GreatJob!

what preference? no preference... all we need to know is that a cadidate has the best aptitudes for the job... if we're pitting a male that's 6'2 215 pounds, in peak physical condition with great cardio vs a 5'1 female that can't even bench 60 pounds; guess who is more likely to be a valuable member of the force? also... in various studies conducted in the US, they found that female officers discharged their firearms causing death at a much higher rate than male officers... why? they don't have a choice in confrontations... they have to pull the trigger ... they cannot attempt to defuse a situation physically.. because they can't... how's that for affirmative action costing actual lives? and the SPVM and VPD have a different physical test for women... which is predicatbly less intense... I suspect this is also the case for most police forces... no amount of affirmative action and set aside nonsense will make women strength equal to men's... yet women seem to comprise the lionshare of new hirees... the solution? TREAT EVERY CANDIDATE AS AN INDIVIDUAL: not the member of a race/gender/sexual orientation... no on cares... no one SHOULD care...

riiight. also this: http://articles.phil...iverse-nominees racial nose counting already starting in the US it seems... So it appears everyone can blatantly racially discriminate under the guise of "social justice" and neither the media nor politicians (of any party anywhere) will call them on it. Meanwhile, a white person is presumed to have racist intentions if he does not nominate a black or Hispanic regardless of whether there is any indication of actual racism. The media and politicians will, in turn, second that unfounded accusation of racism. The whole race argument is shifted so far in one direction because it's framed around the presumption that whites are automatically racist (and only they can be racist).

positive//negative... pure nonsense. Discrimination is discrimination, racism is racism... period. If there is racism in police or government jobs (and that is VERY LITTLE racism), then it isn't going to help using INSTITUTIONAL RACISM against an identifiable group in order to combat it... At any rate, what it will succeed in producing is RESENTMENT and hatred on the part of the people being discriminated against... trust me on this: if you want to see an increase in actual racism, just keep setting up systematic rejections of better or equal qualified whites... and then you'll see a backlash... an utterly legitimate backlash... Ordinary citizens will lose their respect for minority police officers... assuming they got their job through spurrious affirmative action schemes... and from them it doesn't take long to see the slippery slope towards prolonged ethnic conflict. affiramtive action doesn't "balance out the chances"... it sways them solidly in one groups favor. "balancing out the chances" would imply complete equality... treating EVERYONE as individuals... not as races... and you're right, discrimination against minorities is not always obvious at all... but the discrimination created by affirmative action and similar policies: is patently obvious... It real gvt sponsored discrimination... the worst kind ...

i'm not sure I understand... bare with me on this. You are essentially saying that you need a diverse police force to deal with diverse neighborhoods, That, to me sounds a lot like an admission that a multi-ethnic country can never truly be integrated racially or culturally. After all if you "NEED" black officers to police black people and indians to police indians etc. It means that the entire notion of a diverse society is now an ordeal, where racial headcounting and full on/ institutional racism is now a central faculty in the way our society organizes itself... gone is the principle of "best man for the job"... gone is the notion of treating everyone as equals. Is integration not even a goal anymore? have we given up? Personally, I don't need a white police officer to carry out the job of policing me... I don't care about race or erthnic origin... I just want to know that he is the best man for the job... and I certainly hope that is the attitude ALL canadians have. Governments teach by example, you don't eliminate violence by beating violent people up, you don't end poverty by empoverishing the wealthy, you don't teach politeness by being rude to impolite people.... and you don't end discrimination by discriminating against people... these truths should be pretty obvious to everyone...

well, while I get on that... howabout you address my previous comment?

well... by their very name: Diversity Job fairs are indeed intended almost exclusively at minorities ... and the reason I quoted an amazon book is because it actually is a compendium of how affirmative action works, and in it are some facts and figures (that granted I did not cite very academically)... at any rate there is no disputing that affirmative action is a waste of money... because it is based on a misreading of social problems and offers a false solution... wether it costs 1 million or 10 billion$ is irrelevent... it should be scrapped all together if we want to move towards a free, equal society.

