Time to right some wrongs

[CANADIEN]

Your assessment of what constitutes a right appears to be one of those taken from the human rights industries as opposed to the fundamental human rights as guaranteed in constitutions and such.

Governments violate your human rights. Some guy named Big Al who doesn't want to hire you to work in his garage is not violating your "rights".

He does if his decision has nothing to do with your capacity to do the job or his business needs.. Deal with it.

[CANADIEN]

If there was - how do you know this person even applied? Even if this person did apply - why should he / she go to the top of the pile?

Lots of places to find jobs - you believe the company should actively recruit "others"? I do not - it is an expensive process.

Affirmative action? Reverse discrimination?

Competition for jobs is fierce and sometimes qualifications is not the deciding factor - team building, personality and ability to get along are three other reasons.

People get hired and or not hired for a hell of a pile of reasons - colour is low on the list to the point of not being on the radar - all you have to do is look around - and those who bitch about it do so if only to further their own causes.

Do not get the job - cry racism - that really makes the rest of the world love you more - not!

Walk in to an office for an interview - the person forms an opinion of you within a few minutes. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose - that is the way it is.

Lots of white folks - they are also a people of colour - do not get the jobs either - and the reasons are various - so quite your whining folks.

Even California dropped affirmative action.

Borg

We are not talking about affirmative action here. Nor are we talking about people who will not hire somone based on legitime business needs or assessment of someone's skills.

We are talking about racist and bigoted employers.

And service providers.

So quit finding excuses for them.

[CANADIEN]

Wow, this premise is even weaker than usual from the Liberal Cheerleader.

His proof that The Conservatives are going to eliminate all HRCs?

A link to an op-ed piece by nobody that matters, and not a single reference to enabling legislation or quote from a govt member.

Classic.

If he didn't matter, the Globe and Mail would not have published his op-ed.

[g_bambino]

Which is why I think the Human Rights Tribinals should become an investigative body and leave court proceedings to... the courts.

Hmmm... I agree that courts are where court proceedings should take place, but "investigative body" still has too much of a Gestapo ring to it. Besides, we already have plenty of police forces to handle investigations. What purpose does that leave for the HRCs? Besides superficial political correctness, I can't think of one. But, then again, I'm feeling pretty tired right now...

[CANADIEN]

So, we need to make a law stating you will hire one person of minority status to every ..... 10 people who are not minority status?

Or perhaps every time a business opens in China Town the store will have to hire a white guy / gal?

That should go a long way to eliminating white unemployment in Vancouver.

Or whatabout the Korean on the west coast that refused to re-new leases to anyone who was white?

HRC has never indicated it can do anything other than bring nusance complaints to non binding arbitration through unrealistic solutions..

I am all in favour of making this law - I can just see it now - Mohawk gas station opens and the local indian population forced to hire whites. Or better - the local gay community book store forced to hire Catholic church members due to HRC rulings. Annual Black movie and enertainment awards night forced to allow enties from mulem community. What the heck - one more - black community holds their annual "Black is beautiful" celebration and is forced to hire white promotion company AND allow Tamil entries.

You are on a slippery slope. But your heart is in the right place - just need to engage the mind ... oh, and tell those who cannot find a job that maybe there is more to it than their colour. In fact even this "I am entitled due to my race" attitude makes me figure that I would not want them working for me.

Borg

We are not talking about quotas. We are not talking about hiring people because of their skin colour or religion or sexual orientation. We are not talking about legetimate grounds, related to an employer or organization's nature and mandate, for hring members of specific groups.

We are talking about the rental building manager of Korean descent who says to a White has applicant "sorry, just rented it"" then realizes that the appartment has not been rented after all when the guy's Korean schoolmate shows up ten minutes later. We're talking about an electronic stores chain that in the early 1990's was ordring its managers never to hire women as sales clerks. We're talking about restaurant or hotel woners that will not serve people of a certain skin color.

Your attempt at confusing the two proves that your mind is on the disengaged mode.

[CANADIEN]

Hmmm... I agree that courts are where court proceedings should take place, but "investigative body" still has too much of a Gestapo ring to it. Besides, we already have plenty of police forces to handle investigations. What purpose does that leave for the HRCs? Besides superficial political correctness, I can't think of one. But, then again, I'm feeling pretty tired right now...

Gestapo? You need a rest.

We are not talking about crimes here, so the cops are not the solution. Looking into allegations of discrimination or harassment should be done by people trained for it.

[Oleg Bach]

Gestapo? You need a rest.

