bk59

Perhaps that is true. But I am OK with the occasional ad open only to Aboriginal people or people of a visible minority if it means that we are no longer pursuing an unofficial (or official) policy of whites only. After all, the law isn't there to make everyone happy 100% of the time. It is there to try to give everyone equal opportunities. Sometimes that means putting out ads such as the one you mentioned.

Of course there would be a problem with that. But as your quoted text shows, it wasn't that they were not hiring white men. It was that they were trying to hire a more diverse workforce and they had more than enough white men applying for a limited number of positions. Now we can debate the mechanics of how one should go about hiring a diverse workforce, but the example you have given was not one of "no white men allowed". Personally, I do think there should be minimum standards for everyone applying. But I do not necessarily have a problem with trying to diversify the workforce by having temporary, slightly different standards. Over time, as the police force becomes more reflective of the population, it will become easier to recruit and the same standards can then be used. Percentage wise, the Canadian population has become less white. I do not see a problem with wanting our national police force to reflect the Canadian population.

Why does the Prime Minister live a life that is more than comfortable and one almost inevitably finds shocking homelessness and destitution in major cities across Canada? Under your logic it must be because the Prime Minister is stealing money, or encouraging poverty, or engaging in some other impropriety. It is true that corruption does exist on some reserves. But to generalize like you have is wrong. And the logic of your last post clearly does not hold up.

To be clear, I agree that both stories are tragic, including the part about the difficulties in distributing aid. What I don't agree with is using these examples to fuel rhetoric that simply says look how bad these people are. It seems to be an exercise in promoting one's own moral superiority.

That is fine logic if you assume there is another job out there. This may not always be the case. In your world it would be fine for an entire profession (for example, doctors) to say that from here on out no one will hire any more women. In your world it would be perfectly fine for society to create a de facto class system where entire professions, and therefore things like economic status, could be based on skin colour, religion, etc. I prefer a world where everyone is given reasonable equal opportunities. And if we have to take an active role and say that people should be hired based on their ability to do the job in question, rather than their skin or eye or hair colour, then so be it.

Your post implies that all Aboriginal leaders are stealing money and preventing "aid" from reaching the rest of the Aboriginal community. Not only are you overgeneralizing, but you are also quite simply wrong. Even if some leaders do steal, does that mean that all leaders should be replaced based on the improprieties of some? If so, we are going to have some problems filling a number of seats in the House of Commons (in all parties). I think you have also missed my point a bit. When simply discussing the problem, why must we discuss replacing the community's leadership if the community under discussion is an Aboriginal community? When discussing similar problems in non-Aboriginal communities it is rare to hear someone immediately talk about how the leadership must be replaced. There seems to be a double standard here that implies Aboriginal communities are somehow incapable of leading themselves.

Blaming every problem in the world on "the West" is idiotic. But then again, so is this need to unthinkingly cast blame on anyone. And a bit insensitive (to say the least) to use tragedies to blame the victims. Is your point perhaps that the mother of five children should have seen into the future to know that this famine was coming? The drought occurred over the last three seasons. Seems to me it might take longer than three seasons to give birth to five children. Or maybe your point is simply that starving people should be blamed for starving? I mean, if they didn't have any children then those children would not suffer in a famine. The world has so many problems why cause more by needlessly pointing the finger at others and saying "I know better than you" and "It is your fault"? It is important to understand the cause of problems in order to try to solve them. At no point does this involve blaming people for no particular reason. The problems caused by the famine in Somalia will not be solved by saying "don't have children". Perhaps if this was a case of food shortage due to overpopulation you would have a point. This is not such a case. Next time, just let the idiots who say "everything is the West's fault" look like the fools that they are. There is no need to show any of that foolishness yourself.

I find this interesting. So many times when discussing Aboriginal issues the issue of band leadership comes up. If someone says "there is a drug problem in Vancouver" how many people respond with "let's solve the problem so long as we are not perpetuating the power of the city council"? Why is it assumed that when dealing with Aboriginal communities we must somehow avoid "perpetuating the power of the band leaders"? Why does the assumption only apply to Aboriginal communities? I want to make it clear that I am not making accusations against anyone, including you jbg. But the frequency with which Aboriginal leadership is criticized, particularly in situations where non-Aboriginal leadership would not be criticized in the same way, makes me wonder if we aren't unconsciously falling into the same old trap of assuming that somehow Aboriginal communities are incapable of leading themselves.

