Woman Denied Gov't Job Because of Race

[Argus]

Hydra, the public service agency that oversees hiring and promotion also have a database of the public service workforce, as I'm sure all agencies and departments also maintain. That database allows them to build profiles around the ethnic groups already represented in the public service, by agency and department. This profile is compared to the representation of those ethnic groups in the general population.

Yeah, this is the problem. First, every in depth study has shown that visible minorities under-report themselves in these studies. Either they are paranoid and think reporting their minority status will cause the racist government to not hire them, or they don't really consider themselves to be visible minorities, as in hispanics and lighter skinned arabs.

Second, the public service is drawn largely from the area around Ottawa. This isn't going to reflect the country at large. Third, a very, very large % of visible minorities are immigrants with a variety of linguistic abilities and often with poor educational backgrounds. They are thus as not capable, to the same degree as people born and raised in Canada, of passing government tests, all of which focus heavily on communications skills. On top of that, most are unlikely to be bilingual in English and French.

For all these reasons, the % of visible minorities is bound to be lower than in the population at large. The government's response is to hire them whether they can do the job or not, just so they can show how liberal and unprejudiced they are.

[capricorn]

For all these reasons, the % of visible minorities is bound to be lower than in the population at large. The government's response is to hire them whether they can do the job or not, just so they can show how liberal and unprejudiced they are.

Good points. As I'm sure you know Argus, the federal bureaucracy is not big on renewal and mostly avoids change. It tends to keep the same old practices in place so as not to upset the empires senior mandarins have built up over the years. Cliques form throughout federal offices to protect the status quo.

Governments of all stripe have been reticent to impose change that could upset workers and their unions, upper management, minorities and their advocates. I have found this especially prevalent in human resources management.

[scribblet]

Someone started another thread, it appears that the gov't is taking notice and will review affirmative action.

[Shwa]

Yeah, this is the problem. First, every in depth study has shown that visible minorities under-report themselves in these studies. Either they are paranoid and think reporting their minority status will cause the racist government to not hire them, or they don't really consider themselves to be visible minorities, as in hispanics and lighter skinned arabs.

Of course, these timely reports from The Treasury Board on diversity and equity might be informative:

Demographic study of visible minorities in the federal Public Service - Feb. 2000

Regional demographic and equity profiles - Mar. 2001

Visible minority recruitment issues for the federal public service - Mar. 2002

Second, the public service is drawn largely from the area around Ottawa. This isn't going to reflect the country at large. Third, a very, very large % of visible minorities are immigrants with a variety of linguistic abilities and often with poor educational backgrounds. They are thus as not capable, to the same degree as people born and raised in Canada, of passing government tests, all of which focus heavily on communications skills. On top of that, most are unlikely to be bilingual in English and French.

Not quite. According to this Stats Canada report from Sept. 2009 only 1/3 of Federal employees work in Ottawa.

For all these reasons, the % of visible minorities is bound to be lower than in the population at large. The government's response is to hire them whether they can do the job or not, just so they can show how liberal and unprejudiced they are.

This passage doesn't make sense Argus. Ignore for a moment that only 1/3 of employees are from Ottawa, if there are less visible minorities that can't do the job then I don't think that shows "liberal and unprejudiced."

But now, let's not ignore that 2/3 of Federal Employees are not in Ottawa and let's not forget that a great deal of visible minorities in large urban areas can also be...children of immigrants or 1.5 generation that have enjoyed the benefits of our education system, I don't think your Ottawa-centric view quite covers the majority of public servants.

And I suspect it doesn't even cover the majority of visible minorities in the Federal Government in Ottawa. I can grant that you have encountered a few new Canadians that have their struggles in the Federal work place, but I would say this is the exception and not the rule.

Of course, you could create yourself a speadsheet and do a rough survey of those around you and report back to us...

Edited July 23, 2010 by Shwa

[Mr.Canada]

This policy is blatant racism. There's no other way to put it. To favor one racial group over another purely based on race is what's called racism no matter who's doing it or how well intentioned it is.

People should be judged on their character and skills instead of gender and race. If we really want equality then we must treat everyone as equals not one more favorably then another.

[charter.rights]

This policy is blatant racism. There's no other way to put it. To favor one racial group over another purely based on race is what's called racism no matter who's doing it or how well intentioned it is.

People should be judged on their character and skills instead of gender and race. If we really want equality then we must treat everyone as equals not one more favorably then another.

Nope it isn't "blatant racism". It is something we all must agree with IF we believe in the supremacy of law.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the 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.(5)

It is certainly a protected right for minorities to demand that public service jobs reflect equality in percentages for the points Shwa made earlier, especially since the government has primarily been an old boys club, in hiring and in management.