We are not talking about crimes here, so the cops are not the solution. Looking into allegations of discrimination or harassment should be done by people trained for it.

Harassment - bad...discrimination and good judgement = good. There is no such thing as a "trained" people- just conditioned people to up hold political correctness..what we need are real judges - those that can and will adhere to the concept of good and bad and not some morally neutral code that amounts to debasement and control of the people.

[Borg]

We are not talking about affirmative action here. Nor are we talking about people who will not hire somone based on legitime business needs or assessment of someone's skills.

We are talking about racist and bigoted employers.

And service providers.

So quit finding excuses for them.

One and the same. So yes we are talking about them. Including those who are minority business owners.

What excuse?

You did not even make an attempt to prove me wrong.

So tell you what - go back to your home land and vote for separation - if we are lucky you will win.

Borg

Edited May 21, 2009 by Borg

[Bryan]

Discrimination is a part of life. legislating against it, and having commissions fight it, is artificial and solves nothing.

All hiring is discriminatory by its very nature, as is the selection process for almost anything. If an employer doesn't like you, he's not likely to hire you. Why he doesn't like you is completely irrelevant.

It's perfectly legitimate for a Chinese owned and operated business that caters primarily to Chinese customers to openly decide to hire only Chinese employees. It's perfectly legitimate for a faith based organization to openly decide to only hire like minded individuals. Doing otherwise would be counter to their reason for existing. Forcing them to play this game of finding some other reason to decide who they choose is a farce.

[tango]

Discrimination is a part of life. legislating against it, and having commissions fight it, is artificial and solves nothing.

All hiring is discriminatory by its very nature, as is the selection process for almost anything. If an employer doesn't like you, he's not likely to hire you. Why he doesn't like you is completely irrelevant.

It's perfectly legitimate for a Chinese owned and operated business that caters primarily to Chinese customers to openly decide to hire only Chinese employees. It's perfectly legitimate for a faith based organization to openly decide to only hire like minded individuals. Doing otherwise would be counter to their reason for existing. Forcing them to play this game of finding some other reason to decide who they choose is a farce.

Selection based on qualifications required for the job is one thing, and qualifications can include knowledge and comfort in the culture and language(s) served.

Where discrimination arises is when qualifications are equal or better, and discrimination is the only basis for refusal to hire.

They are fine distinctions, but important ones, and the work of the commissions is necessary to make those distinctions, imo.

[CANADIEN]

One and the same. So yes we are talking about them. Including those who are minority business owners.

What excuse?

You did not even make an attempt to prove me wrong.

You mean I failed to agree with your badly disguised prejudice.

So tell you what - go back to your home land and vote for separation - if we are lucky you will win.

My homeland? why would I want CANADA to separate, and from whom?

Edited May 22, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Argus]

Clearly you’re missing the point. You’re working from the premise that discrimination happens and we should just accept it and move on. That in my mind is no different than accepting the fact that crime happens and we should just move on and quit whining about it. Why bother with our expensive judicial system it clearly hasn’t eliminated crime entirely so let’s just scrap it. Truly this is no less ridiculous.

Crime is merely the violation of law. If you make the law broad enough then everyone will be helpless to avoid breaking it. That is why you should only outlaw that which causes people substantial harm. Hitting people can cause harm. Stealing from them causes harm. Not renting a room to them doesn't really cause any harm.

I’m not suggesting affirmative action, that minorities get special treatment or that companies should have to actively recruit minorities. What I am suggesting is that the HRC fulfill its true purpose as a watchdog to ensure EQUAL treatment.

The HRC has interpeted "equal" to mean affirmative action, that minorities get special treatment, and that companies should have to actively recruit and promote minorities.

Honestly all the criteria you listed are in fact qualifications. That’s why especially in a city the size of Toronto that it is nigh on impossible that there is not even one qualified black man in the entire city to work at this much cited hypothetical factory. Do you honestly believe that to be a realistic line of thinking?

And yet there are, as has been stated, factories and businesses where you will find no whites working. And I don't think the HRC will ever even consider looking into that sort of thing.

[Argus]

It is more than that and you know it. It is denying placements in schools, jobs, neighbourhoods. And no, sometimes you are not better off.

Those things happen from time to time, with our without HRCs. I see no evidence that the existence of HRCs has affected that in the slightest.

I understand that some Conservative supporters are angry and spout filth in their attacks on people they don't like such as gays, immigrants and a host of others but really, do you think it is going to make people want to eliminate human rights legislation so that you can act openly that way?

