Unitended racism

'Affirmative Action' or 'Positive Discrimination' as it's called here in the UK is just that: discrimination based on race, colour or sex. One can dress it up in colourful words but that doesn't make it less of a discriminatory practice. Its advocates are usually white, middle-class people of the 'two wrongs can make a right' persuasion, making guilt sacrifices to the altar of political correctness and sanctimonious self-righteousness.Hyroglyphx hit the nail on the head when he said that combating racism with more racism simply negates the premise. It just creates more friction and resentment and feeds racist mindsets among white people who feel aggrieved by the perceived injustice. It degrades and alienates minorities, making them feel like helpless, useless children needing the intervention of the state to get on in life. Spot on. That would yield much better long-term improvements than the short-term AA soundbytes currently served up by politicians. You do realise that 'correcting statistical disadvantages' has been used as an excuse for a number of genocidal crimes throughout the centuries, don't you?The most recent one was the Rwandan genocide, which fermented under the "Bahutu" Manifesto, published by the Hutu Emancipation Movement in which it was alleged that a monopoly of power was being held by the Tutsi minority.
The Hutu corrected this particular 'statistical disadvantage' by killing between 700,000 - 1,000,000 Tutsis and politically-opposed Hutus. Suddenly less Tutsis held positions of power (as they were dead). Statistical balance had been restored!Even more famously, Hitler corrected the 'statistical disadvantage' of the most populous and most productive European nation -at the time- been allocated only a small percentage of the available land and resources. The means of his 'correction' are well-known and documented.'Statistical disadvantage corrections' are the first steps down a very slippery slope. Let's keep them to the annals of history where they belong.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I know.I'm being wasted on this forum!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

In other words, in certain situations they'll be treated differently because of their race or colour. Also known as....... [drumroll].... But according to the statistics some people here keep banging on about, the situation you describe is so rare that there hardly should be any detractors at all! don't confuse name calling with observational statements.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

we're not talking about specific laws here we're talking about the policy and culture of affirmative action aka positive action aka positive discrimination.But if you want to talk specific laws, here's how this policy is implemented here in the UK, as explained in the Equality Bill parliamentary proposal , April 2009:

quote:

---

...contains provisions which enable an employer or service provider or other organisation to take positive action to overcome or minimise a disadvantage arising from people possessing particular protected characteristics.

---

The 'protected characteristics' they're referring to relate to race, gender and ethnicity.In other words, this policy allows and encourages employers to make employment decisions based on their employees' race, gender and ethnicity.Is that clear enough? Frome Merriam-Webster

quote:

---

an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women

---

do you disagree with that? what do you think AA is?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

err...didn't the U.S. Supreme Court, as recently as 2003, rule that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions systems amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota?..and wasn't the said admissions systems a direct result of application of AA ?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

ok, I was talking about the policies and culture of AA, but I just had a look at the OP and it does open with the Ricci case, so fair enough. I'm not familiar with the case so I won't comment on it. I will, however, comment on the application of AA paradigm and its effects. No, policy decisions are made first and then laws and regulations are put in place to implement the policy. The policy is the 'what', the laws are the 'how'. But we're digressing... Only in Message 63 I showed you the official UK parliamentary document that describes 'positive action' as the special treatment of people with certain ethnic or racial characteristics. Discrimination doesn't get more specific than that. Because you're ensuring that more people of a certain race or ethnicity will apply for a position than others. You are exposing more information to certain people based on their race or colour. You are increasing the chances that a person of certain race or colour will be selected. You are giving some people a better opportunity than others. In a nutshell, you are treating people differently based on their race or colour. How is this not clear to you? Dressing it up as 'positive' this or that doesn't change its nature. Tell me, if an employer selectively targeted white audiences to advertise their vacancies how would this be viewed: as 'positive action' or just plain old racism ? Let's not play with words here. If you are an employer, any decision you make concerning who and when to hire is an employment decision. The statement refers to "disadvantage arising from people possessing particular protected characteristics." Most of these 'protected characteristics' refer to ethnic or racial factors. This policy not only allows but actively encourages the different treatment of certain people based on their race or ethnicity. See, the trouble with this is the use of the terms 'disadvantaged' and 'qualified' in the same sentence. Qualifications can be easily measured and objectively compared. The definition of 'disadvantage' is much more subjective, difficult to quantify and keeps changing according to current political views and ideologies. It also carries moral and political overtones regarding the source and cause of the perceived disadvantage. and just what's wrong with that? You're the employer, you're making an 'employment decision' to do that. If you don't get any good actors in your selection, well...it's your decision, your hit. Do you think that's somehow unfair or unjust and needs state intervention which makes much more sense as it gives you a much wider selection of actors to choose from. As a matter of fact, nearly all employers do just that: they advertise globally in specialist or national press and web-sites. if that's "affirmative action" then all current laws and rules for affirmative actiom are obsolete and redundant. Nearly all employers go for the 'big campaign' approach in order to maximise their chances of finding a suitable candidate. And the few ones which don't...well that's their loss.So, if this is "affirmative action" then what's the point of it?Do you know of any employers advertising in 'white-only' press? If yes, what is the percentage? Is it big enough to justify drafting national legislation against it?I don't think that AA is the sanitised, marketable view you're trying to present here. There are plenty of people who want you to THINK that such is the case, but they have a long track record of lying to you.

