{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018190298507462687, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0018656716417910447, 'mean_word_length': 5.383928571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Positive Duties and Gender Equality

The imposition since 1998 of a variety of positive equality duties upon public authorities has attracted comparatively little academic attention. However, these duties are a central part of current government equality initiatives, increasingly constitute a major part of the work of the UK's equality commissions, and have been described as an essential part of a new ‘fourth generation’ of equality legislation. It now appears likely that a positive duty to promote gender equality will soon be imposed upon public authorities, which will complement similar race and disability duties. Will the introduction of this positive gender equality duty add to, detract or complement existing statutory provisions? Given the danger that ‘soft law’ initiatives may undermine existing anti-discrimination controls, will the duty provide a clear steer to public authorities, or will it lack teeth, substance and direction, and possibly even prove counter-productive? Such positive duties are designed to compensate for the limitations of existing anti-discrimination law, by requiring the taking of positive steps to promote equality and eliminate discrimination, rather than just compelling a reactive compliance with the letter of the (equality) law. The justifications in principle for the introduction of such duties are strong: for the first time, the introduction of a positive gender duty will impose a clear legislative obligation upon public authorities to adopt a substantive equality approach and to take proactive action to redress patterns of disadvantage linked to gender discrimination. Serious concerns do however exist as to the extent to which such duties can be enforced, and the danger that they will simply encourage greater bureaucratic activity at the expense of real change. The proposed gender duty, as with the other duties that have been introduced, is no panacea. Nevertheless, it does constitute a good start, can serve a useful function by empowering public authorities to take positive action, and if effectively used will be a very valuable point of pressure to push for better things.