Does Eu Police Prohibit Condoning Discrimination Against Breastfeeding Women?

Steve Peers

Yesterday, Nigel Farage, the leader of the United Kingdom of Great Britain too Northern Ireland of Britain too Northern Republic of Ireland Independence Party (UKIP) stated that spell he had no personal objection to women breastfeeding inwards public, it should hold upwardly for businesses to determine on their ain rules. Perhaps they could inquire breastfeeding women to “sit inwards a corner”. In whatsoever event, it shouldn’t hold upwardly difficult to breastfeed a infant inwards a agency that wasn’t “openly ostentatious”.

He was referring to a representative inwards which a eating seat asked a adult woman to house a napkin over her baby. Another café has latterly suggested that women should breastfeed inwards the disabled toilets.

There’s an interesting legal dimension to this issue. First of all, is it legal to discriminate against breastfeeding women? Secondly, to what extent is it illegal fifty-fifty to encourage such discrimination, or at to the lowest degree to condone it? The latter is a fair description of Farage’s comments.

Discrimination against breastfeeding women  

As around press articles cause got pointed out, the Equality Act 2010 makes it illegal inwards the United Kingdom of Great Britain too Northern Ireland of Britain too Northern Republic of Ireland to discriminate against breastfeeding women inwards work or world places similar restaurants, bailiwick to really express exceptions. There’s an first-class summary of the law here, on the Maternity Action website. So businesses can’t brand upwardly their ain rules on this issue, equally Farage seemed to assume – although perchance his betoken was that the police ought to change.

What almost European Union law? There are carve upwardly Directives concerning sexual practice discrimination inwards employment, too sexual practice discrimination equally regards goods too services offered to the public, which would apply to restaurants. Neither of them explicitly bans discrimination equally regards breastfeeding. But the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has long ruled that discrimination against meaning women is discrimination on grounds of sex. Its reasoning is that fifty-fifty though non all women are, cause got been, or volition dice pregnant, alone women tin be pregnant, too and then discrimination on grounds of pregnancy is hence straight sexual practice discrimination. Logically this reasoning applies past times analogy to breastfeeding: fifty-fifty though non all women volition dice mothers, or breastfeed if they do, only women tin breastfeed.

If this is correct, there’s a ban on discrimination against breastfeeding mothers right across the EU, too the UK’s police simply reflects its European Union obligations. Of course, leaving the European Union (UKIP’s telephone commutation policy) would hateful that the United Kingdom of Great Britain too Northern Ireland of Britain too Northern Republic of Ireland no longer had such obligations.

Endorsing or condoning discrimination

Of course, Nigel Farage didn’t himself insist that a breastfeeding woman bring upwardly had to encompass herself amongst a napkin inwards a restaurant, or genuinely brand a novel mum sit down inwards the corner. He only said that he could cause got it if businesses chose to exercise this – fifty-fifty though (which he didn’t mention) this would hold upwardly illegal.

There’s an interesting draw of representative police of the CJEU on the circumstances inwards which publicly supporting discrimination gives rising to legal liability. First of all, inwards AGM COS.MET, a Finnish authorities official disparaged the security of Italian lifts. Sales of the lifts promptly plummeted (as it were), too the manufacturer sued the Finnish authorities for damages. The CJEU ruled that the State would hold upwardly liable for its official’s comments if, on the facts of the case, those comments were attributable to the State. One element to consider was whether the State distanced itself from those comments. On this point, it’s interesting to complaint that David Cameron’s purpose similar a shot denounced Farage’s remarks yesterday. This is in all probability non an endeavor to trim down the government’s legal liability, but rather a bid to hoover upwardly the woman someone votes that Farage evidently doesn’t genuinely desire that much. But the outcome is the same.

So tin in that location hold upwardly liability for discriminatory comments past times private individuals? In Feryn, the CJEU said that a draw of piece of work organisation could hold upwardly liable for stating publicly that it would non hire ethnic minorities, due to objections past times its customers. That’s broadly similar to Farage’s betoken that other eating seat customers mightiness hold upwardly ‘embarrassed’ past times ‘ostentatious’ breastfeeding. Perhaps it would distract their attending likewise much from gazing at Page iii of The Sun.

Later on, inwards the Associatie Accept case, the CJEU ruled that a homophobic rant past times the part-owner of a football game social club could give rising to liability for that club, if in that location was a perception that he had a important influence on that club's policies. While Nigel Farage certainly seems to influence authorities policy generally, inwards this detail representative David Cameron’s reply to Farage's comments yesterday would dominion that out.

So equally things stand, Nigel Farage’s comments would non give rising to personal or nation liability – although lawsuits against the restaurants that discriminate against breastfeeding women would hold upwardly a dissimilar matter. And things would also sure as shooting modify if Farage were the Deputy Prime Minister – although inwards that case, the UK’s European Union membership too the Equality Act would probable non final really long inwards whatsoever event.


Cartoon: Los Angeles Times

Barnard & Peers: chapter 20

Share this post