I don't know, but whatever I think it's my thought, as oppposed to coming from party meetings and muck-raking strategy offices where people with the moral strength of pimps and drug dealers try to imagine ways to scare people with distortions and lies.

I'm not a Conservative supporter, bt. It's more like I'm a Liberal Opposer, because that party is infested with the sleaziest, slimiest, self-promoting, dishonest political scum in the country.

[Argus]

The "fine" example of homophobia aside..

See, this is why normal people snicker behind the backs of all the PC cretins who see "homophobia" and "racism" at every corner, because it's so clear they don't know what the words are and simply use them as all-purpose epithets.

The moment our Government says "discrimination by the private sector is no business of the Government", there will be more businesses and employers discriminating. Not as much as the good old day when that kind of practices helped ensure that neighbourhood were white only, but it will happen. And you know it... you'd do it yourself at every opportunity.

Since your insight into the human condition leaves me wondering whether you are, even on your best days, capable of tying your shoes without written directions and a government paid personal assistance worker to help, I have to wonder at where you get such insight into what I would and would not do. Or what anyone else would or would not do. Sure there is some amount of discrimination. But the HRCs do nothing whatsoever about that except in the .0001% of the cases where someone makes it obvious and someone else decides to make a federal (or provincial case out of it. So it's affect on the community at large is minimal, at best.

[Argus]

And most illegal immigrants are not caught. I for one think we should put more resources into stopping them. Same her.

Yes, pointless as that may be given your determination that every single one caught deserves a seven or eight year long appeals process at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars - not to mention living on welfare that entire time.

Discrimination is an attack on a person's dignity as a human being. it's telling him/her "no matter what, you're not worthy enough". I am sure this is fine by you. Fortunately, most of society does not think so.

What a load of brainless manure that one is.

We discriminate every single day on the basis of all manner of criteria. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that you're a lot more likely to be discriminated against in hiring if you're short or fat or ugly than black or gay - not to mention discriminated against in every other aspect of life, as well. But we as a society have never moved to do a single thing about that. In fact, society as a whole discriminates against short people, fat people, ugly people (especialy women) or anyone else who does not meet our definition of attractiveness. I know very nice women who, for example, have said, in effect "oh I'd never date a bald guy" so there is more routine discrimination. I know men who would never date a flat-chested woman. And they certainly would never date a tall woman, or one taller than them, anyway. Women I know would never date a man shorter than them, especially if he was much shorter. More discrimination! We discriminate against people with glasses, against people with bad teeth, against people with funny voices, or acne or big ears, and we do it as a society, in every conceivable aspect of life. I've joked that instead of waiting around, desperately trying to find service at Home Depot, I now only go with an attractive woman, because she gets quick service. It's like these orange jerseyed guys fall off the shelves to be of assistance! Discrimination!

The world is filled with discrimination on the basis of appearance. Your self-righteosness in wanting to spend a fortune to try to address a few such instances involving politically preferred groups strikes me as pathetic and dumb.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

He does if his decision has nothing to do with your capacity to do the job or his business needs.. Deal with it.

As I said, most of you people don't even have the vaguest notion of what human rights are.

Sad, the state of our education system.

[Argus]

Selection based on qualifications required for the job is one thing, and qualifications can include knowledge and comfort in the culture and language(s) served.

Where discrimination arises is when qualifications are equal or better, and discrimination is the only basis for refusal to hire.

They are fine distinctions, but important ones, and the work of the commissions is necessary to make those distinctions, imo.

Most of you have probably never been in a position to hire anyone.

I have been. I can attest that, in general, anyone who gets an interview is capable of doing the job. We've already gone through their resumes, and their test scores. In fact, in government, the fact they've even gotten into the placement pool means they have been determined to have the requisite skills to do the work. When we interview people we try to find out what's behind the mask, what kind of people they are, how well they'd fit in as team players, how well they'd get along with everyone else on the team, whether they seem to be the responsible, energetic type. Sometimes it's down to intangibles, a feeling you have that's hard to explain. Basically, unless they have to answer skill-type questions, it comes down to personality, and our assessment of them. We have never opted not to select someone because of skin colour. Nor could I say sexuality has ever even entered into the deliberations. I can say that there is active, if generally unspoken discrimination in favour of attractive women - by both male panelists, and in favour of attractive men by female panelists (who are more open about it, btw). Aside from that, any discrimination against visible minorities is largely due to their generally poor communications skills. The only visible minority members we have hired have been Canadian born - ie, no accent, and the same sorts of personality traits as one would find with any white candidates.

