Harper govt. attacks employment equity and affirmative action

Federal affirmative action policy faces review

The gutless unprincipled cowardly opposition parties can't even keep up with their reading about the dismantling of Canada's social gains - let alone joining forces to crush Harper. He rules, unchallenged.

Not that I'm into gossip or anything like that, but Sara Landriault has a website, and until quite recently, she was a campaigner for the right of stay-at-home mums to resist serious funding of public childcare. (Please don't ask me to explain the logic of that position, since there isn't one.)

She had a brief career at BnR. We didn't ban her -- she just kind of self-immolated and then went away.

Suddenly, she is not a stay-at-home mum at all. Well, you know, we're all entitled to change our minds, eh?

I'm sure that she is very much Stockwell Day's kind of person.

Skdadl, I debated with myself as to which forum to open this thread in. Ostensibly, it's an attack on POC and immigrants and aboriginal people. But it's also an attack on women and people with disabilities. We need a new forum here - about people. Because even if we think we're divided and have varying interests, the neo-cons help us unite despite ourselves.

I believe this story was originally broken by Brian Lilley in his new role as parliamentary correspondent for Sun Media. His first story on it [5] described her as "a sometime family activist." Actually she's president of the National Family Childcare Association and likes to have her picture [6] taken with Stephen Harper. I can't prove anything obviously but this story smells like a setup to me. Sun Media has always had a conservative orientation but in the short time since Kory Teneycke joined, it already seems much more ... activist in nature. Fox News North seems like an appropriate nickname.

She looks a little like Sarah Palin. Is that on purpose?

Unionist, from her blog portrait I might have said yes, aspirant at least, but when I click on pogge's second link, I think I'm looking at someone who is a cross between Sarah and Steve, equal parts in that weird smile.

Excuse me while I go to cut my hair.

Great. Just when you thought people of colour weren't excluded enough from government jobs..

Here is a good summary of the situation of racialized people in the federal workforce on the treasury board website:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/tb_852/ecfps2-eng.asp

This is the first step of the Fauxization of the already poor Sun Media. Lilley's articles are being printed as news when really they're hardly accurate enough to be categorized as opinion. He and the Canadian Tea Baggers will destroy the standards (already weak) of Canadian news.

One more example of how out of touch government is from the society.  No wonder the policies don't reflect our interests.

OMG That Sara looks or wants to look like Sarah Palin! She should go back to school and perhaps she will find a job instead of calling the medias about her misfortune.

Milo204,

I would think the contrary. On this issue, the government is very in touch with society.

"The census issue has dogged the Conservatives over the summer. Groups ranging from business executives to doctors have taken the Tories to task for axing the mandatory long form in favour of a voluntary survey.

But Kenney said he doesn't expect the same blow-back over any changes to federal hiring practices.  

http://tinyurl.com/2bbueew

Kenney IS right. There won't be a "blow-back" over this topic.  We recall the court challenge program, the Status of Women funding: Other than some progressive pockets, business as usual.

There are all kinds of ethnicities working in government offices...at least here in Toronto anyway.  Perhaps not as much as in the more rural parts of the country - but wouldn't that be indicative of the ethnic make-up of local populations?

Nope.

@hunebug: Absolutely!

Quote fron Unionist's link:

"When she answered white, she said a message informed her she did not meet the criteria and could no longer proceed."

I have never applied anywhere online, but this does not seem plausible. Was this a set up?  Why would anyone have an application posted like this on line?  It is just asking for trouble.

That is because she is lying through her teeth.

There are some, but much less than there should be even according to their proportion of the population.  From the Treasury Board Secretariat website I posted above :

It's not just a matter of walking into an office and saying "Ooh, there're some non-white people..seems like this place is doing OK.."  There is the matter of underrepresentation, barriers to advancement, exclusion from the workplace, being the "last hired, first fired", stuck in underqualified positions, etc.

Even if you happen to see a racialized person working in a management position, you might say "Ah, they are doing well for themselves, the system works.." but in fact mere presence does not tell the whole story.  They may be doing well or they may be facing the kind of systemic racism and barriers that have been well-documented by public service unions.

Did anyone else notice her,  Sara, quite clearly the wanna be Sarah Palin, spelling of the word 'colour'?

So did someone American write her stuff, as it is all just a ploy? Or is she just a poor speller?

From skdadl's link.....

