myata

You haven't really provided anything, and public restrooms have nothing to do with it, but I guess it doesn't matter, right?

Discrimination against, codified in law? Certainly not aware of it being "upheld in public interest". Could you be more specific? If you want to be linguistically precise, that is. To g_bambino: Once discrimination by ethnicity is considered acceptable, in principle, the specific rationale wouldn't matter. Because there's no absolute, independent rationale for defining "bigoted and oppressing" ethnics. It's in the eye of the beholder. They look "bigoted and oppressive", to me. Bang.

If we're really bent on seeking the truth in the lingustic analyses. According to the quoted source (that references the original source), the UN defines the term "racial discrimination" as equivalent to ethinic discrimination. Common language term "racism" isn't defined by the UN, but I would argue that for any imaginable reason there's no point in distinguishing discrimination against individuals by ethnics and race, or any other external trait for that matter. It may create impression, in some minds, that one sort of such discrimination would be "different" or "better" or even acceptable in some circumstances (such as e.g. "antithetical" group, whoever it may happen to be). And I have yet to hear convincing arguments (or in fact, any arguments, please feel free to contribute) otherwise. According to my interpretation of publicly available information, Israel perpetrates ethnic discrimination, and therefore, racial discrimination in the occupied territories, and these actions would legitimately fall under the scope of the conference, unlike homosexuality or other "freedoms" (terms in quotes relate to semantics used for political gain, moralizing to others, etc, as opposed to their genuine meaning - m.). No matter how much we wanted to pretend otherwise, or not notice.

Another creative term, "forceful rejection". Whatever it could mean? Well if somebedy's actually forcing you to obey Sharia law, could it be that perhaps they're finding your ethnic group "antithetical" and are attempting to "put you down"? What's good for the goose, works for gander, why not?

What kind of "depth" can be found in "putting down" people of "antithetical" ethnics? How far do one have to travel down this road before hitting Holocaust, Rwanda, and such?

However, there's nothing you can contribute to the substance of the matter at this point?

Guess this rounds it up as far as the discussion of racial and ethnic discrimination goes, but you're entirely free to engage into any analyses around English, or any other, language.

Shall I take it as a token of capitulation, at least in the context of logical argument? So far, you failed to answer these two questions, so I have to post them one more time (notice a trend - I had to post the quote related to racial discrimination no less than 3 (three) times. Sigh): 1) why discrimination by one set of physical traits is different or "better" or "more justifiable" than by another; and 2) if we allow discrimination by physical traits of a certain ethnical group, could that group also be justified to discriminate too (against us, or maybe another group). No matter how potentially "antithetical" they are also conscient species and therefore could / would apply the same argument. Indeed hiding behind imaginary insults is another winning tactic, apologies for forgeting it in the aforementioned array of key arguments (selective seeing / reading, refusal to participate in discussions inspired by our own moralizing and so on) that apparently sets us so far above everybody else.

Yeah right. I don't like you, you look weird and "antithetical" to me. Bang. Ahead to the glorious past. Troglodytes.

No, but they can certainly define the agenda for the conference, and terminology around it (not "race" - one more time, and only for those seriously and persistently obtuse, but "racial discrimination"), of which those in attendance should be fully aware (unless they are that is, obtuse, naturally or otherwise), and bring their objections, if necessary, ie. how and why racial discrimination would be different, worse, less tolerable and so on, than the ethic one. To which we're coming in a minute: So, it's bad to attack somebody because of color of their skin, but may be OK if they are wearing a turban and have a different complexion? If you happen to believe that their culture is "antithetical"? Maybe this is one of the main reasons people in the UN made two definitions equivalent? So that there's no misconceptions? Because.. That is what you belive. Some people on the other side may think that two. So, if it's OK to abuse people of "antithetical" ethnicity, both should be justified in their righteous acts. Correct? I mean, between "you", and "them", who's there to decide who's righteous, and who - "antithetical"? Your god? Or maybe, theirs? Ethnic wars, cleansings, even genocides are justified if perpetrators happen to be believe their victims to be "antithetical". I don't think there's any confusion about why discrimination by any physical trait should be considered intolerable, no matter which one. The alternative is not even slippery slope, but direct chute down to justifying any ethnic crimes. Which we, here in freedom and right loving West happen to condemn. Sometimes.

Well, UN definitions of racism have been posted, twice. Logical arguments that there's no humanly understandable reason to distingush between abusing somebody because they are of a different race, as opposed to another ethnics, provided. Questions asked. You won't read. Can't understand. Wouldn't answer. Can't have a logical argument with a brick wall. I rest my case.

Well, of course no logic will penetrate determination of a machine that would drone the same adage ... "definition of race" .. forever. Good riddance. Most certainly they aren't the same, for the purpose of biology. In terms of human rights, though, discrimination and violence based on identifiable characteristics of individual is inexcusable and falls under the same category, whether based on racial, or ethnic lines. Is it really so hard to take in? Race isn't the same as ethnics. But the crime of discriminating against human being, perpetrating acts of violence, for either reason, is. Though I see many scientific words, the point is somewhat obscure. Are you saying that discrimination, and ultimately violence, against individual(s) based on their externally identifyable traits can be justifyable, at least in some cases (but not others, like e.g race; or Holocaust)? Care to elaborate?

