The great irony of “anti-discrimination” laws is that they usually harm those they are nominally meant to help.

This was illustrated perfectly by the news that British women are actually less likely to reach the top of major organisations than before.

The media expressed dutiful shock at this trend despite the pile of “anti-discrimination” laws that is constantly being passed. Needless to say, no one was allowed to suggest that the trend was not in spite of those laws but because of those laws.

Instead the predictable response from the Establishment was that more laws were needed!

In fact, private business has always been inclined to appoint on the basis of merit when left to its own devices – enlightened self-interest dictates that one hires the best – but has become increasingly wary of hiring people who might launch expensive and vexatious law suits against their employers.

No one is allowed to admit it. It is not – yet – illegal to tell the truth, but anyone who does is liable to have his words used against him when some disgruntled employee or past employee seeks revenge in a civil court or tribunal.

A Member of the European Parliament who, unlike most of the breed, had practical experience of business dared to point out that, given current legislation on maternity rights, no one in their right mind would employ a woman in her fertile years if there was any reasonable alternative.

Needless to say, there were squeals of outrage on all sides – but it is the “anti-discrimination” laws favoured by the squealers, rather than any imagined prejudice on the part of entrepreneurs, that makes his comments worth a second thought.