quote:

---

[AA is] an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women

---

So you think that increasing someone's opportunities because of their race, ethnicity or sex doesn't constitute discrimination, is that right? i had a look through the Title VII but I failed to find an exact definition of AA. Could you point it out to me?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Had I claimed that affirmative action is a quota system then my point would have been indeed destroyed. However, that's not what I said. What I said was that the racial quota imposed by the university was the direct result of application of AA.It goes back to my previous point about the distinction between policy and its implementation. Affirmative action is a policy, a mindset, a culture if you like. Governments implement this policy by setting up legislation, employers by setting up employment rules, universities by changing their admission policies.Imposing racial quotas is a reasonable way of adhering to the principles of AA, i.e. making sure that 'disadvantaged' people get an opportunity. it's also brazenly and shamelessly racist. No, just any time an implementation of AA policy is nationally exposed as blatantly racist it serves to undermine the policy's validity and usefulness. Bad analogy. It's more like somebody keep applying a particular mathematical theorem to a problem and failing to produce a solution. It's not that the person's stupid, it's just that the theorem they're using is flawed.Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I already pointed out a very specific and infamous case in your own country, which you rejected off hand as something that's nothing to do with AA, as if the University of Michigan had suddenly decided to impose what amounted to a racial quota out of boredom rather then adhering to AA principles. But more on this in my next post.If you want specific UK examples, here's the Gloucestershire Police admitting that they rejected 108 applicants because they "were white males".and here's the Avon Fire Service barring white people from attending its open recruitment days!!Are these examples 'problematic' enough for you? What do you think drives those employers to do such things? Is it just bad luck or the application of AA policy? Ugh?? I thought that the whole point of existence of AA is because it does matter where the applicants come from!! Or is that it only matters as long as they aren't white?? Ahh yes....the last resort of the politically correct: any person who doesn't agree with our ideology must be inherently racist/sexist/[something]ist! Here's a suggestion: fight the argument, don't fight the person. No, but I do see the fascism in yours. I already stated im my previous post to you that this is already happening. The vast majority of employers advertise on national press and the internet. The wonderful thing about the internet is that it's colour blind: anyone can access it from anywhere. It isn't and I never claimed that it was! I can only assume one of three things happening here:1) you are deliberately misrepresenting what I write
2) you don't bother reading what I write
3) You are so consumed by your ideology that you think this is what I must be writing despite what I actually write.This is what I actually wrote: Let me summarise it for you: I'm taking issue with the fact that affirmative action muddles qualifications criteria with disadvantage criteria. Qualifications are objective and measurable. 'Disadvantage' isn't! Is that clear?Example: a US software company advertises on a web-site. The advert's in English. A Korean software developer lives in the US, is technically qualified for the job but doesn't speak or read English well. So he never reads the advert. Is he at a disadvantage? Undoubtedly yes. Is his disadvantage his own making? My answer's yes but there may be people who disagree. Should the employer advertise in Korean in order to correct this disadvantage? Should the employer advertise in Korean web-sites? Where do you draw the line? and why?To use your San Diego theatre scene example: Are the San Diego actors 'disadvantaged' or is it that they don't meet the qualifications criteria set by the directors? After all, the directors may think -rightly or wrongly- that LA actors are better than their San Diego counterparts. They may have had good experiences with LA actors and bad ones with San Diego. If they're wrong they're the ones who're going to suffer. Why must the state -or people like you- intervene and tell them how to manage their plays? It's this totalitarianism that I object to. In neither of your examples anyone is prevented from applying. It's just that they're rejected on a basis that you find unfair. Whether you think it's fair or not is irrelevant. It's the director's play so they decide who would be best for it regardless of your approval.As for your Symphony Orchestra example all it does is to demonstrate that racial bias does exist in the selection process. Which I never denied. However, as you claim that AA doesn't influence the selection process this example is totally pointless and out of place. was that a Freudian slip?? err..so...like I've been saying all along AA is a policy, a direction, a mindset, a culture if you like. Various laws and employment regulations are put in place to implement the AA directive. I'm glad we're agreeing on this one. There is a very complex set of regulations that enforce AA, yes. Nobody said they are part of it or that they are legal. I said that quotas are a natural consequence of following AA policy. Crudely put, if your objective is to help disadvantaged people overcome their disadvantage what better way to do it than to set aside some employment spaces for them? I've now given you three concrete examples of AA application, one in the US and two in the UK. All three are blatantly racist and discriminatory. You've already dismissed one as having nothing to do with AA. I can't wait to see what other feeble excuse you'll find to dismiss the other two. All three examples adversely affected people because of their race or colour.You -on the other hand- have stuck to referring to legislation and have yet to produce a single example where AA actually helped to produce something positive or useful other than exclude people because of their race or colour.The sad irony is that you're actively advocating a policy that takes a person's race or colour as employment criterion yet have the gall to accuse me of racism. Blessed are the self-righteous.Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

