Woman Denied Gov't Job Because of Race

[Borg]

It is only racism if the colour is other than white

If the colour is white then it is retributive justice

No such thing as racism if the colour is white - canuckleland human rights tribunals prove that on a daily basis

Borg

[justme]

It is only racism if the colour is other than white

If the colour is white then it is retributive justice

No such thing as racism if the colour is white - canuckleland human rights tribunals prove that on a daily basis

Borg

True, but it's global. Zimbabwe is trying to push the last few remaining white farmers off their land and out of the country, but that's not racism. A million white people have been forced to leave South Africa due to safety concerns since the fall of apartheid and South Africa now has an "affirmintive action" program to benefit the black majority, but that's not racism. It is only racist if preference is given to the majority in a country where the majority is white. It is racist if Americans are against millions of illegal Mexicans in their country, but Mexico's harsh laws against illegals are not - nor is it racist when the police in Singapore beat the crap out of illegals to discourage more from coming. There's nothing wrong with India's Caste system, but if they were white, it would be another matter. Americans must never forget slavery and people that were born long after it was abolished must continue to feel guilty for it, but hey, forget about the fact that slavery existed in the Middle East from biblical times up to the 19th century. There are reports about slavery still existing in Sudan, but let's forget about that too. Black people killed other black people at a faster rate than the holocaust in Rwanda, but somehow white people are responsible for that as well. Forget about all of this; we all know that racism is exclusively white.

[bloodyminded]

But in fact, it isn't racism. You may wish it to be, but it isn't.

It is discrimination, but designed to ameliorate the conditions of a disadvantaged group. Our society is full of such discriminations and it always has been. You are just finding fault with that now?

Patently false. I know plenty of unilingual English people that work for Federal departments and agencies - including the military and RCMP, that live in the West. MOST "government jobs" are not bilingual required. As well, if you were unilingual and qualify for a blingual job, the Federal government has an excellent French language training program. Not sure where you get your information about Federal government jobs, but it could use an update from credible sources.

True, Shwa. My girlfriend works for the Provincial government...but this is NB, which is more than 30% French--and her bilingual skills were considered a necessity...and why?

Because only one of the six employees spoke French (ie below the provincial average by a long shot).

So yes, her bilingualism played a major part in her getting the job.

But because it was desperately needed.

You know, I've managed to chalk up 43 years as a white unilingual man, and I'm having difficulty perceiving all this intolerable oppression evidently aimed at me.

Edited July 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[charter.rights]

True, Shwa. My girlfriend works for the Provincial government...but this is NB, which is more than 30% French--and her bilingual skills were considered a necessity...and why?

Because only one of the six employees spoke French (ie below the provincial average by a long shot).

So yes, her bilingualism played a major part in her getting the job.

But because it was desperately needed.

You know, I've managed to chalk up 43 years as a white unilingual man, and I'm having difficulty perceiving all this intolerable oppression evidently aimed at me.

You hit the nail on the head.

Affirmative action in the government tilts the scale in the direction of ~some~ minorities because "it is needed". There is no doubt that the people to be selected under the amelioration will possess the qualifications to do the job, but will score higher because they fit into that "needed" category.

[Argus]

No it isn't racist and you co-opting the word for your own special purposes doesn't make it racist either.

I speak English quite well, thank you. I'm not sure you can say the same. All you're proving here is that you don't know what racism is. I presume that like others on the Left, racism is any time you feel you want to accuse a white person of doing anything wrong.

But your frantic denial that race-based hiring quotas are racist only goes to show that you approve of racism.

[Argus]

As well, if you were unilingual and qualify for a blingual job, the Federal government has an excellent French language training program. Not sure where you get your information about Federal government jobs, but it could use an update from credible sources.

Not sure where YOU get your information but it is false. The federal government has virtually no language training programs any more. For the most part it allows training only for those in fairly high, management positions, and even then the manager in question has to wait years and fight through mountains of paperwork designed to prevent anyone from getting language training. The training is given at the lowest bidder site of whichever language school can scrape together a bid, and from what I've heard of numerous people who have attended, is extremely sub-standard as compared to good language schools. Most anglos fail the tests, even after a year of training.

Language training has been gradually curtailed by various Quebec-centred administrations. Likewise most of the "bilingual non-imperative" positions have also been done away with. I gather that the Quebec ministers and Official language commisioners felt this gave too much opportunity for Anglophones to be hired and promoted, and that this was not in Quebec's interests.

