Sophia Moreau, for example, spoke about the three wrongs of discrimination:
unequal treatment which is associated with stereotyping and prejudice, oppression and denial of basic goods.
Not exact matches
Given a commitment to utilitarian calculation as the basic decision procedure, one can not rule out the possibility that circumstances might arise
which would justify
unequal treatment in a particular case.
As Eisgruber and Sager admit, however, there are at least two kinds of cases in
which it appears that
unequal treatment of religion is required, both by the Court's precedents and by our intuitions.
These statements come from a Minister who in the past has attacked secularism as «intolerant and illiberal», has said that religious people contribute more to society than the non-religious, has championed religious groups as being at the heart of the «Big Society», and even tried to amend the Equality Bill in a way
which would leave humanists unprotected against discrimination and
unequal treatment in the provision of, and access to, public services, employment, education, funding, and elsewhere.
She has also said that religious people contribute more to society than the non religious, has championed religious groups as being at the heart of the «Big Society», and even tried to amend the Equality Bill in a way
which would leave humanists unprotected against discrimination and
unequal treatment in the provision of, and access to, public services, employment, education, funding, and elsewhere.
There are situations in
which people view equal
treatment as fair, but other situations in
which they view
unequal treatment as fair.
Distinction amounts to discrimination when the
unequal treatment is based on an enumerated ground, i.e. a personal characteristic, such as colour of skin, race or sex,
which is immutable (or constructively immutable), and should therefore not be the basis for the assessment or
treatment of individuals.
Unequal treatment must be justified by objective reasons
which relate to why and how taxpayers are treated differently.
In response to this, the ULCC previously added wording enumerating the specific purposes for
which a court could intervene: to assist the arbitration process, to ensure the arbitration is in accordance with the parties» agreement, to prevent unfair or
unequal treatment or to enforce awards.
If rights are not granted collectively to indigenous peoples
which enable them to defend their culture, the practice of their religion and the use of their languages, the result is
unequal and unjust
treatment.
If rights are not granted collectively to Indigenous peoples
which enable them to defend their culture, the practice of their religion and the use of their languages, the result is
unequal and unjust
treatment.