Misappropriation of Funds and Racist Favour

[Zeitgeist]

Have you heard of government organizations and businesses awarding scholarships solely on the basis of skin colour?  This includes for employees earning good salaries.  This includes full time wages while attending university.  If public funds are being used for this purpose, in a police department or school board for example, this would be considered a misappropriation of public funds.  It’s also likely a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it involves discrimination on the basis of race. 

[Michael Hardner]

Discrimination on the base of race is not entirely prohibited under the constitution, and anyway if you want to argue everything ad absurdium helping anybody is racism.

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Discrimination on the base of race is not entirely prohibited under the constitution, and anyway if you want to argue everything ad absurdium helping anybody is racism.

Giving public funding intended for policing or child education to adult employees who are already making good money just because they have a certain skin colour is a racist misappropriation of funds.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Giving public funding intended for policing or child education to adult employees who are already making good money just because they have a certain skin colour is a racist misappropriation of funds.

I guess we would need to look at any program in detail To assess the claim.

Any anti racism program that costs money could be racist under the criteria.

 

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

I guess we would need to look at any program in detail To assess the claim.

Any anti racism program that costs money could be racist under the criteria.

 

Okay a little anecdote: Imagine you have been working hard at your job for many years.  You're respected and appreciated by colleagues and clients because you're conscientious and effective.  You've wanted to move up in the organization, but you need a graduate degree to qualify for the next level position.  It's very hard to do part-time studies because you have young kids and a demanding job.  Taking a leave from work to go back to school isn't really an option because you have a big mortgage and many expenses.  You need to work to pay the bills.  You find out through the grapevine that a colleague in the same position that you have who is less competent and has been with the organization fewer years is going to be given a paid leave and full-ride scholarship to do a Master's.  When you enquire about the opportunity you are told that the scholarship and paid leave are only available to Black employees.  

I can't give more specifics than that, but this type of situation is currently happening in a publicly-funded workplace.  Whether or not this constitutes a breach of the Charter or what would be deemed a misappropriation of public funds, I believe it's unethical and divisive.  I don't think most Canadians would support their tax dollars funding this.

[Michael Hardner]

31 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 

I can't give more specifics than that, but this type of situation is currently happening in a publicly-funded workplace.  

Well I am on your side... for the anecdote.  But if you have worked as a full time Federal employee you would have dozens of stories of unfairness and waste.

[Queenmandy85]

Z, have you spoken to your union about it?

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well I am on your side... for the anecdote.  But if you have worked as a full time Federal employee you would have dozens of stories of unfairness and waste.

Yes, but a bad policy or custom remains bad whether or not it’s commonplace.  We can’t expect to fight exclusion with exclusionary policies.  It only breeds contempt, causes unfairness, and undermines the spirit of our constitution.

[Zeitgeist]

22 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Z, have you spoken to your union about it?

Just so you know, I’m not that guy in the anecdote, though I could be.  We have a powerless association rather than a union. Unfortunately, mention of the matter to the employer draws criticism and is a career limiting move.

I think this phenomenon is playing out in countless organizations, because the one I mentioned isn’t unique.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[Queenmandy85]

The best thing maybe to be happy with the job you have and not worry about someone getting ahead. Promotion isn't all it's cracked up to be. The Peter principle was named after me.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes, but a bad policy or custom remains bad whether or not it’s commonplace.  We can’t expect to fight exclusion with exclusionary policies.  It only breeds contempt, causes unfairness, and undermines the spirit of our constitution.

I don't think that that's proven.  In any case, once we step outside of anecdotes you need more information.

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that that's proven.  In any case, once we step outside of anecdotes you need more information.

I can't step outside of anecdotes because I need to keep my job.

 

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The best thing maybe to be happy with the job you have and not worry about someone getting ahead. Promotion isn't all it's cracked up to be. The Peter principle was named after me.

I disagree.  It reminds me of when Blacks were told during the struggle to win basic civil rights that they should be content to have what they have.  I mean, it's not like they're slaves anymore.  Unfairness is unfairness, and we're creating new problems by privileging people on the basis of markers that may have no connection to someone's competence, socio-economic background, or level of opportunity.  It's called racist policy.  Anyway, there are enough people in positions of authority right now who are justifying such policies, which is why I expect them to continue and social tensions to worsen.

[Michael Hardner]

Stepping outside anecdotes means going Beyonce individuals cases of abuse and looking at objective data on the impacts of such programs.