Oh, and I forgot to say; she is not  "Conservative", eh, but yet she has had her picture taken with Harper, in the PMO even, something that would NEVER happen, unless you were part of the CONservative 'family', and a close one at that.

What an obvious liar she is.

Here some more good reading about employment equity in the PS, for anyone still harboring doubts...

http://www.psac-afpc.org/what/empequity/tb-report-2010-e.shtml

If the job description said at the bottom..."open to whites...", what would be your reaction then?

When a white person, male or female, has their resume purposely overlooked or disregarded because of their color, it is racism just like it would be for someone else. If one is to say that every Canadian has the right to apply or work within the public service(or any job), then telling a white person they cannot apply because of their color, then every Canadian is not having that right are they?

I do not understand Canadians who do not see it this way.

Do not take me wrong, I believe everyone deserves a fair chance and I believe that there should be equal representation.

But it is also disturbing to be a born white Canadian male and hear or know about people being told "sorry, white anglo unilingual male..." Who would ever think in their own country, and that could be someone of a different race then me, could be told they don't qualify because of their color? Suppose, like I said in an earlier post, it was a job description excluding others?...wouldn't I expect the same reactions like a Sara Landriault or from people in her community?

Social engineering affirmative action quotas are racist. Employ people for their talent and education. I'm sure employers can have some kind of review process for choosing this interviewee over another etc...instead of a mass social racist BS.

In your first scenario, it is racism.

In your second scenario, no it is not racism and it is not discrimination. It is redress, remedy to an established and proven societal phenomena of racism and discrimination. 

Has that ever actually happened?  The statistics seem to show quite the opposite.. white anglo men vastly overrepresented, especially in management positions.

I'm sorry if I have little patience for your kind of "what if.." situations.  Look at the statistics.  Read up a little about the exclusion of racialized people from many facets of Canadian life.  Every day in Canada, people of colour are not given an interview, passed up for a job, etc because of racism, plain and simple.

Oh poor white men, so hard done by...

...and did anyone else notice the way the most recent supporter of Harper's initiatives spelled 'colour'?

The truth:

So now that all FN reserves have clean water, everybody in Canada is housed and adequately fed, and there's daycare for anybody who needs it, the government can turn its attention to all the injustices perpetuated against white people.

Oh the humanity!

If one is to say that every Canadian has the right to apply or work within the public service(or any job), then telling a white person they cannot apply because of their color, then every Canadian is not having that right are they?

I cannot say anything about the Provincial Government, the feds, who I work for, will accept applications and seriously consider them from anyone. Being the federal government in a bilingual country there are often language imperatives that have to be satisfied, but still many, many monolingual people are hired.

As for affirmative action ... I fear I do not have a link to back this up, but any affirmative action plan I have seem includes the proviso that 'given that all other qualification are equal' the job, opportunity or whatever will go to the minority candidate, however that is defined .. frequently not by race or colour, but by disabilities.

I may have been overlooked for some jobs in the past .... but if they went to a FN person (for instance) given the social, economic and institutional barriers they have had to overcome to get there - they are welcome to the work.

You have spelled 'colour' wrong, and this is not a spelling flame it is an indication of American post scripting.

No actually it is not.

This is so mind boggling deficient in analysis, I am not even going to say anything other than; you again spelled colour wrong. Eve

Again indicative that perhaps you are NOT Canadian.

Racist white Canadians make sure that there is NOT equal representation.

x3 on spelling colour wrong, one would think at least once you would have spelled it correctly if Canadian. Also, that you think Canada belongs to white males is an issue.

Not they are not racist.

We already have mass social sexist and racist BS, we do not need to encourage it further by not insisting on equity hiring.

My partner, who is a person of colour and an immigrant, has been passed over for a white candidate dozens of times even in places with affirmative action policies and mostly white staffs.  I don't think this is a crisis for white people that needs parliamentary review just yet...

As for indicating that Sentinal is not Canadian, that may be, but I'm sure many Canadians share their views :(

Oh I am sure too Lachine Scot, that many many so called 'Canadians' share their views, right down to not acknowleging grandchildren because they are NOT white.

This certainly smells like a set-up and I call bullshit on Sara's claims that she was asked if she was white. Like many federal civil service jobs, recruitment for opportunities with the Immigration and Refugee Board are handled by the Public Service Commission. Here is what they state re: employment equity under their FAQ:

3. I do not belong to an employment equity designated group. Will my chances of being selected for a job be reduced?

Not usually. However, from time to time, certain positions may be limited to applicants from members of employment equity-designated groups.