that sounds like a racist thing to say... are you saying that to police a diverse group of people ... you need diverse police officers? Like white people won't listen or respect black officers, and black people won't respect white officers? sounds like the future is going to look pretty crappy if we admit that its impossible to intergrate the races at even that bare minimum level... We'll need tagalog speaking officers for this community, Sikh turban wearing ones for another region, rastafarian ones for the other city... what kind of a bladerunner ghettoized dystopia is canada going to devolve into if we keep this nonsense up? Why stop there? howabout minority specific firefighters, city workers? Howabout we break up canada in a racial/ethnic map and delegate administrative cantons for each "region"? that's the same as saying that diverse societies are weak, divisive and choatic... I don't think they need to be... and its attitudes like yours that perpetuate all sorts of social ills in our country.... diversity is SUPPOSED to be a strength, not a source of tension, disunity, mutual distrust and chaos...

well, just Immigrant Settlement and Intergration costs linked in to affirmative action cost over 280 million a year... add to that Native Friendship centres, Citizenship and Immigration canada spends over 120 million a year in diversity job fairs aimed solely at visible minorities. then there are the costs forwarded unto businesses (who can't hire the people they want because of quotas systems) and the profit loss derived from underqualified candidates that sometimes sqeak by... endless discrimination lawsuits (that are largely fraudulent) and the litigious nature of affirmative action... it is a huge squandering of wealth that in return does harm to 1/ non-minorities 2/ businesses forced to deal with these policies 3/ the supposed benefactors of Positive discrimination (as they are often put into positions they cannot perform well at) ... looking at the states only 39% of black law students pass the BAR on the first attempt, compared to 87% for whites and 91% asians (http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-Universities-ebook/dp/B008RZRLHA) a pretty shabby proposition...

are you being sarcastic? explain how... the cost of maintaining these programs and the propaganda to animate them is immense btw. and its all utterly useless... worse than useless... its harmful on so many fronts.

um, our charter? lol and you don't consider the most powerful agent of socialization (digital media) to have important ramifications for society? You don't think movies can influence people? That movies and MSM also act to guide public opinion? really? then what do you think would constitute a good "example" of racism and anti-white bias?

What do you mean? opposite type of racism? we are talking about institutional racism. the results have always been bad at any time, anywhere, and no matter who practises it and for whose sake. The solution? Gee! maybe ending intitutional racism? lol! i.e: set up a society based on equality? a true meritocracy? where no one gets any "goodies" or "breaks" because of a skin tone hue, accent, real or imagined handicap? the solution is pretty self evident and astonishingly simple. treat everyone as individual equals. Stop pretending as though every employer is a Ku Kluxer, and that every black employee needs petty government assistance. Stop patronizing minorities like its the special olympics... equality now!

the phony issue? Preferential race based and "diversity based" treatment is literally inscribed in our charter... theres nothing phony about it... Section 15-2 of the CCRF: 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. This is a clear zero sum game, with non-minority "whites" being the obvious losers in this scenario... very often again, simply because of the color of their skin. This is plain, bald systematic racism. And to go from there and say that whites enjoy "white priviledge"? I've never heard any satisfactory explanation as to what "white priviledge" is, its always explained away as some obscure, unfathomable ghost that "holds" minorities down.... "ALL minorities" mind you... as if being white was like being part of a secret fraternity with benefits... I think that reverse discrimination, backed up by our government, and in some cases literally codified in our fundamental charter is a far more obvious and damaging threat to equality. being white doesn't come with any sets of priviledges... or easy admissions to universities, or slam dunk advantages over similarly qualified candidates in job competition, or even an extra dollar per hour on a paycheck. It counts for zero. On the other hand, being a visible minority comes with an array of set aside advantages, that are enforced by virtually every rung of our government and industry. Quotas, raises, loans, special organizations, job promotion etc... years ago, it was even so bad that a job positng for the federal gvt specifically and explicitly prevented white males from even APPLYING for a position. http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=8b38e8a9-f7de-460b-9bd7-723991e9d12e its also the same in the US... every state is forced to hold diversity hiring job fares... where again (obviously), whites need not apply. http://www.citycareerfair.com/about.php and btw... are you actually implying that avatar was a "white supremacy" tale in disguise? seriously? lets get even more recent... have you seen Lincoln?! Its another fine example of the new hollywood narrative: everything in the movie revolves around the black experience, black soldiers are the focus, they are presented as heroes and martyrs, with hardly any flaws to mention, the southerners are of course, presented as bloated, greasy, bigots with hardly to IQ points to rub together. Lincoln is some sort of cosmopolitan pre-modern-age human rights enthusiast that reads like an oily Obama speech. to put it differently can you recall of any popular film of the last 15 years, that could be interpreted as demeaning, or racist towards minorities? That presents them in a negative light? Casts them as the clear evil losers?

