I would support most of what you've said, but unless/until there is ever a specific court ruling it is a matter of legitimate debate whether certain measures are actually within the positive action provisions or are actually disproportionate and therefore potentially unlawful discrimination. As for potential for libel, both truth and honest opinion are defences and there is no question that measures such as these cause a disadvantage to ineligible groups, when a common understanding of positive action is that it is not supposed to disadvantage anyone outside the designated group(s).This keeps coming up, it isn't discrimination, which is illegal, it is positive action which is perfectly legal.
Are they under represented in refereeing? If you think they are then lobby your CFA to get a free or discounted course for them.And what about young white males from a low-earning household. Why cant they have a cheap / free referee course?
There will only be a court case and ruling if an organisation fails to follow the criteria of the document I posted. And none will be stupid enough to do that.I would support most of what you've said, but unless/until there is ever a specific court ruling it is a matter of legitimate debate whether certain measures are actually within the positive action provisions or are actually disproportionate and therefore potentially unlawful discrimination. As for potential for libel, both truth and honest opinion are defences and there is no question that measures such as these cause a disadvantage to ineligible groups.
I don't think anyone reasonable would doubt or suggest that the aim of increasing participation among the targeted groups is perfectly legitimate.