Canuck E Stan Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 “visibly minority” is racist term-UN A United Nations committee criticized Canada’s use of the term “visibly minority” for being racist in a report released in March. Canada has been asked to reflect further on the use of the term.The report by the 16-member international committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stated that any distinction based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin is discriminatory. The Canada Employment Equity Act defines members of visible minorities as “persons other than aboriginal peoples who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour”. And in case that isn’t specific enough for you, the government jobs website has a 107-word definition of visible minority with long, awkward descriptions such as “non-white Latin American (including indigenous persons from Central and South America, etc.)” and even includes “persons of mixed origin”. Terminology like ‘non-white’ is a negative, rather than positive definition. In other words it says what one is not, rather than what they are. “The use of the term (visible minority) seemed to somehow indicate that ‘whiteness’ was the standard, all others differing from that being visible,” said Patrick Thornberry, British International Law professor and member of the UN committee. He is not alone in his views. Time to stop being racist my fellow Canadians, politically correctness says they are "Racialized persons or groups". If that term applies to race,colour,descent or national or ethnic origin, what then is a person of a religious group like Muslims or a Jews supposed to be called? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 It has been said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The term "visible minorities" is a quirk in time and social development for "multiculturalism", seemingly unique to Canada. At first glance, it would appear that the term is both redundant and imprecise, designed to define or exclude aboriginals from other "minorities". Where did this silly-ass term come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted July 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Where did this silly-ass term come from? The "silly-ass term" was coined in 1984 by Judge Rosalie Abella who released a Commission's report and used the term. ...for the purposes of employment equity, "members of visible minorities". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 If that term applies to race,colour,descent or national or ethnic origin, what then is a person of a religious group like Muslims or a Jews supposed to be called? But, but but but but....there is no such thing as race. Why do people get so hung up over words? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 The "silly-ass term" was coined in 1984 by Judge Rosalie Abella who released a Commission's report and used the term. ...for the purposes of employment equity,"members of visible minorities". Well, that is quite remarkable. In little more than 20 years, the term has been firmly embedded into government lexicon and bureaucracy at all levels. Now don't get me wrong....the US certainly has equally silly-ass demographic concepts such as the "one drop rule". Still, the term visible minority immediately begs the question of "invisible minority" for Canadians who have a more stealthy demographic status or label, only to be revealed when advantageous. The US has a cruder term for this...."passing". Ironically, it is as if the term were designed as a shortcut to group and singlarly label all non-whites (except aboriginals ???) from the "majority" population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Ironically, it is as if the term were designed as a shortcut to group and singlarly label all non-whites (except aboriginals ???) from the "majority" population. Some times you just have to accept the fact that this is stupid country and leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Regardless of what phrase or term they use, it still boils down to, "those who aren't white". The purpose of the phrase is to define those who are not white in order to give them special privileges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Regardless of what phrase or term they use, it still boils down to, "those who aren't white". The purpose of the phrase is to define those who are not white in order to give them special privileges. Roger that, but I don't understand the "visible" part. Clearly there are Canadians who can claim to be "not white" but lack any of the discerning features that this term is so devoted to. Does "visible" include infrared and ultraviolet light? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 Time to stop being racist my fellow Canadians, politically correctness says they are "Racialized persons or groups". If that term applies to race,colour,descent or national or ethnic origin, what then is a person of a religious group like Muslims or a Jews supposed to be called? I guess we can never please everybody. If somebody wants to come up with another term, fine. But the first thing that would have to be done is to amend the EE Act. So long as the term stays in there it will continue to be used in all official papers from the CHRC and HRSDC. They will have no choice. They will have to conform to the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) The UN is overzealous, misguided, and biased to the point of absurdity when it comes to defining things as racism. I wouldn't pay any attention to them on this. Edited July 31, 2007 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 Visible minority is perfectly acceptable. An Italian Canadian may be a minority. An Italian Canadian celebrating a world cup victory waving an Italian flag through the streets of Rosedale is a visible minority. Conversely, a Canadian celebrating a Maple Leafs Stanely Cup victory through the streets of Rome is an implausible minority. A quebecer advocating sovereignty in Victoria is a divisible minority and a Quebec Liberal in Alberta is a Dismal Minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.