BZZZT! Causal Paradox fallacy. Just because the means were struck down as illegal doesn't mean that the end is justified.If the effective imposition of a racial quota wasn't the result of trying to follow AA policy and AA guidelines then what was it the result of?Did the Dean of the University wake up one morning and thought "What shall I do today?...I know, I'll start giving minority candidates extra selection points."Or did she look at the US equivalent of the Positive Action Framework and said "Right, how do I make sure that under-represented minorities get represented in the university? I know, I'll start giving minority candidates extra selection points."Do tell, how do you think it went? BZZZT! Weak Analogy fallacy.calling the University of Michigan's racial quota debacle a mis-application of AA is like calling the invasion of Poland a mis-application of 'Lebensraum'. "No, it wasn't the result of Germany's expansionist policy, just a totally unrelated incident caused by some generals' misconception!" Naturally! but I never claimed it was legal. Just a reasonable way of ensuring that under-represented minorities get represented. Because the people who setup the quota didn't do it explicitly. As far as I can see they didn't setup specific percentages to target but instead were awarding extra selection points for black, Hispanic or American Indian students. Which effectively amounts to setting up a quota as it ensures that proportionately more minority candidates get offered positions, all other things being equal. So in their minds they probably weren't doing anything wrong, just adhering to the guidelines of "making sure that under-represented minorities get represented in the university". They were just taking Affirmative Action. As they were being told to. You're missing the point: it doesn't matter how or why it got rejected, what matters is why it was created in the first place. I assert that it was created as a way of following AA policy, i.e. "making sure that under-represented minorities get represented". A reasonable way of ensuring this happened was the points system they set up, which was effectively a racial quota and was deemed to be racist and illegal. It was just another demonstration of Affirmative Action. The fact that it was deemed to be racist and illegal only re-inforces my point that AA is a discriminatory policy/practice/mindset. How and where does everybody agree that racist policies violate the spirit of AA legislation? If anything, they capture its spirit very well! BZZZT! Weak Analogy again. Lebensraum. 'Nuff said. A quota system is one of the most obvious ways of ensuring that under-represented minorities get represented. It's also racist. The fact that the Supreme Court called you on it only weakens AA, as one of the main methods of implementing its prime directive is now racist and illegal.It's like being told by the government that by this time next month everyone should be driving a new hybrid car. For most people the only way of complying would be to go out and steal one. It doesn't mean that everyone's inherently criminal, it just means that there's something fundamentally wrong with the policy.Why is this so hard to see?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Let me repeat once more: I'm not arguing that the law is wrong because some people broke it. I'm arguing that AA policy is racist because it promotes racist actions. The racial quotas imposed by the U of M was a racist action. The fact that the Supreme Court agrees only serves to validate my point that this was indeed a racist action.Now pay attention coz this is important: The U of M didn't take a racist action despite the law, they took racist action partly because of the law. The prime directive of AA laws is to make sure they represent under-represented minorities. The U of M system did just that. The fact that it was deemed to be illegal on a technicality is really neither here nor there and -if anything- it validates my point that this was indeed a racist action. Their quotas weren't laid out expicitly but they were -in effect- quotas. The fact that they didn't realise/ignore/oversee this point really shows how blinded they were by their zeal to fulfill the directive of AA law. I was referring to the broader (and original) definition of fascism as the tendency to exercise strong autocratic or dictatorial control. Which you're obviously supporting. You tell me to do something but forbid me from using the most obvious and easiest way of doing it. if I go and do it in a way similar, but not quite the same, to the forbidden way and be deemed to have broken the rules is it exclusively my fault or is it that your policy is somewhat flawed?There are many ways to adhere to AA laws and policies. Nearly all of them are discriminatory, dictatorial or both. The shop window view you're presentng here is a sanitised version that for practical intents and purposes is obsolete and redundant. If all AA really tries to achieve is present everyone with the same opportunities then it has no reason for existence as almost everybody is exposed to the same information as everybody else, given the same motivation and drive. The problem today is the bias in the selection process. But you claim that AA doesn't address that, so therefore IMO there's no reason for its existence other than to propagate a feeling of institutionalised inequality and injustice. How so? You're debating with me now but you have no reliable way to know about my colour, race or sex. The internet is wonderfully colour-blind. Plleeeease...10 years ago you might have had a tiny point. Nowadays with computer prices at an all-time low, free computer access in almost every public building, cheap broadband and wi-fi access almost everywhere, propagating the myth of the poor black boy who can't get on the internet to look for work because the white man has all the money doesn't do your cause any good and frankly is stereotypical, racist and demeaning. I call bullshit! Ditto for newspapers. Pathetic.Near where I live we have vast council estates of predominantly white people, all living on the poverty line and relying on state benefits. Even they have access to the internet! Ofcourse if they didn't, then AA laws would come into action to ensure that they get access to the job boards, wouldn't they? Or would they? I keep forgetting that that being white isn't a 'protected' characteristic and you don't get 'disadvantage' points even if you are disadvantaged. Oops, here I go being racist again, where's the thought police when you need it? your posts above are proof of that.