I would however, not hire you on merit because, well....you don;t have any....

[Mr.Canada]

Nope it isn't "blatant racism". It is something we all must agree with IF we believe in the supremacy of law.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the 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.(5)

It is certainly a protected right for minorities to demand that public service jobs reflect equality in percentages for the points Shwa made earlier, especially since the government has primarily been an old boys club, in hiring and in management.

I would however, not hire you on merit because, well....you don;t have any....

So excluding a person based on her race isn't racism according to you? If the applicant was a minority and was rejected based on race that'd be ok then is what you're saying right?

Whites are the minority in Toronto so I don't see what the problem is.

I play poker professionally online and most likely make much more money then you do and all from my home so I wouldn't need you to hire me...nice try. I was a union rep and quit that to play full time instead of part time. You're a lefty, so you should know what a union man would make per year.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[charter.rights]

So excluding a person based on her race isn't racism according to you? If the applicant was a minority and was rejected based on race that'd be ok then is what you're saying right?

Whites are the minority in Toronto so I don't see what the problem is.

I play poker professionally online and most likely make much more money then you do and all from my home so I wouldn't need you to hire me...nice try. I was a union rep and quit that to play full time instead of part time. You're a lefty, so you should know what a union man would make per year.

It isn't racism according to the Supreme Law of Canada and whites are not a "visible minority" in Canada.

The rest of your typical "ad hominen-can't-create-a-reasonable-argument" isn;t worth responding to.

I wonder if CRA is aware you are making money as well as collecting welfare and charity?

Edited July 23, 2010 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

So excluding a person based on her race isn't racism according to you? If the applicant was a minority and was rejected based on race that'd be ok then is what you're saying right?

No, it isn't "racism." It is a "...program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups..."

Keyword being: amerlioration

[Mr.Canada]

It isn't racism according to the Supreme Law of Canada and whites are not a "visible minority" in Canada.

The rest of your typical "ad hominen-can't-create-a-reasonable-argument" isn;t worth responding to.

I wonder if CRA is aware you are making money as well as collecting welfare and charity?

You stated that it's ok to discriminate against a are as long as it's whites who are being discriminated against. I'd like to understand how that is equality.

I collect welfare and charity? Whatever charity that may be. Provide proof that I collect welfare or retract your statement please.

I own a home and a car plus have various financial holdings, I wouldn't qualify for welfare at any rate.

You should be happy as I give thousands a year to the Kahnawake Gaming Commission, aka the Mohawks, in rake. As do many others who play, so I provide them with a living as well. I'm such a humanitarian.

No, it isn't "racism." It is a "...program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups..."

Keyword being: amerlioration

I don't believe that any groups are disadvantaged. We are all equal in this country. It appears that there is a systematic racism against white people here in this country.

Those on the left would rather import people to work for our government instead of hiring people who have perhaps been here for generations and have perhaps had relatives who have died for this country.

People should be considered for positions based on merit not on their gender, age or the colour of their skin. The best qualified person should get the job no matter what. BTW that's not to say that it would be a white person as I am sure that it wouldn't be all the time.

If we're going to have government reflect the population then how can you do that by excluding whites? Aren't whites a part of the Canadian society as well?

Edited July 23, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Shwa]

I don't believe that any groups are disadvantaged. We are all equal in this country. It appears that there is a systematic racism against white people here in this country.

Your beliefs are not the fault of the government.

Those on the left would rather import people to work for our government instead of hiring people who have perhaps been here for generations and have perhaps had relatives who have died for this country.

Well, not quite. Temporary foreign workers are used for farms all the time. If you believe all farmers "on the left" then I think there is something wrong with your beliefs.

People should be considered for positions based on merit not on their gender, age or the colour of their skin. The best qualified person should get the job no matter what. BTW that's not to say that it would be a white person as I am sure that it wouldn't be all the time.

Should all persons be considered for all positions based on merit and not say, whether they fought for this country, such as hire veterans practices or any other distinctive categories for hiring? Or are you limiting it to colour, age or gender?

If we're going to have government reflect the population then how can you do that by excluding whites? Aren't whites a part of the Canadian society as well?

The keyword was: amerlioration

[ironstone]

Did you ever ask yourself why the "merit principle" went "out the window?" Seems to me that bilingualism, affirmative action and employment equity programs were brought in to correct the flaws of the "merit principle" in the first place were they not?

Furthermore, I believe the operative principle is still merit in the federal public service.

