I am Groot

That seems impractical. After all, people on the Left regard almost everyone on the Right as being a racist. And people on the Right, regard most of the people on the Left of being racists. That doesn't leave a lot of people for anyone to listen to except those who think like them.

True. But I've seen how secondary requirements not particularly necessary to the job have gotten people promoted beyond their means a number of times. And I and close friends have run into such people and had to deal with their floundering. DEI introduces a set of criteria immaterial to the work which is not applied evenly. When your bonus depends on hiring/promoting members of preferred identity groups you are going to put pressure on your subordinates to FIND them. And those subordinates are going to have to compromise, at times, and hire people they otherwise would not.

This seems to be an interesting story related to the justification for the current political/social beliefs on how to deal with children who claim to be of a different gender. In her summary of the 250-page report, Hughes states that “WPATH-affiliated health-care providers advocate for the destruction of healthy reproductive systems, the amputation of healthy breasts and the surgical removal of healthy genitals as the first and only line of treatment for minors and mentally ill people with gender dysphoria, eschewing any attempt to reconcile the patient with his or her birth sex.” This, in spite of repeated admissions by WPATH health care professionals “that their practices are based on improvisation, that children cannot comprehend them and that the consent process is not ethical.” For example, one doctor shown in the WPATH files is revealed to tell colleagues in a video call that “most of the kids are nowhere in any kind of brain space to really, really, really talk about (fertility risks) in a serious way.” https://archive.is/zNzoy

Are you using hyperbole here? Do you mean she died of covid, not having taken vaccines?

He's almost 70. I doubt he needs to worry much about what Trudeau does to him. He's got to be thinking about retirement anyway. What will be more interesting is when younger, ambitious MPs and ministers start talking out of turn, especially the English ones, who might see themselves as in the running to replace him in a leadership competition.

Oh please, Herbie. You aren't that naive. The judges are in control, not the Charter or Constitution. Change the nine judges and the decisions they make on what's constitutional will change, too. They didn't rule that was unconstitutional because it offended the Charter or offended Canadians but because it offended THEM. As an example, they found that forcing a mass murderer to remain in jail without the possibility of parole for over 50 years was 'degrading in nature and thus incompatible with human dignity' because“it negates, in advance and irreversibly, the penological objective of rehabilitation”. Okay. But no one anywhere at any time has ever said that rehabilitation is the only objective of incarceration or that it should outweigh all other objectives. Except they decided it does. Even for people who have murdered multiple children. Nor, realistically, has anyone suggested the prison system is particularly good at rehabilitation anyway. And in dealing with questions like that we move outside of the area of their actual expertise or purpose and into ideological decisions. THEY decide that rehabilitation trumps all other concerns for everyone. They do that not based on law but based on their own ideological beliefs. And in doing that they supplant the authority of elected representatives.

I have never found it difficult to decide who to hire in job interviews. Sure, qualifications can look similar on paper. And might even be so. But there's an indefinable personal quality that almost every employer or manager is looking for that tells you how hard they'll work, how responsible and honest they are, how well they'll get along with and communicate with people/customers/clients, how good they are at improvising or innovation. I don't want someone who is going to show up at my office every hour or two because they don't know how to handle a fairly routine problem unless they're new. I don't want indecisive people. And none of that really shows up just checking off qualifications from a resume.

We're not talking about fast-tracking here, but of preferential hiring. And if they are qualified on merit, they don't need preferential hiring and promotion.

Durham Police are celebrating Black History Month! Yaaayy! Yesterday they picked three disadvantaged black gentlemen from a marginalized community who were the victims of white oppression and systemic discrimination and awarded them free room and board for a minimum of ten years! https://www.drps.ca/news/update-2-double-homicide-in-bowmanville/

The UNRWA should not even exist. It has probably helped to prolong this generations long crisis. The Palestinians are the only people on Earth who are still considered 'refugees' while sitting on their own land three generations after a conflict. Nobody considers the descendants of the million Jews expelled from the surrounding Arab countries as refugees. You know why? Because they were taken in by Israel and given citizenship.

The ivory tower lawyers on the Supreme Court won't even allow us to extend the period before parole for mass murderers. They're certainly not going to allow Capital Punishment. And they're in charge, not the politicians.

But what is the actual point of increasing participation for marginalized people who can't otherwise qualify based on merit? Unless you can demonstrate they're victims of some kind of undiscoverable oppressive 'systemic discrimination'? And that is generally based almost entirely on statistical variations between groups (except that groups that perform ahead of whites are ignored). It also ignores group preference. Ie, there are more female nurses than male nurses because more women want to be nurses than men.