Many Aboriginal communities and leaders have been calling for reform for quite some time. To "kill" the Department of Indian Affairs would be a mistake, but the type of reform necessary is perhaps a different debate. What many people do not know is that much of the leadership, in particular band councils I believe, were forced upon Aboriginal communities by Canada and the various incarnations of the Indian Act. Maybe the government should, as you so fondly say, take some responsibility for letting things with some of these leaders reach such a sad state. But I do like how you have painted the entire Aboriginal leadership as selfish and greedy, willing to "allow" poverty, drugs, sexual abuse and criminal behaviour. By that logic, all white people really are murdering, imperialist, genocidal conquerors intent on stealing and abusing Aboriginal peoples. Your generalization is a bit insulting to the leaders mentioned in the article who want to take a stand and address the hard issues facing Aboriginal communities.

First, there are a number of people who went through the residential school system that are still alive. Second, as pointed out in the study, much of the abuse came from the cycle started by the abusive behaviour found in the residential school system. This has continued through at least one generation. This doesn't exactly seem like a windfall to me. And finally, how does wanting to work with Aboriginal communities to help solve these problems lead to less responsibility, more breeding (whatever that means) and more damage? It seems to me that if Aboriginal communities and non-Aboriginal Canadians work together to solve these problems it will lead to more responsibility and much less damage. Having Canada take responsibility and therefore committing to solving these problems can only bring about changes for the better.

Your post came across as completely anti-Aboriginal. Perhaps you should follow your own advice?

We have Aboriginal leaders clearly saying that they must address the issues of sexual abuse, drug abuse and suicide that plague Aboriginal communities, and yet some of you want to accuse Aboriginal leaders of not taking any responsibility? Maybe we should encourage the leaders who are brave enough to address the issues, rather than spout rhetoric that implies these issues are the fault of Aboriginals and that the rest of society should not get involved. It is quite clear that many of these issues are exacerbated by the residential school system forced upon Aboriginal people. Before blaming Aboriginals for not taking personal responsibility maybe we should accept our own share of personal responsibility for the situation. When considering the residential school system, I think perhaps non-Aboriginals are more to blame for many of these problems than "crooked leadership" or "lack of personal responsibility". How ironic that Borg's post, which seems to blame only Aboriginal peoples for their problems, ended with the line "it is always someone else's fault". If only Borg had applied the logic to everyone, and not just Aboriginal leaders. Both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals share responsibility for where we are right now. Both must be involved to try to fix the problem.

Have you not noticed the difference yet between a private individual and a business that is employing people? The government does not regulate an individual's right to choose who they associate with. The government does regulate employers. Why? Among other reasons, because of the historical power imbalance between employers and employees. Because of the historical injustices done to minority populations in society. We want to give everyone the chance to succeed and you can't do that if you allow employers to discriminate against employees for reasons that have nothing to do with their jobs. I can choose to not go to the movies with a tall, blue-eyed man. I can't discriminate against that same tall, blue-eyed man when it comes to deciding whether or not to continue employing him if being tall and blue-eyed is the only basis for my decision and being tall and blue-eyed has nothing to do with his job.

There is a difference between employing someone to care for people with taxpayer money and employing someone to preach a religion. Christian Horizons is involved with the former, not the latter. This means they cannot discriminate against the Human Rights laws in Ontario. Simply saying that they are "a dedicated ministry" does not relieve them of their obligations, just like any other employer in the province. If the citizens of Ontario "lose this resource" as you say, it will be very simply because Christian Horizons walked away. Saying that they would be driven out because they were forced to abide by the law is a bit ridiculous.

Wonderful stuff. You think it is acceptable for a woman to be prevented from caring for the disabled simply because she is a lesbian. If you are uncomfortable with your position perhaps you should consider changing it. As for the ability to read, it must be nice for you to consider me illiterate. That way when I point out facts you can just ignore them. Never mind that way back in post #10 I pointed out pesky little facts like how the woman complainant was a Christian, had been employed for several years, and was not running around sharing her homosexual views with everyone. Also, others have shown that Christian Horizons does not currently appear to be shutting down operations. Feel free not to read those posts either.

