Shwa

Except for the land leases for natural resources, tax breaks and bailouts. Otherwise, point taken.

Except that Affirmative Action may also include women. Caucasian women. Or did you forget this in your zeal? "oops" right?

How is the competition from the CBC unfair? They have to deal with the CRTC like anyone else, likely more than anyone else. Practically all competition is government regulated anyways. It's not the CBC's fault if Global craps out just like it's not the Royal Canadian Mint's fault if people stop buying the crap from the Franklin Mint.

Yeah but, we're doing OK. So 14th, out of whatever, means we're doing alright. Your shame at being Canadian isn't relevant here.

No, the fact that you see non-visible-minorities as wholly equating to white people or Caucasian is hardly relevant. What benefits or "other laws" have has absolutely nothing to do with the definition and your attempt to hijack the term for your own point of view here is completely disingenuous. Blatantly disingenuous. Notwithstanding the fact that visible minority is a discretionary term that one applies to themselves, what "race" is the child of a Caucasion and Korean? How about the child of a Metis father and a Chinese mother? Eh? What "race" are they Bonam?

Yet you make sweeping declarations based on a fairy tale scenario that you - yourself - invented to suit your prejudice. Now you are talking about beer. Now you are talking about water! OMFG! I gave you two sources about employment equity in Canada - about the policies that oversee that process in Canadian governments. I asked you to point out the racist parts. Then you reply with some drool about beer and water. Perhaps I am not capable of mature discussion, but perhaps your not mentally coherent enough to understand affirmative action and how it works, instead perferring the little make-believe scenarios in your head as representative of those processes. It's not that you won't discuss, it's that you can't. At least you are consistent.

Are you slow thus need to make up terms to fit your make-up scenarios? What race is a visible minority?

Wrong.

What race is a visible minority? There it is silly for you to even pretend to have even the simplest clue as to how affirmative action works. Now, if you want to take the actions of your make-believe fairy tale manager and stretch that into a condemnation of the entire system you are free to do so. It only proves the more that you are down a gallon or two of clues. What's far fetched is your conclusion based on a fairy tale that you made up on the spot. Far fetches and hilarious actually. Right, oh, I see how it works now... in Bizarro World. Now, had you come up with a "real world" example - and enough of them to be even modestly convincing, you might have a point. But you won't, because you can't. Instead, you prove your "logic and knowledge of real work application" with a made up fairy tale. As you can, the only thing left in this discussion is your ideology, because you got nothing left. (well, except for more fairy tales I suppose)

Not sure if it is representative, but it was pretty easy to find. You are making a fundamental and - by using this thread as a benchmark, oft repeated - mistake in understanding the terms. "Non-visible-minority" does not exclusively refer to "whitey." In a similar way "non-aboriginal" does not exclusively refer to "whitey." Secondly, I am not arguing that affirmative action is not discriminatory - just not "insititutionalized racism" as some posters go on and on about with their fairy tale scenarios. So if you read through the articles, it is a big stretch to see affirmative action as racist. Discriminatory, sure, racist, no. Otherwise, finally someone brings up some issues that can be discussed. Possible. As well as a change in employment sectors, from manufacturing to service, might have had an impact. I think you might be misreading the author - she is saying that their study - among others - contradicts a "widely-held" view. She is not saying that is her view, and in fact her study here contradicts that view: Her argument is that the "widely-held view" is contradicted by the evidence of her study. I am not sure what you mean or what you are referring to here. When you say, "Canadian born white men" you are referring to Canadian born non-visible-minorities right? Notwithstanding that the bar for Canadian born non-visible-minorities includes - I would think - all age groups of that demographic, it also shows that the longer people are here the lower their unemployment rate. However, if you average all the bars for the unemployment rates for foreign born visible minorities, it comes out to 6.26% which is more or less equal to the unemployment rate of Canadian born non-visible minorities. I have never met a Canadian affirmative action champion refer to race as a factor, have you? If you have, were there enough of them to convince you that all affirmative action processes refer to race as a factor? Now, you have taken the author's words and modified them to suit your point, so let's clarify what the author says and see if affirmative action is supposed to help: The author's emphasis is on 'lack of,' not 'absence of' as you saying. So, should previous work experience outside of Canada be discounted?

Yes, as a figure of speech, I did and do.

Ah. I see. And of course, 3 years later, what our "beloved UN" had to say has really had a major impact in this policy area. Almost as effective as our beloved gawking American. We sure do!

I think everyone does agree, with the exception of Saipan, who is in a 'special' category of his own.

How be you tell me since you are aware of some "test." It isn't a racist term and thus not inherently racist and you have mis-read the definition, if you have read the definition at all. Like I said, no need to go there because you really don't comprehend the term 'aboriginal' which is understandable, since you are American.

