Tories and Affirmative Action

[TimG]

Some visible minority groups have no problems integrating into the mainstream and finding opportunities (chinese, korean, east indian) while other seem to perputually have problems (natives, blacks).

It seems to me the real problem is the cultural background of the people having problems and no amount of skin colour based affimative action is going to change that reality.

Edited July 23, 2010 by TimG

[Mr.Canada]

Some visible minority groups have no problems integrating into the mainstream and finding opportunities (chinese, korean, east indian) while other seem to perputually have problems (natives, blacks).

It seems to me the real problem is the cultural background of the people having problems and no amount of skin colour based affimative action is going to change that reality.

As long as those groups keep getting hand outs they'll never strive to improve their standing in society as a whole.

[Handsome Rob]

I think because we know that isn't what happens:

http://www.straight.com/article-222933/blog-politics-ubc-employment-study-shows-white-supremacy-still-exists-canada

UBC employment study shows white supremacy still exists in Canada

By Charlie Smith

It was a story the media couldn’t resist: UBC study discovers that employers discriminate against applicants with non-English names.

I'm certain the Croation white male, Mr. Kovačević, will be filing suit shortly.

What's in a name anyway, so this apply's to Sri Lankens & Slav's but not to Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish or Mexican?

Such acts of discrimination surely do occur, and surely cannot be made whole by social engineering. Just a broader part of human discrimination that occurs every day, everywhere, and falls outside of the no-no categories defined by state.

[Remiel]

Useless article. It uses one paragraph to briefly refer to a study whose methodology and validity is not explained, and then spends the rest of the time moralizing and lecturing whites on how evil they are.

Perhaps you are right about the usefullness of the article, but how is it intellectual rigorous of you do disregard the results completely just because you do not know how they were obtained? From our perspective, they should have as good a chance of being true as false. Especially since most arguments about affirmative action are littered with heresay...

Edited July 23, 2010 by Remiel

[Bonam]

From our perspective, they should have as good a chance of being true as false.

In the absence of knowledge, that can be said of practically any statement.

Anyway, I do not disregard the results completely, I merely question the methodology used to obtain them. And, even if the results are true, I still would strongly maintain that they do not justify racist hiring practices.

[TimG]

From our perspective, they should have as good a chance of being true as false. Especially since most arguments about affirmative action are littered with heresay.

The results may be true but that does not mean the conclusion is discrimination because of race. The more plausible explanation is an unconscious concern about language or cultural differences.

The reality is language skills and culture matter in the workplace and no laws are going to change that.

Edited July 23, 2010 by TimG

[Jack Weber]

Some visible minority groups have no problems integrating into the mainstream and finding opportunities (chinese, korean, east indian) while other seem to perputually have problems (natives, blacks).

It seems to me the real problem is the cultural background of the people having problems and no amount of skin colour based affimative action is going to change that reality.

That's an interesting take on things...

Have you ever read the book "The End of Racism" by Dinesh D'Souza?

Basically,he finalizes that the only way we will ever get past this is if we begin to understand different racial groups pathology.If we don't.we'll just keep going around in circles.

[lukin]

Michael Ignatieff has responded.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/liberal-leader-comes-out-swinging-on-affirmative-action-before-multiethnic-crowd-99114019.html

[charter.rights]

You should know that Mr.Falange(Mr.Canada) is an avowed Fascist...

....and according to his line of thinking we should all bow to the master race.

[Smallc]

....and according to his line of thinking we should all bow to the master race.

Which is, coincidentally, also your line of thinking. Different race, same attitude.

[scribblet]

You think this is achieved without affirmative action. Whitey still often gets the job all thing being equal, or even when blacky is more qualified.

Just ask my dad. Retired long-time small business owner. Didn;t much like brown people.

I believe we are long past discriminating, especially in gov`t and large firms, there is no longer any need for quotas. Even so, if we stick to the actual terms of equity hiring, race is the not the first criteria, qualifications come first, then, all things being equal, ethnicity would be the deciding factor.

[charter.rights]

Which is, coincidentally, also your line of thinking. Different race, same attitude.

Absolutely incorrect! Are you a racist?

[Jack Weber]

Which is, coincidentally, also your line of thinking. Different race, same attitude.

Er....CR might be a little overly sympathetic to the plight of natives in this country...

I have yet to see where he has advocated for a civil war in this country OR a Fascist dictatorship,a la General Francisco Franco,replete with sham show trials and concentration camps...

Senor Falange has done just that very recently....

Edited July 23, 2010 by Jack Weber

[TimG]

Have you ever read the book "The End of Racism" by Dinesh D'Souza?

Pretty much summarizes my thinking. Not all cultures are equal or worth celebrating.

[Keepitsimple]

I believe we are long past discriminating, especially in gov`t and large firms, there is no longer any need for quotas. Even so, if we stick to the actual terms of equity hiring, race is the not the first criteria, qualifications come first, then, all things being equal, ethnicity would be the deciding factor.

Such sanity cannot be allowed to prevail.

[Jack Weber]

Pretty much summarizes my thinking. Not all cultures are equal or worth celebrating.

Correct...

Islamofascism,for example...

[Smallc]

Er....CR might be a little overly sympathetic to the plight of natives in this country...

Oh, it's not that. It's the idea that all people on traditional first nations land are at the mercy of first nations. You can see the discussion thread that is mostly between he and Moonbox for examples.

Oh, and I'm not a racist.

[Jack Weber]

Oh, it's not that. It's the idea that all people on traditional first nations land are at the mercy of first nations. You can see the discussion thread that is mostly between he and Moonbox for examples.

