BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Land titles will help end violence against women.

The case of Kenya is not representative of evidence across all African nations. In Rwanda, where post-conflict recovery has put gender equality as a fundamental objective, underlying tensions are emerging. Land titles have been distributed to women however male counterparts are beginning to raise doubts over the extent of gender 'equality', arguing policies reflect a gender bias in favour of women.[1] In societies where women live in a ‘man’s world’ land titles are not the means of safety and security. Rape, harassment, and abuse occur in public spaces across cities, due to fear, police relations, and social acceptance. [1] Bikorimana, 2012.
Land titling will increase female poverty.

Female-headed households are not the poorest of the poor, and taxation is required. Taxation is vital resource to enable the government to mobilise key services and as a redistributive tool. By developing an effective functioning taxation system, social policies can be put on the agenda in Africa - providing social support and security to those in need. Having access to titles will reduce poverty by encouraging entrepreneurialism, productive use of land, security, better health, and opportunity to enter property markets.
Positive discrimination for women is discrimination

Merely glossing 'positive' discrimination does not hide the fact that it is still discrimination. The Labour Party's policy in the 1990s of discriminating in favour of women in selecting candidates for parliament was rightly found to be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as it disadvantages potential male candidates1. The law may have been changed, but the principle of the objection remains and all-women shortlists are only legal until 20152which demonstrates a level of uncertainty and reservation about its true legality. Equality is enough to compensate for past unfairness. MPs should be the best on offer, and the one chosen freely by constituents, otherwise this is not democracy. All-Women shortlists seem to, in some ways, detract from the purpose of having elections if candidate lists are restricted. 1 'All women shortlists', Wikipedia 2 'Election bill will make all-women shortlists legal' by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 18th October 2001 improve this
THIS HOUSE WOULD INTRODUCE POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION TO PUT MORE WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT Women are vastly underrepresented in democratic legislatures across the world. Until 20 years ago women had never been more than 5% of MPs in UK Parliament1. Even today wom

How is this different to being elected because of the particular party you represent? Certainly Margaret Thatcher was not helped as a woman, but she was elected to represent Finchley, in Middlesex, which is a traditionally Conservative constituency; it was inevitable that she would be elected because she stood in a Tory 'safe seat'. Thatcher was thus elected not through her own individual merit or competence, but rather because she represented the party who always won there. It must also be noted that quotas and all-women shortlists do not necessarily mean that the best person is unavailable. Jacqui Smith, the first female Home Secretary, was elected on an all-women shortlist1. She would not have been appointed to the Labour government's cabinet if she had not been an outstanding politician; the all-woman shortlist not only did not prevent constituents from being represented by a capable MP, but in fact gave her a higher chance of being elected, which was to the benefit of all of us. 1 'All women shortlists' by Richard Kelly and Isobel White, House of Commons Library, 21st October 2009 improve this
Female role models are needed urgently to raise aspirations among young women and change parliamentary practices

A true role model has to be admired. Encouraging more women to stand for election should not be about 'making up numbers': women are extremely capable of becoming elected without help from male party leaders. Shirley Chisholm, in a famous speech on gender equality to Congress in Washington, U.S., on 21st May 1969, aired a similar sentiment: "women need no protection that men do not need. What we need are laws to protect working people, to guarantee them fair pay, safe working conditions, protection against sickness and layoffs and provision for dignified, comfortable retirement. Men and women need these things equally. That one sex need protection more than the other is a male supremacist myth as ridiculous and unworthy of respect as the white supremacist myth that society is trying to cure itself of at this time"1. Apportioning a quota of seats for women or all-women shortlists will be a patronising implication that women cannot succeed off the back of their own merits, and that men are innately superior. This does not create inspirational role models. 1 Full transcript of speech, 'Equal Rights for Women' by Shirley Chisholm: improve this
Women must gain positions in Parliament quickly as they would raise awareness about 'less important' issues such as family and employment rights

Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice in the US are high ranking female politicians who mostly deal in traditionally 'male' topics. Not all female politicians will represent women's views or needs. Indeed, sometimes they are bad advocates for women. For example, Nadine Dorries proposed a bill in Parliament for teaching abstinence to girls in school, but excluded teaching boys; this is a clear bias and suggests that boys can get away with being irresponsible. improve this
Parliament must be representative of our society and that requires a substantial increase in the number of women which only positive discrimination can achieve

Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must. 1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011 improve this
All-women shortlists or quotas restrict a constituent's freedom of choice

MPs will still be freely chosen representatives. Constituents can vote for any of the candidates on the ballot; if they disagree with a party's use of quotas or all-women shortlists they can cast their vote elsewhere. The emphasis, as always in voting, will be on the party. It does not limit their freedom of suffrage at all: we still vote for the candidate we feel will best represent our interests.
Artificial increases in numbers of women are not necessary, as there are other, less intrusive, alternatives to increase visibility of women in politics

Other options will not have a large enough or fast enough impact on the state of politics. Most women have found that "Even where women have indicated willingness and self-confidence to stand for public office, their efforts had been thwarted by male dominated and administrative structures"1. Certainly women must be empowered through education and other such indirect methods, but that is not enough alone to increase female MPs. Shortlists and quotas are a necessary step to raise the profile of women in politics, and would only be needed up until the point where their representation is equal without this. Education is a crucial part of a long-term strategy, but we also need short term impetus. Positive discrimination gives women a temporary platform from where they can make a difference for generations to come. 1 'Director calls for affirmative action for women into leadership positions', Modern Ghana, 19th December 2006 improve this
Positive discrimination for women is discrimination

All-women shortlists were declared legal in 2001 after a debate, and there has not been an issue about its legality since then1. Judges have ruled that quotas and other forms of positive discrimination are not in breach of any human rights or democratic law, and thus should be used. Positive discrimination compensates women for the many years that they were excluded and placed in the political wilderness. There is an unavoidable discrimination at work in the electoral systems worldwide, and if another type of discrimination is temporarily necessarily to combat it then it must be used. A true 'meritocracy' only works when candidates are starting from equal positions. Dame Ann Begg MP has said that positive discrimination is absolutely crucial for ensuring the best candidates apply: "If under-represented groups are not encouraged to apply, you cannot get the best person for the job. Women, for example, are less likely to put themselves forward as MPs"2. Nobody is saying that positive discrimination is without its problems, but in this circumstance the end must justify the means. 1 'Election bill will make all-women shortlists legal' by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 18th October 2001 2 'Positive discrimination crucial for democracy, says disabled MP' by Alev Sen, The Beaver, 15th March 2011 improve this
THIS HOUSE WOULD INTRODUCE POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION TO PUT MORE WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT Women are vastly underrepresented in democratic legislatures across the world. Until 20 years ago women had never been more than 5% of MPs in UK Parliament1. Even today wom

If people feel that a woman has been appointed simply for her gender rather than for her talents, then this will damage rather than enhance the status of female MPs1: they will, many argue, become simply "token women"2. Many leading female MPs oppose all-women shortlists on a matter of principle. Ann Widdecombe claims they are "an insult to women": she said, "Neither Margaret Thatcher nor I needed this kind of help to get into Parliament"3. At a different time, Ann Widdecombe has said: "The concept of merit is going out of the window. I don't care whether an MP is male or female, black or white, rich or poor, old or young. What matters is the merit they bring. We really cannot have targets for particular categories. It's frankly insulting because it suggests women and ethnic minorities cannot get there on their own merit"4. Whether it is true that a lesser-able candidate gets an easier ride in on all-women shortlists, the fact remains that people will perceive that as having been the case. This may result in their views being taken less seriously than MPs elected in an open ballot, and this is not democratic. It is far better than women fight their way in and are respected once they are in parliament. 1 'Women-only shortlists are a patronising stunt improve this
Female role models are needed urgently to raise aspirations among young women and change parliamentary practices

At present there is a vicious circle whereby women see no point in standing for politics because it is viewed as a male-dominated institution. Positive discrimination is the only way to encourage women to stand. Only if one generation is pushed towards politics can there be role models for potential future women MPs to follow; for that reason it need not be a permanent measure, just one that gets the ball rolling1. It has been proven by a study at the University of Toronto, Canada, that women need inspirational female role models more than men; they need it to be demonstrated that it is possible to overcome barrier2 . Positive discrimination would provide this evidence and support. This measure would simply allow women to overcome the institutional sexism in the selection committees of the established political parties, which has for so long prevented a representative number of women from becoming candidates, and would encourage other women to try and emulate that. It's about changing stereotypes and perception (particularly of the concept 'leadership', which we automatically think of as a male trait1). This will help achieve true progress in the future. 1 'Increasing the numbers of female MPs', Thinking and Doing, 14th May 2010 2 'Women need female role models', Research Digest, 16th March 2006
Women must gain positions in Parliament quickly as they would raise awareness about 'less important' issues such as family and employment rights

