist reformulations of antidiscrimination law are explored.

Keywords: intersectionality, feminist theory, subjectivity, feminist legal theory, antidiscrimination law."

I když Česká republika v současné době přijala téměř všechny mezinárodní a evropské předpisy týkající se rovnosti žen a mužů, statistiky a studie ukazují, že provedené for-mální úpravy nejsou náležitě uváděné v praxi. Následující článek analyzuje vývoj gen-derové rovnosti v ČR za období od vstupu do Evropské unie, identifikuje problematická místa českých antidiskriminačních norem a jejich aplikace, a navrhuje i praktické kroky ke zlepšení situace v této oblasti. Článek poukazuje na fakt, že právo samo o sobě není neutrální, protože je vytvářeno různými názorovými skupinami normotvůrců a zrcadlí jejich osobní i skupinové preference, které mají vždy přímý nebo nepřímý gendero-vý dopad. Analýza proto pracuje nejen s primárními a sekundárními právními zdroji, ale také s výsledky sociologických průzkumů a studií, i s ukázkami diskurzů českých normotvůrců a expertů z této oblasti, za účelem lepšího dokreslení kontextu tvorby, legitimity a dopadu jednotlivých norem.

Este capítulo presenta un repaso de las políticas, legislación y jurisprudencia en materia de igualdad de género y no discriminación adoptadas en la Unión Europea. El objetivo es ofrecer un marco para contextualizar el desarrollo y los desajustes de las políticas y legislación española que se analizan, problematizan y discuten detalladamente en los capítulos que constituyen el volumen.

This paper discusses the author's experiences with anti-discrimination law and anti-racist students and staff at two Australian universities.

In the first case, at Macquarie University in Sydney, he was suspended from teaching in the law school for comments critical of black African immigration in Australia.

Following that experience, he decided to study theology at Uniting Theological College in Parramatta. Because he allegedly "demonstrated intolerance towards female and ethnic students,"  he was suspended from his studies for one year there as well.

The essay details his experiences and the legal, political, and cultural significance thereof.

The year 2000 marked the birth of EU anti-discrimination law as a field in its own right, with the adoption of two major Equality Directives. They extended the prohibition of discrimination with five additional grounds and expanded the material scope of equality regulation. Having reached its eighteenth birthday in the year 2018, EU anti-discrimination law can now celebrate its adulthood and deserves a bird’s eye exploration of its achievements, failures, and prospects. The present article provides this exploration by zooming in on these twin Directives, as well as on the “new” grounds of discrimination planted therein, namely race and ethnicity—the grounds introduced by the Race Equality Directive—religion, sexual orientation, age, and disability—the grounds introduced by Framework Equality Directive—and the related jurisprudence of European courts. It first outlines the genesis and main stages in the development of EU anti-discrimination law, followed by a discussion of major normative and practical themes emerging in EU anti-discrimination law after 2000, such as the personal and material scope of the Directives, new forms of discrimination, mechanisms to counteract discrimination, and the proceduralization of EU anti-discrimination law.