quote:

---

Rrhain writes:

​

Why is it impossible for someone to be qualified but disadvantaged?

Legend writes:

​

It isn't and I never claimed that it was!

Rrhain writes:

​

Did you or did you not say:
"See, the trouble with this is the use of the terms 'disadvantaged' and 'qualified' in the same sentence."
This would seemingly indicate that you think there is a problem with those two qualities existing in the same person.

​

---

...is it that you can't read or is it that you won't read? I've stated twice and -in the same post you're responding to- I even summarised for you: Which of the above do you not understand? I'm taking offence to the fact that the policy requires you to measure people by their 'disadvantage' as well as their qualifications and skills. Do you want me to change the font size or something? No I don't, I never said nor implied this, yet you somehow still manage to think that I do.
I think that if some objective criteria can be applied (e.g. qualifications, skills) let's stick to them instead of start mixing in subjective and politically loaded criteria.Is a Korean applicant who never bothered to learn English disadvantaged? By how much? Is a black applicant more disadvantaged than a Korean? what about a European white applicant who wanted to but never managed to learn English as his family couldn't afford to send him to school? Is he more or less disadvantaged? The answer is whatever you want it to be depending on your politics, background and level of emotional involvement. I rest my case. Really?! So you find my view that an employer should be allowed to recruit the staff they think are best suited to the job inherently bigoted?!It would then be really interesting to know the percentage of gay actors employed in theaters in the LA/San Diego area. I dare say that the figure would be significantly higher than the national average of 5%. Surely then , in the interests of fairness and equal representation, we would have to draft some laws to ensure that heterosexual actors are equally represented.Would you agree with this or would you turn round and say :
"It's the employer's position, so they decide who would be best for it regardless of your approval and if that means that a gay person ('Because in the director's experience gay people are better actors'), then it's just tough noogies."surely you wouldn't support the inherent anti-heterosexual bigotry of this position now, would you?eagerly anticipating your answer.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