[Argus]

Do not question Argus...

He has an elite brain you are not equipped with!

This continuing hissy fit you're running, little girl, and the shrill, whiny posts which accompany it might be good venting for you, but I'm pretty sure all you're doing is further lowering whatever slight respect you had in the eyes of anyone sane here.

[Argus]

You know, I've managed to chalk up 43 years as a white unilingual man, and I'm having difficulty perceiving all this intolerable oppression evidently aimed at me.

Work for the federal government and perhaps you'll have less difficulty.

[charter.rights]

This continuing hissy fit you're running, little girl, and the shrill, whiny posts which accompany it might be good venting for you, but I'm pretty sure all you're doing is further lowering whatever slight respect you had in the eyes of anyone sane here.

Nope. He is actually elevating his status here. It is YOU that is losing ground towards oblivion.

[Molly]

I speak English quite well, thank you. I'm not sure you can say the same. All you're proving here is that you don't know what racism is. I presume that like others on the Left, racism is any time you feel you want to accuse a white person of doing anything wrong.

But your frantic denial that race-based hiring quotas are racist only goes to show that you approve of racism.

What of it? Why would it matter whether the word 'racist' applies or does not? How much weight should be granted to, and how much policy should be founded in weasel semantics?

The issue is unfair advantage/disadvantage because of group identification, ignoring of individual merit. There is no question that such unfair advantage/disadvantage exists, because affirmative action doesn't even kick in until it's statistically beyond obvious.

Do you have a problem with fighting fire with fire? I don't.

[charter.rights]

Work for the federal government and perhaps you'll have less difficulty.

Yup I worked for the federal government to, was evaluated on merit and my ethnicity tipped the scales to get me the job.

And that was 30 years ago.

[charter.rights]

What of it? Why would it matter whether the word 'racist' applies or does not? How much weight should be granted to, and how much policy should be founded in weasel semantics?

The issue is unfair advantage/disadvantage because of group identification, ignoring of individual merit. There is no question that such unfair advantage/disadvantage exists, because affirmative action doesn't even kick in until it's statistically beyond obvious.

Do you have a problem with fighting fire with fire? I don't.

As I understand it people are hired according to a blind scoring method. Qualifications score high, but all things being equal ethnicity tips the scale.

Of course merit does not equate to being a kiss-ass or a misogynistic member of the old boy's club....

[Argus]

Nope. He is actually elevating his status here. It is YOU that is losing ground towards oblivion.

If you'll read back, I specifically said "of anyone sane".

Clearly I wasn't speaking about you.

[Argus]

The issue is unfair advantage/disadvantage because of group identification, ignoring of individual merit.

If you could actually identify an unfairness involved you'd have a point. But you assume an unfairness because of unequal results. Equal opportunity is not what you're after. You'r after equal results. Therefore, to you, unequal results - which by the way, is a very communist notion - must be eliminated.

There is no question that such unfair advantage/disadvantage exists, because affirmative action doesn't even kick in until it's statistically beyond obvious.

Uhm, really? Perhaps I'm unaware of ANY statistical information which says that all visible minority groups are unfairly disadvantaged. In fact, I'm not aware of ANY such statistical information which actually demonstrates unfairness.

As I have already pointed out, when you have a group which is primarily made up of foreigners, who of course, will have poorer communications skills, then you would not expect them to be as succesful as locally born people, even given the utmost fairness in hiring.

[Argus]

Yup I worked for the federal government to, was evaluated on merit and my ethnicity tipped the scales to get me the job.

And that was 30 years ago.

You mean you were hired over more qualified people because of your ethnicity.

[Argus]

As I understand it people are hired according to a blind scoring method. Qualifications score high, but all things being equal ethnicity tips the scale.

And if White people aren't allowed to apply then that scale doesn't even need much tipping, now does it.

[charter.rights]

If you'll read back, I specifically said "of anyone sane".

Clearly I wasn't speaking about you.

You can't talk about me because your being wholly insane, you wouldn't recognize reality and sanity if you tripped over it. The best you can do is draw reference from your own myths and delusions. Most people here I suspect, get your detachment from reality and like a nearly dead mouse are just giving you a flip or two...

Edited July 25, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

And if White people aren't allowed to apply then that scale doesn't even need much tipping, now does it.