4. I belong to at least one employment equity-designated group. I am consequently concerned that my chances of being selected for a job may be reduced. Should I self-identify?

Self-identifying as being part of one or more employment equity group(s) is voluntary. However, for the reasons mentioned above, we strongly recommend that you self-identify for all the groups you belong to.

http://jobs-emplois.gc.ca/centres/faq-eng.htm#ee

That was my experience when I worked for the feds. There was always a part on the application form where you where given the option to self-identify as visible minority, Aboriginal, person with disability, women.

The Aboriginal Tax Officer Apprentice position that she refers to is obviously one of those exceptions where a program was created to target a specific minority group. In general, front line positions requiring interaction with certain kinds of clients will give preferential assessment if the applicant is better equipped to relate to the clients they serve. IOW there are more opportunities for Aboriginal applicants in INAC, or women at Status of Women, or PoC in many translator/interpreter positions.

Her link to the original admin assitant job on her website is no longer valid. The closest description I could find was from an employment agency that posted a temporary/contract job for a admin assistant (legal) at the Immigration and Refugee Board. There doesn't seem to be any specific employment equity requirement. And based on Sara's stay at home experience, I doubt she would have qualified or heard back from them:

While enthusiastic candidates are appreciated, only those being considered will be contacted [35]

http://www.allottawajobs.com/jobs/2010-07-06/1094 [35]

i think the idea of affirmative action is usually just rejected by people who don't understand what racism is, the same people who think FN's have the same opportunities as the rest of us if they would just "move to the city and assimilate".  Do i feel discriminated against because the government (which should be democratic--representing all people) decides to include parts of the population who would otherwise be excluded? no!

 Even though AA has been around for awhile, we can see that these groups are still under represented in public institutions.

I think AA is fair as long as the hiring disparities are so out of wack.  If we get to the point where that is not the case and hiring is equal, pay is equal etc. then we can eliminate it and it would be unfair to keep it, but since this is so not the case i think the people who are complaining about it would do well to spend that time instead researching the reasons they were introduced in the first place.

This is such a charming story.

First of all, I don't know why the term "affirmative action" is being bandied about. The US has (had?) Affirmative Action as an official policy for a few miliseconds. Canada's program has always been called Employment Equity.

White folks, especially men, have squawked about EE since before it was put into place. As we can see from the stats listed at the end of the cbc.ca article linked to in the OP, they have nothing to fear. The revolution has yet to come to pass.

From the article:

FYI, visible minorities make up approximately 17% of Canada's population. [38]

Whether it's called "affirmative action" or "employment equity", how about just asking that our government make a conscious effort of hiring the most qualified person for the job; regardless of their ethnic background?

Yes, there will always be racist employers, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to try and legislate behaviour.

Holy crap. I lost a well thought out post that addressed junebug's concerns. What a piss off.

The short form is that nobody is forcing private businesses to hire minorities. We do not have any Affirmative Action policy in place (strict quotas). The civil service does practice Employment Equity but all that means is that if among a group of qualified applicants, should one or more have a minority status as self-identified, they have to be considered. It does not mean an automatic hire. I have never experienced any evidence of that while I worked there for five years. And I was on a hiring commitee.

The overall point is that these policies have nothing to do with legislating behaviours and more to do with redressing the human rights violations that have occured in the past. How anyone could condone a past status-quo that discriminated against PoC, Aboriginals, disabled persons and women is just beyond my comprehension.

How was slavery formally ended? How did women finally get the vote? When did status Indians get to vote? How are rules for the road established?

We are constantly legislating behaviour and rights.

As for the "best person" argument - it is truly tiresome, and is not appropriate on this site. Because, uh, funnily enough, the best person has disproportionately ended up being straight white TAB guys for quite a long time. And still to this day! Look at the make up of "our government" sitting in Parliament. Hardly representative, and hardly the most qualified.

They're the "most qualified" in that the qualification to sit in Parliament is to receive the highest number of votes in their riding. If you don't like them, vote against them.

Many people (not all) are uncomfortable with an argument of the form "A discriminated against B. Therefore C should discriminate against D." Much of the discussion on this thread so far is people who accept this form of argument disagreeing with people who don't.

This is so much steaming crap. Who is arguing for a new kind of discrimination? And SSC, you seem to have no understanding about how candidates are selected, and which candidates tend to be chosen for "winnable" ridings, and why.

Also, FPTP is a corrupt, undemocratic system. It will always skew what the people actually vote for and against.