{sigh}....no, the example is pointless, the example not the process. You were talking about people being prevented from applying for jobs and your example doesn't illustrate how people were being prevented from applying - it simply illustrated the bias in the selection process. Which nobody denies. Ergo, the example is pointless. No. The government decides on a policy, in this case to help represent under-represented minorities. They decide that this is what they stand for. This is the 'what'. Then they draft laws and legal frameworks that implement the policy, i.e. tell people what they should and shouldn't do and how to do it. This is the 'how'. When the laws are vague or ambiguous enough (like our 'inciting religious hatred' laws) or place the onus on the subject as in the 'Positive Action' law in the Equalities Bill, then the employer will come up with their own regulations and procedures in order to comply with the law.The UK Equalities Bill 2009, clause 152 defines the primary aim of Positive Action as:

quote:

---

enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to overcome or minimise that disadvantage

---

pay particular attention to clause 153 which states:

quote:

---

This clause permits an employer to take a protected characteristic into consideration
when deciding who to recruit or promote, where people having the protected characteristic are
at a disadvantage or are under-represented. This can be done only where the candidates are
equally qualified, and the clause does not allow employers to have a policy of automatically
treating people who share a protected characteristic more favourably than those who do not.

---

So:
if I have two equally qualified candidates and I promote the white one because he's white I'm being a racist.
if I have two equally qualified candidates and I promote the asian one because he's asian I'm taking positive action...and you don't think this is problematic at all? ugh? where did I say that. Au contraire, on numerous occasions like the one above I stated that quotas is one sure method of applying AA not that AA = quotas. ?? as I never claimed that AA requires quotas you have a long wait ahead of you.Listen, if you really want me to increase the font size don't be afraid to ask, ok? Yes I know! That's besides the point. The point being that setting up quotas is a surefire way to achieve the objective of AA. Heck, the U of M even did it without knowing it! err..nope, the policy did what it was meant to do: it ensured that minorities had larger representation. If anything protected the whites, it was the good judgement and common sense displayed by the Supreme Court. ...(bwahahaha)... oh stop it now....come on, seriously!Well, I suppose I should be thankful for AA, being a white male. But..hang on...I thought us white males already had a massive advantage in the workplace, as AA proponents claim, so why the need to protect us? And if it does protect us where are my 'protected' characteristics mate?I mean...come on now. To even imply that the motivation -any motivation- behind AA was to protect white males is simply laughable. I mean it's ok to say it for a laugh or as a marketing gimmick but I thought we were having a serious debate here. Just because someone has legal recourse against it doesn't mean that the policy isn't inherently racist or sexist. Simply when it actively encourages discrimination based on race or gender. Don't even get me started on 'hate crimes'. Another messed-up, thought-crime legislation to appease the PC gods. So you somehow believe that the fact that the courts called two direct applications of AA policy illegal destroys my argument?! If anything it amplifies it. The U of M students were racially discriminated against because of AA guidelines. The white firefighters were racially discriminated against because of AA guidelines. If I were you I'd stop bringing that up. Not that I mind. ..ahem...[*cough, cough*]...

quote:

---

This clause permits an employer to take a protected characteristic into consideration
when deciding who to recruit or promote, where people having the protected characteristic are
at a disadvantage or are under-represented. This can be done only where the candidates are
equally qualified, and the clause does not allow employers to have a policy of automatically
treating people who share a protected characteristic more favourably than those who do not.