It would be a school. But that is not the relevant question. The relevant question is: are the studies religious in nature or are the studies care giving in nature? If religious, then they can hire people based on religious qualifications. If care giving, then they can hire people who have relevant credentials and skills in teaching how to care for others. I'm not sure this is as big a problem as you think.

No, you're the one clamoring for those looking after the disabled to be given the boot because they are homosexual.

That is not true. They are allowed to employ people to help the disabled. They just can't require those people to conform to all of their religious beliefs and practices. If this was about a religious organization running private education classes about the religion, then they can require people to conform to all of their religious beliefs. But that is not what we are talking about here.

Yes, it does take a certain type of person. A person just like the woman in this case. There is some thoughtlessness in saying that people should be allowed to care for the disabled while arguing that someone should not be allowed to care for the disabled. Seems like a self-defeating argument to me. Wow. Your ignorance of the facts is astounding. Particularly since they have already been posted in this thread. She did confide to two co-workers about her sexuality in 1999. But then in 2000, when this issue actually blew up, it was two other co-workers who confronted her about rumours that she was in a same sex relationship. So I'm curious, at what point does having people come up to you and nose into your personal life turn into talking publicly about how much you like performing oral sex on other people of the same sex? Seems to me like maybe Christian Horizons should have just stayed out of her personal life and continued to employ another Christian who clearly wanted to care for the disabled. If you're so willing to protect the interests of the disabled who need care, why aren't you demanding to know why this organization intruded into this woman's personal life just to dig up stuff to fire her? Every time someone says wife instead of partner are they flaunting their sexuality? When using "he" or "she" when talking about your partner is that flaunting your sexuality? This is a poorly thought out argument. Particularly when the facts show that there was no flaunting going on. Because it is nobody's business. And I'm guessing that yes, her colleagues did discuss their husbands and wives. How dare homosexuals do the same! I shall similarly restrain myself.

Agreed. As I said in my first post on this topic, isn't it interesting how actually looking at the facts of a situation makes all the difference?

In the interest of fairness, this issue is not quite as simple as "they are an employer therefore they must not discriminate". The Human Rights Code in Ontario does allow for the following: This was what Christian Horizons was claiming. I think I've made my position on this topic clear (I hope), but we should recognize that any group does have the right to discriminate with respect to its employees in certain circumstances.

Using someone's words or "logic" against them isn't exactly plagiarism. "If you can't handle it, maybe you should stay out of the locker."* I mean, forum. * See post #24.

What kind of question is that? No, sexual orientation does not have something to do with how you care for other people. Feel free to point to any evidence to the contrary. At any rate, it would be up to the people doing the firing to prove that somehow homosexuals are incapable of providing the same care as heterosexuals. This was not done in this case. As pointed out above, the state is not intervening in a customer's choice. We are talking about an employer here. 1. Christian Horizons received most of its funding from the government. In fact, it is funded "almost exclusively" by the government. You don't get a free pass on discrimination just because you claim that you are a private charity, and certainly not when almost all of the funding comes from taxpayer money. 2. This woman was a practicing Christian. I guess that is just another pesky fact getting in the way of a good rant. 3. Again, we are not talking about customers, we are talking about employers. The whole point is that you don't need to determine someone's sexuality in order to hire them for a job. So no, this will not make it harder for lesbians to find a job. At your last job interview were you asked about your sexual preferences? How many employers force their employees to sign contracts that promote a particular sexuality?

So if that code of conduct required everyone to shave their heads that would be justifiable to fire people over? What is the organization really trying to accomplish here? Are they caring for people or not? Sexual orientation does have weight in religious organizations. And if Christian Horizons was a Christian college then maybe they can require heterosexual teachers. But that is not their mission in this case. It is to care for developmentally disabled people. What is the more important Christian principle here? Helping and serving others, or judging and firing their own employees?

My apologies, I misinterpreted your post. Actually, you did raise a good point (now that I re-read your post with your original intention in mind). What would Jesus do? This woman was a Christian with a four year history of service with Christian Horizons. The only difference appears to be their respective views on sexuality. Surely there is room in a Christian organization like this (i.e. whose mission is to serve others, not promote a particular brand of Christianity) for some differences of opinion. The core beliefs were shared: that Jesus died for the sins of humanity and rose again. The actions taken by Christian Horizons seem almost un-Christian.