Nope. Because this kind of discrimination is permitted and protected under the Charter, in order to balance the workplace equitably. However, the idea that a "white" female is being rejected is nothing more than a media sensation because there is no such thing as a "white" race. If she was rejected because she is an uni-lingual English-speaking Caucasian female then perhaps that is identifiable as an excluded group.

However, you have lost focus on the story since she was not rejected because she was "white" or English only. She was prohibited from applying for this particular job because she was not aboriginal or a visible minority, which means the position must have required some "need" for minority representation. Which would mean that the workplace was over-represented by English or French speaking Caucasians already. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the amelioration of this inequity allows the government to excluded certain groups in order to better represent the population fabric in the public service.

[Argus]

However, you have lost focus on the story since she was not rejected because she was "white" or English only. She was prohibited from applying for this particular job because she was not aboriginal or a visible minority,

Sooo, she wasn't discriminated against because she was White... she was discriminated against because she wasn't non-White.

Okayyyy.

[charter.rights]

Sooo, she wasn't discriminated against because she was White... she was discriminated against because she wasn't non-White.

Okayyyy.

Nope. She was discriminated against because she did not fit the target group. A redhead cannot demand a job at a blond convention.

There is no racial group called "white". So she must belong to some other group that is not aboriginal or visible minority.

Edited July 25, 2010 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

I speak English quite well, thank you. I'm not sure you can say the same. All you're proving here is that you don't know what racism is. I presume that like others on the Left, racism is any time you feel you want to accuse a white person of doing anything wrong.

But your frantic denial that race-based hiring quotas are racist only goes to show that you approve of racism.

I am unilingual English and have written policy documents for a couple of government departments (working for and with), in addition to the requisite letters, memos and manuals. All in excellent English. What is your claim to expertise in English? The ability to PA files?

I know exactly what racism is, and the term doesn't apply here in any meaningful sense and you know it. If you disagree then I have already asked you how non-aboriginal and non-visible minorities denote a race. I did notice you conveniently skipped over that.

[Argus]

I am unilingual English and have written policy documents for a couple of government departments (working for and with), in addition to the requisite letters, memos and manuals. All in excellent English. What is your claim to expertise in English? The ability to PA files?

Uhm, since government policy documents and manuals are designed, not to inform, but to obfuscate, I'm not sure that's much of a claim to communications skills.

And every idiot has written letters and memos. None of which, by the way, shows any level of expertise. The fact you wrote them doesn't mean people could read them and understand the message.

I am paid to write. In the private sector. If I didn't communicate effectively, I would not be paid.

In government, incomprehensibility is no deterrence to anything. Some of the most bemusing and confusing documents ever created by man came from government. Actually, most of them have.

I know exactly what racism is, and the term doesn't apply here in any meaningful sense and you know it. If you disagree then I have already asked you how non-aboriginal and non-visible minorities denote a race. I did notice you conveniently skipped over that.

If the ad says no Blacks need apply I'm pretty sure you'd accept that as racist.

The fact is says no White people need apply is of no importance to you, however.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Argus

[Shwa]

Not sure where YOU get your information but it is false. The federal government has virtually no language training programs any more.

Really?

Canada School of Public Service - Language Training Programs and Courses

Language Research Development Group

Not to mention all the private language courses covered by various departmental programs such as ROT.

Seriously Argus, you need to get your head out of your ass. You can barely discuss aspects of your own employer and from what I remember, that is a competency they look for when grading staff for career advancement. No wonder you are stuck in a rut.

[Shwa]

Uhm, since government policy documents and manuals are designed, not to inform, but to obfuscate, I'm not sure that's much of a claim to communications skills.

Riiiiight. Sure, whatever you say perfesser. Becuz, you no, we wants to "obfuscate" the soldier ina awpration of thu ekwipments hes gotta youse.

If the ad says no Blacks need apply I'm pretty sure you'd accept that as racist.

The fact is says no White people need apply is of no importance to you, however.

Did the ad say "no White people need apply?" Because if it didn't you whole premise comes off the rails. Again. As usual.

[bloodyminded]

I am paid to write. In the private sector. If I didn't communicate effectively, I would not be paid.

Surely you've read enough garbage from the private sector to know--I mean know, for sure and absolutely--that this isn't the case.

Here's Ann Coulter; it is not "effective" communication, but a stupid idea couched in incoherent writing:

“[Liberals] adore pornography and the mechanization of sex because man is just an animal, and they are gods.”

The profound stupidity of the barely-decipherable idea aside...this is plain, old-fashioned poor writing.