---

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

thanks for the tip but I already know what the term means. I decided to use it as your argument made as much sense as a causal paradox. 'Non-sequitur' just didn't have the same ring to it. Actually, the use of quotas had been prohibited back in 1978 in the Bakke vs Regents case, which found that the use of racial quotas was an unconstitutional means of applying AA. Current AA legislation simply incorporates this decision. To claim that racial quotas are prohibited because of AA laws is disingenuous. Because the AA law didn't by itself protect them, Bakke vs Regents did back in 1978.The very fact that the primary method of applying AA used to be racial quotas should have rung alarm bells even back in 1978. No. The very law which fosters discrimination against white men is barring one method of discrimination. Because it has to. If it wasn't for Bakke vs Regent the anti-quota clause wouldn't even appear in the AA laws.So no, it isn't the AA law that protects white men, it's the good judgement of a judge in a court case 30 years ago. False. They already knew that racial quotas were illegal and had known it for the last 30 years. The crux of the case was to determine if the U of M's point system was effectively a racial quota. THAT's WHAT WON THEIR CASE. The students won their case because of the Bakke vs Regents case. Current AA law simply reflects this case in banning quotas. To claim that the students won their case because of the AA law is disingenuous. Hadn't it been for the Bakke vs Regents case, racial quotas would still be the primary method of applying AA. So let's see:
if A = my "racist policy encourages racist action" argument.
B = your "math is sometimes applied incorrectly" supposition
and P = the "bad application doesn't invalidate the framework" property.you've inferred that A (like) B && B (has) P => A (has) P.well..what do you know...it was a Weak Analogy after all.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Yes it did. But, repeating myself once again, the U of M weren't aware that they were breaking the law because they weren't expicitly setting racial quotas. What they did was to set up a points per seat system which amounted to a racial quota.
As far as they were concerned they were keeping to the letter of the law but also, more importantly, to its spirit which was to promote minority candidates. Which they succesfully did.This is what Judge Friedman wrote on the case:

quote:

---

While the law school has not set aside a fixed number of seats, there is no principled difference between a fixed number of seats and an essentially fixed minimum percentage figure.