Whilst is it possible for men to speak on women's issues, some topics of debate (e.g. on family issues or equality in the workplace) are still seen as less important than economics or foreign policy. Creating more female MPs would encourage more debates about social policy, and so do more to produce constructive legislation of relevance to real people's lives. For example, Harriet Harman is the first MP to seriously confront the gaps in the treatment of women and other minorities in the workplace1. This was previously seen as a 'soft' issue unworthy of parliamentary attention; she was more in touch with women's (and, of course, many men's) priorities and acted upon them. If we want our political system to be in touch with the priorities of everyone, we must to act to increase women's representation. 1 'Harman pushes discrimination plan', BBC, 26th June 2008
Parliament must be representative of our society and that requires a substantial increase in the number of women which only positive discrimination can achieve

In a 'representative' democracy it is vital that every part of the population be accurately and proportionately represented. The present lack of female voices in parliaments across the world symbolises the continuing patriarchal societal bias. Women are over half of the population, yet less than 20% of the House of Commons is made up of women. As of 2011, there are only 72 women (constituting 16.6% of all Representatives) serving in the House of Representatives in the US. In order to truly have a representative government, numbers must be increased to fairly mirror numbers in society. All women shortlists and other artificial means are a quick and effective way of doing this. Even David Cameron, a traditional opponent to positive discrimination for women, when asked whether a meritocracy was more desirable, said "It doesn't work"; "we tried that for years and the rate of change was too slow. If you just open the door and say 'you're welcome, come in,' and all they see is a wave of white [male] faces, it's not very welcoming"1.Indeed, a recent report by the Hansard Society2 said that the numbers of women in UK Parliament could fall unless positive action is taken3. Sarah Childs, launching the report, said that "unless all parties use equality guarantees, such as all-women shortlists, it is most unlikely that they will select women in vacant seats" 3. Compulsion is necessary to begin to achieve parity of representation4. The Labour party used all-women shortlists in the 1990's and many well-known female MPs were elected this way. Positive action is vital for reasons of justice and fairness. 1 'David Cameron: I will impose all-women shortlists' by Rosa Prince, The Telegraph, 18th February 2010 2 The Hansard Society 3 'All-women shortlists a must, says report' by Oliver King, The Guardian, 15th November 2005 4 'Call for all-women shortlists' by David Bentley, The Independent, 11th January 2010
All-women shortlists or quotas restrict a constituent's freedom of choice

Article 21 of the Human Rights Act, clauses 1 and 3, state that "everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives and the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedure". Candidates on all-women shortlists would not be freely chosen by constituents but imposed upon them. Some constituencies would have all-women shortlists, and some wouldn't, and this would be completely arbitrary; people's choice of candidate would vary immensely according to where they live, and this is undemocratic. By allocating a specific number of seats to women in parliament parties would be infringing this universal law which will impact upon the fundamental human rights of the voters.
Artificial increases in numbers of women are not necessary, as there are other, less intrusive, alternatives to increase visibility of women in politics

Positive discrimination is an extremely heavy-handed way of increasing the numbers of women in parliament. Women should of course have the same opportunities for participation in politics (and other male-dominated institutions should as business) as men; but they should not have more; Ann Widdecombe has argued that female campaigners, such as the Suffragettes, "wanted equal opportunities not special privileges"1. Many believe that other empowerment programs, such as education, would be much more effective for creating equal opportunities and create less controversy which could end up being counter-productive for the cause. Statistically, 1 billion people in the world are illiterate; two thirds of them are women2. Education is the most crucial tool to give women the same opportunities of men, particularly in developing countries. That will insure that women too are participating in the governance of their countries. It is also important to note that the situation is improving across the world on its own. Canada elected a record 76 candidates in the 2011 election, up from 69 the previous election3. Nordic countries average around 40% women candidates, which is about the ideal given that competency must be taken into account and 50-50 is unlikely4. Even in Iraqi elections, all political parties had to submit lists of candidates where every third person was a woman; this guarantees at least 25% of all elected delegates are women4. The numbers of women in power are also increasing: 20 countries currently have a female leader5, and to that list must be added Thailand who recently elected Yingluck Shinawatra as prime minister6. With this rate of change, equality will be achieved fairly quickly and the controversy and heavy-handedness of positive discrimination is not necessary. It may even be detrimental to the cause. 1 'All women shortlists', Wikipedia 2 'Women and Literacy', SIL International 3 'Record number of women elected' by Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News, 3rd May 2011 4 'Women's representation worldwide', Fairvote 5 'Female World Leaders Currently in Power' 6 'Thailand: Yingluck Shinawatra wins key election', BBC, 3rd July 2011 improve this
Client-Attorney Privilege is already qualified appropriately