Being from Ottawa,I know a number of people that work in the federal public service.I admit my sampling is quite small,but from what I know, most of these people got their jobs because friends or relatives got them in.Merit had little to do with it.

If this version of employment equity is so wonderful,does left wing logic not dictate that it be extended to the entire private sector as well?Last time I looked,the Ottawa Senators seem to be comprised of white males only.Shouldn't their team reflect the diversity of Ottawa?

How about the policy of hiring the best available person for a job,regardless of race,gender or whatever?

[punked]

Be afraid white people black people are coming for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgvBdlD7xUk

[PIK]

The rules state that even if you have one parent that is a visable minority that you are one to, so if you have a grandfather that is black or whatever and you look as white as white can be ,can you not say that since my GF was a VM then that makes my father a VM ,which means I am a VM?

[PIK]

And how would a VM feel ,when people think he got the job because of race instead of being pick because he was the best for the position ,all that does is cause more racism. It is a ugly dirty policy.

[Mr.Canada]

Should all persons be considered for all positions based on merit and not say, whether they fought for this country, such as hire veterans practices or any other distinctive categories for hiring? Or are you limiting it to colour, age or gender?

The keyword was: amerlioration

Barring one racial group from applying for a job means the government is disqualifying those who may be qualified to do the job. It just makes sense to draw from a bigger talent pool.

Shwa, I know what the word means. Explain how banning a racial group from applying for a job makes anything healthier and better. If you don't see banning a race from applying for jobs as discrimination then I don't think their's anything left to discuss with you.

They're doing the same thing in South Africa right now, look how that's turned out, that country is now a mess.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Shwa]

Being from Ottawa,I know a number of people that work in the federal public service.I admit my sampling is quite small,but from what I know, most of these people got their jobs because friends or relatives got them in.Merit had little to do with it.

If this version of employment equity is so wonderful,does left wing logic not dictate that it be extended to the entire private sector as well?Last time I looked,the Ottawa Senators seem to be comprised of white males only.Shouldn't their team reflect the diversity of Ottawa?

How about the policy of hiring the best available person for a job,regardless of race,gender or whatever?

The only person impying that employment equity is "wonderful" it is you. But in the absence of anything better, it is what we have to live with for now.

As for your example of "left wing logic" and the Ottawa Senators, is that your right wing logic of left wing logic?

[Shwa]

Barring one racial group from applying for a job means the government is disqualifying those who may be qualified to do the job. It just makes sense to draw from a bigger talent pool.

Shwa, I know what the word means. Explain how banning a racial group from applying for a job makes anything healthier and better. If you don't see banning a race from applying for jobs as discrimination then I don't think their's anything left to discuss with you.

They're doing the same thing in South Africa right now, look how that's turned out, that country is now a mess.

If I recall the article, they aren't "banning a racial group" they are targetting a disadvantged group to amerliorate the condition of their disadvantage. So your opinion goes out the window.

[scribblet]

You stated that it's ok to discriminate against a are as long as it's whites who are being discriminated against. I'd like to understand how that is equality.

It isn't equality, we are now on a road that says anyone who believes in equality for ALL, is racist.

As I said in the other similar thread, race is not supposed to be the first criteria under the law, it is supposed to be the deciding factor when all other things are equal.

[Argus]

It isn't racism according to the Supreme Law of Canada and whites are not a "visible minority" in Canada.

I keep telling you that if you're going to have a name like "charter.rights" you should at least attempt to some day have someone read you the Charter of Rights. Maybe there's something in comic book form out you could look up.

The Supreme Court has never said it isn't racism. Nobody could say it isn't racism. However, the Charter allows it. Thus it's not illegal. That does not make it not racism. It makes it legal racism.

[Argus]

No, it isn't "racism." It is a "...program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups..."

Keyword being: amerlioration

Racist hiring programs are supposed to "ameliorate" the fact visible minority members can't speak English well enough to get a job on their own?

[charter.rights]

Racist hiring programs are supposed to "ameliorate" the fact visible minority members can't speak English well enough to get a job on their own?

Ha ha ha. Most of those candidates speak English, French and at least on other language, while you on the other hand appear to struggle with one.

Pigeon-hole him.

[Bonam]

Sigh these threads go downhill so fast when the rabble crowd gets in.

[Jack Weber]

Ha ha ha. Most of those candidates speak English, French and at least on other language, while you on the other hand appear to struggle with one.

Pigeon-hole him.

Carnac the Magnificient...Struggling with the English language??

[Jack Weber]

Sigh these threads go downhill so fast when the rabble crowd gets in.

Right...

Because if anyone is'nt an avowed conservative libertarian they must be a card carrying Marxist bedwetter....