[Zeitgeist]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Stepping outside anecdotes means going Beyonce individuals cases of abuse and looking at objective data on the impacts of such programs.

I don’t know of any available data apart from the policies/programs themselves and people’s reactions to them.  Something tells me that the purveyors of such programs have little interest in accounting for the negative impacts.  

[Queenmandy85]

Life is on a pendulum. What is acceptable today may be horrendous in the future. Not long ago, it was considered a humane thing to do by rescuing people who were possessed by Satan by burning them or hanging them. We rescued the souls of thousands of people that way. The attitudes toward affirmative action, homosexuality and human rights may be looked back on with disbelief that we were so misguided. Later, the pendulum will swing back once again.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Queenmandy85
Spellcheck screwed it up

[Moonlight Graham]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Have you heard of government organizations and businesses awarding scholarships solely on the basis of skin colour?  This includes for employees earning good salaries.  This includes full time wages while attending university.  If public funds are being used for this purpose, in a police department or school board for example, this would be considered a misappropriation of public funds.  It’s also likely a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it involves discrimination on the basis of race. 

Affirmative action is a protected right under the Charter.  That's right, racism and sexism is specifically protected by the constitution.
 

Quote

 

15. (1) Every individual is equal before 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) Section (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.

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

Amelioration, not discrimination.

[myata]

See "Conflict of interest" thread. Everything is defined in such a way that nothing is defined exactly and specifically and everything can be interpreted as wishes the PM of the day. Conflict of interest or only "appearance", sure. Fixed election dates or PM's desire date, but of course. It's not for nothing our distinguished democratic (sorry that was a typo) elites get automatic annual raises to outrageous but fair and equitable compensations.

[myata]

Yes there's a place for affirmative programs. No, it's not tantamount to blank and unconditional granting of public resources on the sole merit of correct race. The problem is, we cannot define and tell the difference between the two, where the dividing line is. There's no instruments and mechanisms for approaching, discussing and solving challenging questions and topics in the society. La-la-la, musak and maybe it'll sort itself somehow, if not throw a billion bucks at it and see what happens. I'm curious to see how this strategy from good old time would continue to work in this century.

Edited August 22, 2021 by myata

[Army Guy]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that that's proven.  In any case, once we step outside of anecdotes you need more information.

Federal government has being doing this for years, Look at their job want ads for federal employees or Military positions, it specifically says, they are looking at black women, or other female racial profiles, they will be given preface over all others... No where does it say the best candidate will get the job because some how thats racists because only white men get the job...or their numbers are way to high...

What is not so open is promotions of gender and racial profiles are given preference. but it is there.

[Michael Hardner]

18 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t know of any available data apart from the policies/programs themselves and people’s reactions to them.  Something tells me that the purveyors of such programs have little interest in accounting for the negative impacts.  

Maybe so.  The government should ditch the entire management framework they have IMO.

[myata]

21 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t know of any available data apart from the policies/programs themselves and people’s reactions to them.  Something tells me that the purveyors of such programs have little interest in accounting for the negative impacts.  

If one doesn't know what they are trying to do, how could they think of measuring what they are not doing? For a manager that is not accountable to anybody for anything, absence of information is the easiest and most certain trick to keep it this way. Could it be why there's so much data in statistics but not a lot of information directly relevant to specific issues of importance the society? Such as real income distribution, cost and efficiency of public management system, immigration and so on.

Edited August 22, 2021 by myata

[Zeitgeist]

The bottom line is that unfair hiring practices that don’t put merit first create cultures of distrust and oppression. People feel that no matter how hard they work, how talented they are, how skilled, educated, or qualified they are, certain doors are closed to them and ultimately hard work doesn’t pay off.  It sets up leaders for failure if they aren’t the best people for the job and it breeds contempt among those who are more deserving of promotion but who are overlooked for superficial reasons like skin colour.

Either racism is always bad, no matter where you are or what your colour, or it isn’t.  The vast majority of Canadians rightly oppose racism, so we should be consistent.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

50 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Either racism is always bad, no matter where you are or what your colour, or it isn’t.  

So you think if you asked Canadians if they oppose racism and if they are in favour of eliminating benefits for First Nations people the answers would be identical ?  Do you think perhaps some people don't see things as you do ?

[Queenmandy85]

Deleted: unproductive

Edited August 23, 2021 by Queenmandy85