well... in our particular circumstances: institutional racism can and does deny whites with access to jobs, admissions to certain schools and universities, promotions and even access to various resources... Again, that is the essence of affirmative action and the end result. One races gain is the other's loss... that's what happens when you don't have equality. as for voting rights that's still ok ... for now anyways...

I'd hate to agree with someone who has a reputation as a racist in these boards but... Its unfortunate that this seems to be the truth though... if we are objective: look at any real or imagined racism talked about in the news, take the protagonists of the news item and invert their races. And see how different the treatment would have been. Even more telling, look at nearly every second film out of hollywood... Harold and Kumar for instance portrays every white character as moral lepers, white men are portrayed as racist hick southerners or resentful losers. White women are portrayed as prostitutes that just can't get enough "ethnic love"... The only "good white guy" in the movie turns out to be doogie howser... who is gay. And that model seems to be a constant in new releases... whites are generally the bad guys (Avatar) the only good white people have to be either female, handicaped, harbor some antipathy to a white higherarchy or be gay... I could be here all day listing more examples... Crash... the supposed anti-racist movie... has every single white actor as moral inferiors to non-whites. Tarantino movies of late have been pretty explicitly racist against whites (Black Snake Moan) and Django Unchained... even the interviews of Jaimie Fox literally saying he loves the idea of killing white people. And also referring to Obama as "his president" because he's "black"... again its not hard to imagine how different the media reaction would have been if we would have inverted the races... if Leonardo Dicaprio would have been openly stating that he enjoys killing black people... and identifying with a politicians because he was a white man, he would have been unemployable after... and the media would be apoplectic... Its simply not possible to dispute these realities. An easy enough thing to do, is sample virtually anything said by black celebreties... and imagine if white celebs were saying the same things. put the shoe on the other foot... doing that show us a definite double standard.... and a clear agenda of general antipathy towards caucasians. I used to think it was some crazed neonazi hatesite conspiratorial thing to say... but i'm sorry... I think its true... I think there's too much evidence for it.

they did however come from very similar educational backgrounds, professed a very similar religion, and spoke an indo european language (related in many ways to our own). Their societies functionned in much the same way as our own. They also came from societies with mores vitrualy indistinguishable from our own at the time. The difference between the Sweden of 1890 to 1930 and canada of the same time was virtually nill , with actually some swedes coming from a relatively more advanced culture.

that's still a little bit of a racist comment, because it plays into the "inherent inferiority" argument put forth by racists. If your argument ever gained popularity, people would be heavily against the continued importation of african immigrants for instance, on the basis that these groups take too much time to "get their act together". That they need a long sponsorship paid for by the rest of society at the expense of everyone else... just to make certain immigrants "rise to our level"... nevermind exceed it or help everyone's standard increase. No... I think these groups are not so stupid in fact, and if motivated and treated as equals, can achieve much more.

