Reframing Equality: How Framing Rights as Being in Conflict Risks Undermining Social Cohesion

The Equality and Human Rights Commission's (EHRC) draft Strategic Plan for 2025–2028 is currently out for consultation. One of the more contentious aspects of this plan is the focus on ‘balancing’ rights and providing "legal clarity where there may be tensions between the rights of two or more groups, for example, in relation to sex and gender or matters of religion or belief"

For instance, the LGBT charity FFLAG has released a statement voicing concerns that the strategic plan frames trans rights as being in opposition to the rights of ‘biological’ women and unnecessarily fuels division. It is clear that the EHRC has in recent times lost the trust of many LGBT organisations, highlighted when a coalition of these groups called for a Special Review of the Commission’s ‘A’ status as Great Britain’s National Human Rights Institution in 2023. While the review upheld the EHRC’s status, the Commission’s current strategic plan appears to do little to rebuild this trust. Not only does it implicitly frame the rights of LGBT people as being in tension with the rights of others, there is no explicit mention of LGBT equality anywhere in the document, despite a disturbing rise in anti-LGBT hate crime.

On the surface, focusing on ‘balancing’ rights might appear fair and pragmatic, but as a social psychologist whose work often focuses on issues of equality, diversity, and inclusion, I believe this approach risks reinforcing the very polarisation the EHRC aims to address.

The Problem with Framing Group Rights as in ‘Tension’

The concept of “balancing” rights implies that the progress of one group must come at the expense of another. This reinforces zero-sum thinking that frames social progress as a competition between groups, rather than a collective advancement. Social psychological research consistently shows that zero-sum thinking amplifies in-group versus out-group dynamics, worsening social divisions.

For instance, portraying the rights of women as in conflict with those of transgender individuals, or the rights of gay people as in tension with the right to religious freedom, risks inflaming intergroup hostility rather than fostering social cohesion. This framework positions equality as a competition, overlooking the fact that individuals often hold multiple protected characteristics. Failing to acknowledge this complexity can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes, making it harder to promote understanding and solidarity.

The Risks of Framing Rights as Conflicting

One of the most significant risks of this framing is the potential backlash against already vulnerable groups. When the rights of one group are positioned as a threat or in 'tension' to the rights of another, this often leads to resistance against equality for the 'opposing' group. For example, framing transgender rights as a threat to the rights of others can result in greater opposition not only to extending rights and protections for trans individuals but can also result in calls to repeal well established rights granted in the Gender Recognition Act (2004) and the Equality Act (2010).

This narrative of conflict doesn’t just slow progress - it risks undermining public support for existing equality and human rights protections.

An Alternative: Framing Rights as Interconnected

Rather than presenting the rights of different groups as inherently in conflict, we need to frame rights as interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Human rights are universal - protecting the rights of one group does not diminish the rights of another. In fact, advancing equality benefits everyone in society.

In legal contexts, judges often apply the principle of proportionality when considering competing rights claims. This approach assesses whether an action is necessary, proportionate, and justified to protect others’ rights without undermining broader equality. For example, one person’s freedom of speech doesn’t justify the harassment of another. Similarly, limited forms of discrimination may be deemed lawful if they serve a legitimate purpose and are proportionate. Emphasising the importance of context and proportionality ensures that all rights are respected without the rights of any particular group being framed as at risk.

Fostering Dialogue and Empathy

Building social cohesion requires fostering understanding between groups through open, respectful dialogue. Through conversations, we can challenge stereotypes, address misinformation, and foster a shared sense of humanity. This is crucial for building trust and ensuring that equality is seen as a shared value rather than a competition between groups for dominance.

We need to demonstrate how the rights of different groups can coexist in a way that respects diversity. Creating a cooperative approach to equality, rather than framing it as a balancing act between conflicting groups, helps build social cohesion. Empathy and mutual respect should be at the heart of this process.

Moving Toward a Unified Vision of Equality

While it’s important to recognise that there are genuine legal disputes involving competing rights claims, framing rights as being in ‘tension’ with one another risks deepening social divisions. By focusing on interconnectedness, proportionality, and shared values, we can promote a more unified vision of equality - one that acknowledges the dignity and worth of all individuals and fosters a society where everyone benefits. Moving away from a conflict-based narrative towards one that emphasises cooperation and mutual respect is essential if we are to build a strategic vision for a more cohesive, just society.