Oh, and I'm not a racist.

Did'nt say you were,but CR ain't no Mr.Falange,either...

[Smallc]

Did'nt say you were,but CR ain't no Mr.Falange,either...

No, you didn't say I was a racist. He asked...sorry, my fault for the confusion. CR isn't Mr. Canada, you're right.....but.....

[charter.rights]

Oh, it's not that. It's the idea that all people on traditional first nations land are at the mercy of first nations. You can see the discussion thread that is mostly between he and Moonbox for examples.

Oh, and I'm not a racist.

You are inserting your delusions and hatred again....

I have continuous asserted that non-native people living on First Nations territories "not ceded to or purchased by us" have occupancy rights. The resolution of such inequity will be the subject of long negotiations.

If you are not a racist then why do you see First Nations as a race? They are individual nations who made agreements with our Crown.

[Smallc]

I see it that way because you describe Canadians as a landless people. I talk about first nations as a homogenous group because generally, that's how they're seen (just like whites, blacks, etc....even though they aren't). I see you as unreasonable on these issues, and that's why I made the comparison.

[Jack Weber]

I see it that way because you describe Canadians as a landless people. I talk about first nations as a homogenous group because generally, that's how they're seen (just like whites, blacks, etc....even though they aren't). I see you as unreasonable on these issues, and that's why I made the comparison.

Actually,if you have been to Africa,you'd realize that things are alot like they are with natives,as it relates to tribalism.In fact,if you go from West Africa all the way across to East Africa(say Senegal to Djibouti)you would find that they don't even look the same and have completely different cultures..

[Smallc]

I realize that also. I'm talking about perception, not reality. I'm just talking as people generally do (native, black, white, etc).

Edited July 23, 2010 by Smallc

[Argus]

But seeing as you're in love with your own mind,why don't you use it and thrill us with your intellectually superior acumen...And tell us the positive end game for things like Affirmative Action

Y'see, there you go again, pretending Affirmative Action has a point to it. It never did in Canada. In the US, it had a point. In Canada, it's a way for cringing, ballless, bleeding heart liberals to feel noble and show how inclusive they are.

And you should'nt have wasted the boards bandwidth unless you had a useful response to add to the discussion...

Mocking politically correct types like you is always useful. Mind you, it's hardly neccessary as anyone who commits themselves to support of Affirmative Action in Canada is pretty much dismissed as a clown by almost anyone with more than half a brain.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

So, if instances where hiring visible minorities is useful to perform a certain job - the example given was what is called a 'front-line' or 'public facing' job - all jobs where the public is served should have some sort of visible minority hiring quota

What drivel. One could perhaps make a case that on a native reserve with a unique culture, one would prefer a police officer who had insight into that culture. To my mind, skin pigmentation does not give insight into anything. But even accepting the possible usefulness of a native police officer on a native reservation that does not even suggest that there is value or purpose to be had in hiring employees willy-nilly based on skin colour just for the offhand chance that a member of that cultural background might show up and might feel more "included" because of it.

n creating affirmative action and employment equity programs, someone "thought" it would be "useful" to have visible minorities serving in front line situations that reflected a population's diversity because it could improve service, add comfort to clients, allow for integration, etc.

Unless you can specifically target the ethnic person you hire to an ethnic clientelle it serves zero purpose. How is hiring a Nigerian to man your desk going to reassure and comfort Chinese and Honduran and Sri Lankan clients? Especially when they have to try and communicate with them in English - which is not their best language - and he has to try to communicate back in English - which is not HIS. In what way could it possibly be said to improve service, especially given you are deliberately hiring less qualified individuals to provide that service? Are you suggesting that a black man will feel better being served by a less competent black man hired simply because he has black skin?

"I dunno how dat works, bro, but I be a black man jus like you! So we be happy, yes!?"

"Uh, sure bro. Now could you go find me a white guy who does know how it works?"

Whatever. They took these thoughts to others, who started thinking about the ideas and eventually it made it into legislation.

Of course, not one single time did any of them ever ask the public whether they thought it was a good idea.

It if is useful to have visible minorities in situations where they reflect their client base, then it would be equally useful to have visible minorities in situations in the back-ends (those providing services to the front end visible minority staff) to reflect their client base, that is, the visible minorities who were in the front ends.

This is barely understandable gibberish. I wonder what all you PC types would think if someone in government proposed hiring only whites in areas which were almost all white. I mean, if almost everyone who shows up at the counter at a given office is white, should we have rules in place that forbid hiring anyone other than white people - because they're more comforted when they find white people behind the counter?

Even the idea of hiring "ethnic" cops fails totally when you examine its guiding principal. If black police officers are better and more useful in working with a black population, well then, that means white police are better off for a white population, and if the great majority of your population is white and you can't control which race a police officer will be dealing with at any given time then you should be hiring only white police.

So now we end up with visible minorities in HR, IT, file rooms, boiler rooms, barracks, reserves, etc., etc.

All of them knowing they aren't as good as white people, knowing they were only hired because of their skin colour, hired in spite of the fact that other people were better choices but passed over for them.

Some of them, being pretty smart human beings,

If they were pretty smart they wouldn't have needed someone to pluck them out of the back of the line and push them ahead of better people. No, these aren't pretty smart people. These are inferior people. You've already marked them that way, and that's all they'll ever be.

While you find affirmative action thinking "uttery alien" it appears that your humble exception has the same end with regard to usefulness. I

I wouldn't call it utterly alien. I would call it stupid and racist. And I would say only stupid racists support it.