In exceptional circumstances, solicitors are told that they may depart from the rule of confidentiality contained in Rule 4 of the Solicitors' Code of conduct. Note 9 states that there are some regulatory bodies that are entitled to be informed of apparently confidential client communications.[1] In cases of suspected money laundering, solicitors have a duty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007[2] to inform relevant bodies of any suspected money laundering or any handling of the proceeds of crime. This means that there is flexibility in the rule of client confidentiality and client-attorney privilege which allows for justice to take its course in serious circumstances. [1] Rule 4: Confidentiality and disclosure, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007, http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/rule4.page accessed 18/05/11 [2] The Money Laundering Regulations 2007, legislation.gov.uk, No2157, 2007, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2157/contents/made
It makes it more likely that attorneys will lie for their clients

It is a breach of a fundamental rule of an attorney's professional conduct rules to lie to the courts. In England and Wales the risk of Attorney's lying has been catered for by the Rule 11.01 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct. This rule makes it a serious breach of the conduct rules to lie to or knowingly deceive the courts; as witness statements and police interviews are presented in courts as evidence these are also included.[1] This means that a solicitor is not allowed to put forward or allow to be put forward any information to be adduced to the court which is incorrect. The consequences for a solicitor are high – they are liable to have their professional license revoked. Given the high consequences, a solicitor would not be willing to risk it and will therefore not be willing to lie for their client to the court. [1] Rule 11: Litigation and advocacy, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007, http://www.sra.org.uk/rule11/ accessed 18/5/11
It places excessive moral burden on solicitors

The privilege that subsists between solicitors and their clients is well documented. Therefore, when people go about becoming solicitors they go into it knowing the potential moral pitfalls. Having entered the career they accept the moral burden and should seek to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct. In addition, the moral burden is mitigated by those such rules. It is stated that in exceptional circumstances, situations involving children or the potential serious bodily harm on any individual the duty of confidentiality can be departed from.
The principle behind attorney-client privilege is declining in relevance

This does not mean that client-attorney privilege should be done away with altogether. When it comes to European law and their investigations under the Treaty of Lisbon for uncompetitive practices, they do not count in house lawyer communications as privileged[1] [1] Akzo Nobel Chemicals Limited C-550/07 http://international.lawsociety.org.uk/files/Summary%20of%20Akzo%20Nobel%20Hearing%209%20February%202010.pdf accessed 18/05/11
Attorney client privilege need not be sacrosanct in all situations

It is very unusual to have a case where it would be certain that disclosure would in no way affect the client. Clients want confidentiality for a wide variety of reasons, not only for reasons connected to personal criminal liability. Even if these confidences are not any sort of admission of criminal wrongdoing, they may nonetheless be matters that the client, for one reason or another, would not wish divulged. Abolishing the privilege not only violates a person’s right to privacy, but a person who knows that his communications may be later revealed (even after his death, or even with ‘use immunity’) may well decide that it is better not to go to a lawyer in the first place – in other words, leading to an access to justice problem. This becomes even more of a problem if the privilege may be overridden when it is in the public interest as the client is not going to know when this may be considered to be the case. Better to keep the information to him/herself rather than opening the possibility that it may be used ‘in the public interest’
It supports the principle that everyone is entitled to a defence

Surely the best way to ensure justice is to let the truth be known. By allowing the communication between an attorney and their client to be privileged, the system is catering for a system of arbitrary loopholes and cleverly worded arguments. These are the tools that a solicitor/ attorney would have in order to protect the interests of their client in the face of information they may not wish to divulge to the opponent. This only caters for an adversarial system whereby two parties oppose each other and they each have lawyers to assist them. Surely a better system would be one that encouraged open communication of the truth in order for the court to establish the most just outcome.