Denying people jobs on the basis of race or sex is clearly discrimination, although some may argue that it's justified for historical reasons.

I find your use of the term "historical" inaccurate.  We're talking about workplaces that systematically shut out nonwhite people in the present day. 

To suggest that business as usual is somehow more "fair" is highly dubious, in my experience.  I have to admit that I find it a bit disappointing to have to argue about the merits of basic equity policies even on this progressive forum.

Well, I don't disagree with you on the problems with the FPTP system but that's what we have now. I wasn't defending every aspect of our electoral system. Merely pointing out that to say that the "most qualified" people don't get elected is disingenuous given that under the existing system "most qualified" is, by definition, the person who got the most votes.

And, your condescension aside, I actually DO know how candidates are selected (though it varies a little by party and circumstance).

And, look, I think the vast majority of people in Parliament today are fairly mediocre. There are a host of reasons why better people don't run. But the people are "qualified" by virtue of having been elected.

And I don't see an inherent value in Parliament (or a lot of other institutions) being more "representative" of the demographic make-up of society as a whole. The New Orleans Saints, Harvard University and Google are not particularly "representative" of society as a whole but each would be worse off if they were...

Some might. In fact they have, and still do, even in this thread. Sure, they pretty it up by going on and on about how white TAB men get the jobs all of the time because they are the ones who are most qualified, and any effort to rectify this astonishing privileging is itself discriminatory, blah blah blah blah blah.

What you have described is the status quo. And denying people jobs on the basis of race and sex is clearly discrimination. This is exactly why I support employment equity.

Those who argue against it seem to be arguing for the status quo, justifying the structual bias by using all the old reasons that have been trotted out for decades.

Minority groups and women face discrimination based on race and sex everyday. Employment equity just tries to remove that discrimination. I guess we should be more worried about the group that historically has always been at an advantage because of their race and sex and cry discrmination when their undue advantage is challenged.

So I'm sure I should know this, but could you please tell me what TAB stands for in that paragraph?

temporarily able-bodied

Thank-you. I hadn't seen that before.

So everyone here (including me) agrees that discrimination is bad. How about the following:

1) Race and sex (and probably some other characteristics) are prohibited, by statute, as grounds for hiring and promotion decisions, and employers and employment agencies are forbidden to even attempt to find these things out.

2) Resumes go through an anonymizer to weed out attempts to signal these things.

3) Enforcement is as tough as you can dream up.

Is this a good state of the world? Why or why not? 

Inspite of all that do you honestly believe that racism and sexism does not happen at the time of hiring. According to the stats quoted in this thread it is quite evident. Seems like you sincerely believe that white TABs (thanks writer) are generally better candidates for employment than others.

1) Are we eradicating face-to-face interviews?

2) Please define the scope of this anonymizer. What are the types of signals that would be searched and eradicated?

3) What does this mean? You are dreaming this scenario up. You provide some kind of paramater / definition.

I'll state again that you have the wrong discussion board if you hope for a discussion about whether employment equity – in the current, specific, real, context we now live in – is a good thing.

You're not addressing my point at all. I am not claiming that the world is perfect as is: I'm describing an alternate state of affairs that I think would be better, and asking for your comments on it.

I'll repeat:

1) Are we eradicating face-to-face interviews?

2) Please define the scope of this anonymizer. What are the types of signals that would be searched and eradicated?

3) What does this mean? You are dreaming this scenario up. You provide some kind of paramater / definition.

I'll state again that you have the wrong discussion board if you hope for a discussion about whether employment equity – in the current, specific, real, context we now live in – is a good thing.

1) Yes, unless some third-party interviewer could be trusted not to spill the beans.

2) At the very least, the person's name, and any hobbies that implied specific cultural background or physical abilities.

3) Something more than a slap on the wrist, obviously. A fine equal to a year's salary for the position might be a good start. I was asking for participation.

For what it's worth, at least one profession that I know of has a fairly rigourous examination process, and the people who mark the examinations do not know who the candidate is - the marker only knows the candidate number. It's a miniature version of the anonymizer that I was outlining, and it seems to work relatively well.

ygtbk

You're missing the point  -  What writer and others want is not a colourblind hiring system but a hring system that favours people of certain skin colours over others.  People have been taught for at least the last 40 years that discrimination based on skin colour is wrong and this causes the anger/resentment as much/probably more than any racist feelings.