The UN is saying that ethnic discrimination is no better than racial one, and there's no point to distinguish between the two. There's a common, traditional term for the first (racism), not so easlily found for the second. So why make the difference? Is it to say that one is different from the other? Perhaps, "better"? More exusable? Easier to ignore? Try maybe to apply the theory on some familiar historical examples, e.g. antisemitism (and ultimately, Holocaust) vs slavery. Does violence really look different because genes of perpetrator line up differently against those of the victim? Don't muddy water with "ethnicity" and race, Irishmen, australopitecs and such. It's not about scientific difference between ethnicity and race. We are talking about discrimination, of humans, including violence, and mass violence, by ethnic principle, as opposed to, race. Is one better than another? Should one be excused while the other prohibited? I personally don't care to justify any claims, but the fact that such an appauling violence can be excused and tolerated because my dictionary say so, is both ridiculous and outrageous. Welcome to the 21 century. The age of freedom, democracy and peace.

No perhaps one could come to comprehend that their interpretation of a term can be different from that of the international body that organized the conference. There's always hope. UN says that in its interpretation racial discrimination is the same as ethnic ones, and it's simply too bad that your decades old dictionary wouldn't reflect that simple fact. UN btw is the body established on inspiration from the democratic West to promote its glorious view of humanity. Which btw prohibits ethnic and racial discrimination. At least, in certain cases, and places. But of course it's more fun to spend tyme and megabytes in arguments about what constitute the meanings and definitions. Write researches. Certainly goes a long way explaining why one case of massive violations and abuse is OK and is actually so very different from that other, where it simply cannot be tolerated in all honest democratic conscience. Why lands can be invaded, taken, wars started, people kicked out, killed, houses demolished, and all is - OK. Because, it is democratic. Simple. And of course, we'll define that's democratic, what not. But of course, when they bads ones, are trying the same, it's an affront to humanity that simply cannot be imagine. See, really simple. Only one small democratic step longer than what we've been so used to. Before: "do it because we are the boss and we tell you." Now: "do it because it's democratic because we defined it as such (us being the boss), and we tell you." There you go, what needed to be proved, correct?

But of course, just as said: word games, selective readings (without comprehension), proud walkouts. "Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, even though anybody can be racialised, independently of their somatic differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination." (Wikipedia: Racism) To stare point blank and not see glaring examples of injustices one only a moment ago righteously condemned with full force of righteous freedom-loving zeal - in the other. A sure way to advance freedom and democracy. Go ahead, play, sing, and dance democratically peaceloving jig. Is anybody watching, or listening?

Whose definition? Yours? Certainly you can always do that. In the common definition, world definition, UN definition - see above, and read it, slowly: "there's no difference between ethnic discrimination and racial discrimination". Then, attempt to take it in, understand it. If you can't, I couldn't be of any help, perhaps, literacy classes? BTW sexual discrimination, religious discrimination, etc, deplorable as they are, do not relate to ethnicity. The conference was on racism ie. on ethnic discrimination. If one can't live by the same standard as they call on others, indeed, word games, selective interpretations, and proud walkouts would be the only "solid" arguments. No surprise at all that there're so many examples of either and all (elephant in the room), and for a good reason. Can't explain and prove something that is unprovable, glaringly and irrepairably false.

Well if you can't understand "ethnic discrimination = racism", I don't think I can do much for you here. Yes selective reading (and quoting) would certainly help to further the point further a few millimeters (which is, otherwise, undefendable).

Well, all those people (UN, WTO, CDC, media, you name it) have jobs. Very important ones. Gotta show that!

As long as there's provision to not pull kids out against their will, I'm OK. Can't legislate people to be smart and educated no more than to not be stupid. To everybody, their due. I hope only very few zealots would actually follow, but if not, so be it. Alberta's work force would be less educated and competitive in the modern economy (creative biotechnology, anyone?), so guess we'll have to pick up the slack here in Ontario and Quebec. Ironically, also kind of "natural selection"...

What a perfect example of what may transpire when you start setting "moral" standards (racism, etc), for others. Somebody may just ask to test it upon yourself, for a change. And then - you proudly walk away. Citing homosexuals; unrestricted right to eat in MacDonald; be brainwashed by advertising and bshitting democratic governtments; whatever other proud cause/reason. Who cares to pick'n sort in the bs. It's all the same, whether coming from Ahemenajad, or truly democratic government.

Because, unlike the examples cited, we officially (and proudly, as per O.P.) support ethnic discrimination aka racism in the definition of the UN, persistently perpetrated by one side in this conflict. No such practices should be offlimit with anybody pretending to any credibility, and that is exactly my point. I doubt credibility's being the point here. It's just a load of bs for whoever happens to swallow.

OK, I'll do it for you: "According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination." Wikipedia: Racism

I'm sure the broad definition of racism includes any sort of ethnic discrimination. Would you mind consulting a dictionary to that extent? Of, which, BTW, on the part of Israel in this conflict, there's very little doubt, from expropriation of property, to creeping annexation by building illegal settlements to restricting mobility. Whether Ahemenajad, whatever would make appearance, or not. But I'm sure us, (otherwise) righteous and human rights conscious West would always find a "just cause" to walk out, from anywhere that doesn't suit our views.

Since when is sexual orientation a race? I thought the conference was about racism, so how are the two issues related?

As I already said, it's OK (and even commendable) to critisize the law, call for its change or complete cancellation, and have discussions, manifiestations and so on, for that purpose. Of course, any arguments can be used, and of those I only have time to discuss those that are 1) new and 2) factually correct, and because none of what was stated falls into either category, not to say, both, it doesn't appear that we're going to discuss the law itself, at least at this time. However it should be noted that the practice of ignoring, clearly and intentionnally, the standing law of the land by the government that is supposed to protect and enforce it, is most despicable, and if unchecked could result in a deterioriation of the foundations of democracy that is based on the rule of law. If one can have some kind of reason to not observe the law because they don't like it, I simply can't see how it could not be turned any way possible. The law that is not universally applied, is not a law at all. We'll be back to square one, squabbling, fighting and trying to force our way upon each other.