I can also say that it's extremely easy to discriminate against someone if you want to. All you need is the proper weasel words in support of your decision to hire X instead of Y, and this despite the fortune in time and effort the government puts into ensuring there is no discrimination in hiring.

[Argus]

I doubt that there would be many people not willing to rent or sell to Jews only. But to let's say, Blacks? Considering how much you like the idea of having them as neighbours, I think we've just got example #1.

The Blacks I had as neighbours were Somalians. I admit to not thinking much of them. But my neighbour across the aisle from me at work is Black, and a very nice guy. Has no accent so I assume he was born here. I don't treat him any differently than anyone else, and don't expect any different behaviour from him than from anyone else.

Now if I saw him dressed in ghetto banger gear and slurring his words like a degenerate street gang boy my opinion of him would radically change. But my opinion of those idiotic blondes who dress and talk like gang bangers is equally poor.

[g_bambino]

Gestapo? You need a rest.

We are not talking about crimes here, so the cops are not the solution.

As you've generally been polite with me before, I'll ignore the snippiness this time.

If we're not at least talking about investigations into alleged crimes, what are we discussing, then? I thought it was fairly well established that HRCs are quasi-legal, and, can supoena for questioning an individual who has been accused of a breach of the law; HRC interrogations are serious enough that the defendant needs, at his cost, the services of a lawyer. I'm curious to know what is it you believe occurs once a person has submitted to the HRC their complaint of a human rights violation.

[CANADIEN]

If we're not at least talking about investigations into alleged crimes, what are we discussing, then?

Discriminatory acts are not crimes under the Criminal aCt even though they're illegal.

Edited May 22, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

The Blacks I had as neighbours were Somalians. I admit to not thinking much of them. But my neighbour across the aisle from me at work is Black, and a very nice guy. Has no accent so I assume he was born here. I don't treat him any differently than anyone else, and don't expect any different behaviour from him than from anyone else.

Yet you lament the good 'ole days when your surroundings were all white.

Yet, it you're nice neighbour had been born in jamaica, you would advocate barring him. And let's not foorget, if we go back two, three, four generations, we'll probalby find an ancestor of his from one of those places not suitable enough.

Edited May 22, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Yes, pointless as that may be given your determination that every single one caught deserves a seven or eight year long appeals process at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars - not to mention living on welfare that entire time.

Considering that I said six months max, this says a lot about your reading skills.

What a load of brainless manure that one is.

Yet, you wrote it.

[CANADIEN]

As I said, most of you people don't even have the vaguest notion of what human rights are.

As usual, what you say and facts are two separate and opposite concepts.

[CANADIEN]

Most of you have probably never been in a position to hire anyone.

I have.

I have been. I can attest that, in general, anyone who gets an interview is capable of doing the job. We've already gone through their resumes, and their test scores. In fact, in government, the fact they've even gotten into the placement pool means they have been determined to have the requisite skills to do the work.

And when an employer makes it known to its manager that women should not be hired to ll tv's, is it because of their lack of skills?

When we interview people we try to find out what's behind the mask, what kind of people they are, how well they'd fit in as team players, how well they'd get along with everyone else on the team, whether they seem to be the responsible, energetic type. Sometimes it's down to intangibles, a feeling you have that's hard to explain. Basically, unless they have to answer skill-type questions, it comes down to personality, and our assessment of them. We have never opted not to select someone because of skin colour. Nor could I say sexuality has ever even entered into the deliberations. I can say that there is active, if generally unspoken discrimination in favour of attractive women - by both male panelists, and in favour of attractive men by female panelists (who are more open about it, btw). Aside from that, any discrimination against visible minorities is largely due to their generally poor communications skills. The only visible minority members we have hired have been Canadian born - ie, no accent, and the same sorts of personality traits as one would find with any white candidates.

You chose to reserve the whining about immigrant emplouee this and immigrant employee that for after the hiring. Want some brownie point?

I can also say that it's extremely easy to discriminate against someone if you want to. All you need is the proper weasel words in support of your decision to hire X instead of Y, and this despite the fortune in time and effort the government puts into ensuring there is no discrimination in hiring.

If they're not caught, it's OK?

[CANADIEN]

Crime is merely the violation of law. If you make the law broad enough then everyone will be helpless to avoid breaking it. That is why you should only outlaw that which causes people substantial harm. Hitting people can cause harm. Stealing from them causes harm. Not renting a room to them doesn't really cause any harm.

You really do think that racism and discrimination are not harmful? What distant galaxy are you from?

Edited May 22, 2009 by CANADIEN