A quick search turned up on a few examples https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/waterloo https://universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/canada-research-chairs-program-announces-new-more-ambitious-equity-targets/

Way to move the goalposts. Obviously, no serious job is going to ONLY ask for people who are racialized. Further, while there are few job postings that openly exclude whites many give preference to non-whites, or members of other identity groups. A friend always identifies herself in applications as bisexual now just to a box ticked off for the HR people on the other end.

I posted one a few days ago. My memory is you commented on it but perhaps not.

Name them. No. It's never occurred to me that having more women plumbers is good for men. Please explain it to me.

Oscar promotes the politically correct. Which is why you had Bill Maher listing them a couple of years ago as an example of how nuts Oscar was since none of the movies was popular and since the mostly made people want to go and slit their wrists.

Yes. And it's worse than the quote depicts because the same rules apply to writers. In fact, the new agreement between the Writers Guild and the studios codifies this by requiring racial/ethnic/sexual representation on the writing staff of all TV shows and movies. For those who don't know. Good writers are extremely rare in any field, especially fiction, especially genre fiction. I've seen strong female characters written well - but mostly in the past. It seems like the writers today have no clue how to write a strong woman. So they give them the cliche'd strengths they would give a strong man. They make them physically dominant (while utterly ignoring basic biology), unemotional, and close-mouthed. They make them Mary Sues because making them seem in any way weak goes against the narrative. Thus the sneers and jeers directed at characters like that last Star Wars main character "Rey", who somehow learned to be a Jedi master simply by existing and having ovaries.

It's even dumber than that. The people we're 'making things up to' are mostly immigrants or their kids. That's because this whole concept of DEI has been lifted wholesale from the United States. It makes no allowances whatsoever for being in Canada and imposes the same terms and uses the same justifications as in America. "DEI is necessary due to the way certain black and brown communities were discriminated against in the past and so robbed of the... " But wait, they weren't even in this country in the past! Just like the reason DEI particularly focuses on black people is because it's from the US. Canada essentially had no black people to speak of*, prior to immigration being opened up to the third world in the 70s and especially 80s. And yet 'anti-black racism' is a figure which is used widely in the DEI business. The only group that can realistically complain of historical injustice and racism are natives. Why don't we focus on 'anti-native racism'? Because that's not how progressives think. They get ALL their ideas and beliefs from the Americans. *The black population of Canada was 31k in 1971

I'd love to see social studies of how many stay in those fields they've been badgered into joining, and how happy they are vs men. Uhm, no. Women have long had a preference for jobs with a high degree of social exposure, ie, working with people. Men, some men, in particular, have an affinity with working with things, mostly alone, focusing on their numbers or rocks or bugs. In Scandinavia, where they have worked the hardest to make their society a gender-equal utopia male and female students at colleges and universities have an even HIGHER preference for this. It's biological, not social conditioning. Have you ever met a mother who preferred to have her husband stay home with her young children instead of herself? I'm sure there are a few, but they ARE few. I never knew a young mother who was eager to go back to work and leave her child to daycare. I know one mother whose husband did the child-rearing while she went to work because she had a good job and he did not. She tried to make up for it by bringing her children with her everywhere she went when not working but to this day she regrets the time not spent with them when they were younger. Me neither but we reward experience and time spent on the job. Male doctors and lawyers make more than their female counterparts both because of the time women spend in child bearing and due to the fact women prefer to be the ones who are home with their child when that child is sick and are much less enthusiastic about working extra hours when they have children at home than men. It's slowly dawning on the medical world that if you have a higher percentage of doctors that are female you need to have a higher number of doctors to make up for the fewer hours they will be spending working.

Life experience.

It's you who assumes a woman can't be qualified on merit. Just as you assume the same for black and brown people. Because if you and your ilk thought otherwise you wouldn't be so furiously opposed to hiring based on merit. In fact, it's a Leftist belief that 'hiring on merit is racist'. Which is why we call your beliefs racist.

The Left insists that such things must be considered racist because if they allow this kind of thing to be considered acceptable than the corally must also logically be acceptable. Ie, when particular groups are well known for something not so good as math.

All universities provide equal access to all fields. And you have provided zero evidence to the contrary. By insisting that these fields 'provide' opportunities you are demanding special consideration beyond equality. Except you. A close friend is a mechanic. In fact, he's in charge of the service section at a major dealership. Being a mechanic is dirty, physically difficult work that few women have either the physical ability or desire for. If that's the case then everyone who comes here from the Philippines and Southeast Asia would also have those resources and, by your logic, should be equally successful here as those from Japan, Korea or China.

We do not recruit anyone to be an immigrant. It would be a lot smarter to do so but we don't. We throw open the doors and take whatever comes through. Yes, we do prefer those who are educated. But immigration rules don't change from country to country.