This originally appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2022/03/on-iwd-2022-thoughts-on-anti.html.
***
I recently made an enquiry about using an anti-discrimination law against what is probably the world's biggest international funds transfer company for the abusive behaviour of one of their phone operators, and found the definition of "physical feature" is so carefully defined that it excludes the physical characteristic that applied in this instance.
That got me thinking: changing laws to ban discrimination is really just the toe in the door - it is the social education that comes after that accomplishes the real change.
With "physical" laws, such as wearing a seatbelt or not drink driving (I am in Australia - other nations are behind on those issues), police and the judicial system are capable of comprehending the issue and thus are willing to enforce them.
But when it comes to - hell, even things like domestic violence orders - they fall in a heap, and seem to doubt that it is real.
And thus we have laws against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexuality, gender identity, etc - and those who are supposed to enforce them are focused on legalistic minutiae rather than trying to accomplish the intent of the law.
And that is where social approval / disapproval comes in - social media campaigns, businesses trying to be seen as decent, inclusive and modern, "conversations at the water cooler" (back when people could do so) that not only do NOT normalise discrimination, but are anti-discrimination - as Dr Ibram X. Kendi wrote, "... Be An Anti-Racist".
Changing laws is important: what comes after, outside the legal system is crucial.
This is something that many human rights organisations have known for decades (including those I have been involved with, who have been doing the educating for decades now), if not longer, as have those that are anti-human rights. It is a battle that must be acknowledged, and engaged in.
And won.