---

You do understand the difference between 'technically' and 'effectively', 'expicitly' and 'implicitly' don't you? Yo do understand that although they didn't 'actually' fix a number of seats they 'essentially' did ?It's like asking you to prevent someone from entering a public building against their will. But you're not allowed to hit them. So you trip them up, they fall and break their leg. As far as you're aware you're fine: you didn't directly hit them and you achieved the objective of stopping them. Ofcourse you indirectly hit them, so you did break the rules albeit in a roundabout kind of way. Is it exclusively your fault or is there also something wrong with the rules which ask you to prevent certain people from entering the building?I can think of a number of ways of preventing someone from entering a building. Almost all of them are illegal or immoral or both. Almost all of them involve some degree of violence. I'd say that rules which require me to prevent someone from entering a building promote violence and thuggish behaviour, wouldn't you? Whether the rules prohibit one form of violence is really neither here or there, the fact remains that the rules do promote violence.Similarly, AA laws promote racist actions. Whether the actions involve setting up a quota or a points system or any other discriminatory practice -legal or illegal- is besides the point.
One cannot promote one person in front of another because of their race without taking some form of racist action, legal or not. Yes, but the means you are allowed and encouraged to use are predominantly racist. ?!....[bangs head against wall]......but that's what I've been saying all along: the U of M mistakenly put a quota in. This doesn't change the fact that they did it to fulfill the directive of the law. 'Bad' laws encourage people to do 'bad' things! Laws that promote racism encourage peple to take racist actions. You're getting sucked into the whirlpool of your own arrogance again. These bundle of sticks ("fasces") were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrates and were used for corporal and capital punishment. That's why the word "fascist" is used to denote people who will use or favour authoritarian or dictatorial methods. Nationalism and xenophobia weren't associated with the term until after the rise of 20th century 'fascism' movements which also happened to be nationalistic and xenophobic. Hence, the original meaning of the word relates to the yielding of authoritarian power. You've advocating direct state intervention in order to achieve specific workplace demographics, without any consideration for the employer's opinion, goals or circumstances.
You're supporting laws (AA) which causes misery through unfair treatment to thousands of people just because it matches your ideology and belief system and it's the 'right' thing to do.
You're treating opponents to your position like small-minded racist bigots in an attempt to shout them down and gain the high moral ground.
You're treating opponents to your position contemptuously and dismissively, with your *blinks* and your *chuckles* in an attempt to ridicule them.So yes, you do exhibit the tendency to impose autocratic control, push for dominance of your ideology despite the human cost and employ dictatorial methods to suppress opposition.
On the plus side, you're not as bad as other people I've debated with. "Junior, you must eat some sweets to keep your blood sugar up but you can't get any cookies from the cookie jar."
You then go off to do something and when you come back, you find a cookie in Junior's mouth:
"Didn't I say not to get any cookies?"
"Oh, but I didn't get this cookie off the cookie jar! I found it on the foor. You didn't say I couldn't eat cookies off the floor and you did say I had to have something sweet"That's a more apt analogy. Objective achieved and rules not technically broken. nice manoeuvre! You did ofcourse totally ignored the part where I claimed how accessible computers are these days with free public access at most public buildings, overall higher computer ownership and paid-access at interent cafes and such. Lack of ownership doesn't mean lack of access! BTW you really must stop using statistics like a machine gun, hoping that the opponent will take cover from the barrage of numbers and start using them instead as a sniper rifle, to target specific points.So you're seriously suggesting that a minority person who want to look at the job boards can't get access to a computer for an hour or so? I find that a very unrealistic and somehow deluded view. Huh? NO IT ISN'T! Qualifications and skills have to do with one's suitability for a particular job, perceived 'advantages' or 'disadvantages' based on someone's race or colour have NOTHING to do with one's suitability for a particular job. They are as objective as you can get. You can measure skills. In my company everybody gets the same technical tests. Everybody's measured against the same standard. It doesn't get more objective than this.You still haven't answered my question about who's more 'disadvantaged'.
a) A Korean person who hasn't bothered to learn English,
b) an Asian person who wanted to learn English but was unable to, or
c) a white European who wanted to learn English but was unable toPlease also tell me how you measure their disadvantage. How many 'disadvantage points' does each get? and why? that's all very nice but it doesn't address the issue I raised:If I state that employers have the right to choose whoever they think is most suitable for the job and that person is white then I'm a bigot.
If I state that employers have the right to choose whoever they think is most suitable for the job and that person is gay, then I'm a...what exactly?so, what is it ?? Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

No it's not! This is clause 153 of the UK Equalities Bill 2009:

quote:

---

This clause permits an employer to take a protected characteristic into consideration when deciding who to recruit or promote, where people having the protected characteristic are at a disadvantage or are under-represented.

---

No, the entire point of AA is precisely to promote someone because of their race, gender or ethnicity. Until white persons are declared to be disadvantaged or under-represented, promoting a black person over a white one is the direct result of the rule!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

err...you missed the first sentence. Let me point it out to you:

quote:

---

This clause permits an employer to take a protected characteristic into consideration
when deciding who to recruit or promote, where people having the protected characteristic are
at a disadvantage or are under-represented.

---

You can't automatically treat people who have protected characteristics favourably, but in individual cases you are encouraged to favour one over another based on their race, ethnicity or sex amongst other things.
Which is a textbook example of discrimination. Also note how it covers selection ("who to recruit or promote") and not advertisement. ugh?? how the hell did you infer that this means that "AA goes to quotas"?! I must have stated at least a dozen times in this thread that there are many ways to apply AA and quotas is one of the most obvious ones. Argue what I write not what you think I write! bollocks! The entire point of the AA law is to promote under-represented minorities. The SCOTUS had the good sense to see that the U of M were effectively, though not explcitly, setting a quota. Setting quotas is illegal thanks to the Bakke case, 1978. The AA law simply reflects this judgement. Claiming that the AA laws protected the whites is disingenuous and misleading. The whites were protected because of Bakke and the good judgement of SCOTUS and NOT because of a law which owns its existence to the notion that minorities should be given special treatment for being minorities. How the hell does a law that expicitly dictates the promotion of minorities over the majority, protect the majority?! stop flogging that dead horse again! I was actually talking about the Avon Fire Service case in the UK. And the day when being a white male becomes a protected characteristic you'll have a valid point. Until then you're just talking out of your arse!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"