Perhaps. But posing a make-believe scenario - a fairy tale - with no basis in reality and then asking for a review of the "logic" is, well, kinda funny actually. No what is silly - in a sick and twisted way - is to post the above, after having posted this: Basically you have invalidated your own, original statement, by saying that it cannot be proven true. Therefore, as I have already said, it is a non-starter argument. However, from the point of view of affirmative action programs - regardless of what is going "through the minds" of hiring managers, visible minority is a target group - not any race or skin colour. Therefore, at the end of the day, the only "type" of person hired is a visible minority. See? You don't know what you are talking about after all. I "seize upon a particular race" because your example "siezed on a particular race" and no matter what race you use, it is invalid for every and all cases and any race that is included in the defintion of visible minority. Something you seem to have real difficulty grasping. (here I use the term "example" very loosely) Let me show you exactly how your ideology shines through here because you don't have a clue how affirmative action works: "Thus in one case a Black person is hired over a more competent White person..." First of all, when a position is targeted for a visible minority hire, no other groups are considered for that position. So the "competent White person" isn't even considered as part of the process, neither are aboriginals. Not only that, but making such an idiotic statement precludes that no matter what, there will be a "White person" who is more competent than any visible minority hire for any job considered. You are the one that demanded an accounting of the logic provided in a fairy tale made-up "example." If anything is absurd, it was your original assertion, which is a non-starting, out to lunch premise to begin with. Visible minorities in the labour force: 20 years of change Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada 200809 There ya go. Show me all that horrible racism going on. Please. Comb through, take a very detailed read and make the evil racism of affirmative action plain for the whole world to see. You won't because you can't. Let's be honest, there isn't much more to it than that.

We reflected further -since that 2007 recomenddation - and came to the conclusion that it is a non-starter argument that is out to lunch - UN or not. "Visible minority" is not inherently racist because it does not refer to any single race or group or races and it's opposite, non-visible minority, also does not refer to any particular race or group of races. Furthermore, the term 'visible minority' as used for affirmative action programs is a discretionary term based upon the choice of the applicant to identify with the term or not. If you want to be clear about the language used, try doing a little research on the meaning of the terms. I am betting you know even less about the term "aboriginal" as it applies to affirmative action programs as well, but there is no need to go there. Stick to gawking.

Hmmmm... a little de Tocqueville reflection going on perhaps? So when individuals - who are free to choose - make the choice to act as an incorporated collective or to address equality collectively, they are somehow now bad - or "retrograde" for exercising their freedom of choice? Isn't equating the Catholic Church and so-called progressives, kind of like equating apples and oranges? Because what it appears you are saying is that the "modern socialists and leftists" (at least in this country) - you know, those folks who came up with medicare, welfare, social assistance and affirmative actions programs - to mention a few - designed these programs to ensure the avoidance the tyranny of the majority. So what it sounds like you are saying is that those people - who wish to avoid the tyranny of the majority - themselves make up the majority so they have to somehow resist themselves because of their tyranny of wanting to avoid the tyranny of the majority? Romance is a nice genre so long as you don't hold the condition to be true in all circumstances. Otherwise you risk the story turning tragic pretty quickly. But it's your choice.

Bloodyminded's Mom. Here's the citation link on the Internet. There, it is no longer anecdotal.

There, how's this fix:

How so B-C? Please, do tell...

This from a guy who starts off with this wonderful gem, not even a statement of fact, but "supporting evidence" hinging on a make-believe scenario and then asks me to explain 'the logic' of the make-believe scenario, one which has never happened or to which he cannot - and does not - supply any proof whatsoever. Riiiiight. So let's review: So let's take a look at this: I have already - and very easily I might add - countered your make-believe scenario with a statement based in fact: No government manager anywhere in Canada or any province or territory has hired someone because they are Black. So there is no "preference to Blacks." Because any hire under any affirmative action program does not specify skin colour, eye configuration nor any other aspect of ethnicity; it specifies 'visible minority' and as you surely must be aware by now the term visible minority does not equate to "blacks." Now, if you have overwhelming evidence that affirmative action hires were done specifically based on hiring blacks - sufficient enough to overturn the meaning of the term 'visible minority' to specifically refer to blacks - or any other race or ethnicity - then you might be on to something. But the onus is on you to provide this overwhelming evidence and you can't. Because it doesn't exist and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't have to provide a make-believe scenario as your main premise in the first place. Therefore your entire argument is invalidated. Out to lunch. It doesn't even have to qualify as wrong, because it is a non-starting, nothing argument. If you want to argue fairy tales, just say so. How on earth can one "personalize" any anonymous discussion? Besides, me saying: this is not meant as an insult, but as another statement of fact and a premise in my argument. Now if you have some evidence to the contrary, please feel free to respond to it, but whining about it does not constitute evidence at all.

What "race" is a visible minority?

There isn't any logic to explain because your original premise is out to lunch. No government manager anywhere in Canada or any province or territory has hired someone because they are Black. So there is no "preference to Blacks." Which confims the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and also completely misunderstand what affirmative action is, how it is defined, its terms of reference and operation and how it is implemented. What you are trying to do is weasel your ideology onto the back of affirmative action, but because you don't have a clue about it, your ideology is exposed for what it is.

Ah, The Saipan Method at play again. I bet you think you win most, if not all, of your arguments.

You are equating the manufacturing sector with the private sector as a whole, which is a mistake. Canada, 35 million people in the second largest country in the world, with most of the population within 100 miles of the longest undefended border in the world. And we are G8. Yeah, we're doing OK.