well certainly not all "minorities"... I mean asians in the latest top 10 university indexes in the country are doing well above whites. http://www.wantchina...=20110301000005 http://www2.macleans...1/10/too-asian/ and with the exception of Japanese students (which constitute a small minority of asians), all of these students come from relatively poor countries. Some of them: Nepal, Cambodia, East Timor: DIRT POOR. so i'm not sure I see the correlation... anyways as a practical startegy, wouldn't the best policy to achieve equality be: let everyone compete equally? Because I'm not sure that giving artifical support to someone and preferrential admissions (otherwise unobtainable) actually benefits anyone (even the recipients). Its artificially contrived... just like giving platform shoes to a short person doesn't really make him taller... and either way... such practises are bound to be flawed since its just not true that EVERY black person comes from a broken home and has been suffering from low socioeconomic levels. So some of the benefactors of this practise actually have no legitimacy in receiving these "bonuses". I think the MOST decent thing to do if you're going to entertain affirmative action: is give affirmative action to people based on poverty and socio-economic levels - regardless of race. I don't understand why no one is talking about this solution.

actually it does make sense... don,t blame inanimate objects for pilot error or human misuse.

60 year olds? The Immigration act was revised only in 1967 and started to take effect in the early 70's to include a larger intake of immigrants and especialy a higher population from the third world. every year since the early 70's canada has taken in 225 000 to 275 000, of these populations only about 6 to 8% where english speaking... http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-314-x/2011003/tbl/tbl3_2-1-eng.cfm its very unlikely that argus is off by much. also, if you live in a city that is half "non-white" (let's imagine its toronto) that works out to: that's right nearly half the people are foreign born (knowing that every year 85+% of immigrants are non-white) that means that virtually every non-white you see (with the exception of 30-40% of under 25 year olds- second generation visible minorities) is a recent non-english speaking non-white person.

sounds racist to me... are you saying these "groups" will never rise to an average socioeconomic level EVEN IF the playing field is even? That their very history (which is unalterable) will continue to handicap their development?

what was the point of this comment? seriously

not gonna lie though... down syndrome daquiri sounds pretty exciting

Absolutely brutal tragedy. The parents will probably have to go through the hollidays in the blackest of despairs... but... i'm not sure that there is much meaningful action to take after such aimless insanity. gun control? school councelors? psychotropic drugs? I can't really see any practical solutions ...

well, argus is correct obviously, the only source for non-white immigration started roughly 40-50 years ago... it follows that the overwhelming majority of non-whites are immigrants or 2nd gen immigrants. With the notable exception of first nations... SO yes probably 80% of the non-whites currently in canada are immigrants, the rest children of recent immigrants... with few exceptions.

When you control for what variable? where are you getting this information? By "variables": did you mean college readiness, scientific, mathematical literacy? Because if you control for those, you see that many more minorities get PREFERENTIAL treatment... not "limited opportunities"... quite the contrary. Affirmative Action (in the US as in Canada) is bald, systematic government based discrimination based on race. Its a quotas system. And I still haven't heard anyone claiming that it was "necessary to break through the invisible glass ceiling" make even an attempt at showing how it isn't merely "head counting" racism. take the university of Michigan for instance: Based on US census data, a hypothetical prospective applicant pool of 1,000 students from Michigan would include 141 African-Americans, 23 Asian-Americans, 796 European-Americans and 4 Hispanics. Bout of these, if we consider mathematics qualifying scores, we might expect to see approximately 10 African-Americans (the number who applied multiplied by the percent qualified), 14 Asian-Americans, 318 European-Americans, and perhaps 1 Hispanic student. Adding these numbers, it would mean that in merit-based admissions, out of the original applicant pool, 343 people were admitted, which is about 30% lower than the rate at which Michigan actually admits its students. Based on this, we would expect an average entering class would should be approximately 92% white, 4% Asian-American, 3% Black, and less than 1% Hispanic. According to data from 2009, the actual acceptance statistics were: 5.8% Black, 12.1% Asian, 65.0% white, 4.1% Hispanic, and 5.7% International, with about 7% of people declining to state their race.