I'm not referring to the woman in the story in the opening post who seems to have political connections to the Cons.

VanGoghs Ear: mindreading is bullshit. I have not asked you to represent my position, nor do you seem up to the task. Stop doing it. Now.

Before I'm jumped on - I acknowledge that racism has played a part in keeping people of colour out of good jobs - I'm saying that - the reaction that some people have to discriminatory hiring practices is not always because of racism but usually about a percieved official unfairness.

Did anyone read the link I provided in post #34 that says exactly what Employment Equity is, and by default, what it isn't?

Van Gogh's Ear and ygbtk. It's never been about "discrimination based on skin colour" (which would include white folks). It's been about groups of people who have been (and still ARE) systemically excluded from all sorts of employment opportunities. This includes people identified by the federal government as visible minorities, among other groups.

And um, EE has been around for decades. If anyone here thinks it's unjust in some ways, there are places to take such complaints. babble isn't one of them.

If you don't get these basic FACTS, then you have no business contributing to this thread.

What you wrote was a steaming pile, indicating what "writer and others" want. Don't interpret what I want. Ask, if I'm being unclear. Mindreading is very disrespectful.

"People have been taught for at least the last 40 years that discrimination based on skin colour is wrong and this causes the anger/resentment as much/probably more than any racist feelings."

What does this even mean? Same goes for the last sentence above.

Anyway, I'm not playing this little reactionary game.

Edited to add: Thanks, Maysie!

I'm sorry Writer for doing that

Besides for not understanding discrimination real well it seems some people also don't understand the nature of employment.  There are few jobs anywhere that are so specialized that one person will stand out as a person who could do a far superior job. Normally in any large employer they will have applications from hundreds of qualified hopefuls. So get rid of the "best" candidate BS because in real life that means the name dropping neighbours friend or someone who played for the same rugby team as you did etc. etc. Hiring decisions are subtle and often unconsciously discriminatory.  You don't have to be a racist to look at people's backgrounds and find that the ones most like you are the "best" out of group of qualified people.   The only way around that is to say if there are a group of people who all seem to have the ability to get the job done well then it goes to the part of society that is underrepresented.  After all that is only fair.  When we get to the point that our federal civil service is not obviously tilted towards one privileged group I'd love to talk about the next step.

I guess I'm not understood, I'll stay out of this

"what does this even mean?"

It means - an employer taking into account the skin colour of a possible employee(positively or negatively) when hiring them seems wrong despite the fact that I understand the reason behind it.

Maysie, is it not worth your while to respond to what I actually wrote in post #49? I think it at least partially addresses the systemic exclusion issue that you raise.

ygbtk:

#1. There is a great lack of clarity by your use of the word "discrimination". This term is too often used inaccurately. I prefer the word "systemic racist" or "systemic sexist" hiring practices.

#2. I've been a manager in two different organizations, one of them unionized. Both had a staff team of less than 10 employees. Job descriptions included commitment to particular political and feminist ideologies and practices. This is a useless suggestion.

#3. I have no idea what this means. EE is no longer required for private sector employers. Public sector employers are ineffectively trained and don't enforce it in a consistent way. There isn't the cultural prerogative or prioritizing to make this a matter to be effectively staffed and enforced. Let it go. I have.

P.S. The four "designated groups" are "women, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal people, members of visible minorities". Of course, one can belong to more than one group. [69]

P.P.S. The revolution hasn't happened yet. The white-collar jobs of white men are safe. Chillax. 

I don't condone the racist policies of the past, but I also don't feel it does any good to dwell on them and allow it to paralyze hiring procedures far off into the distant future either.

I think it should all be as simple as...hire the right person for the job...based on qualifications...their ethnicity should play no part, period.

And even if the current policies on the books state that it's not an "automatic hire"...the fact that someone may get a leg up in terms of receiving consideration for a job, ahead of somebody else based on ethnic background, is troubling to say the least.

I feel like programs like Employment Equity come from an emotional place, or somehow are born out of post-racial guilt...and that's no way to run a country.

Ive worked for a few corporations where applicants have their names and some information stripped before it is sent to the dept looking for applicants.

Doesn't mean much because there are still face to face interviews but they were always with several people from a given dpeartment and written reviews of each applicant had to be submitted which indicated why a given applicant was not suitable.

I would add that IF there are 'progressive' people or POC involved in that process then it can work but if its a trio of old boys then its fundamentally useless

Isn't that so very nice of you do condemn injustice in the past while insisting it is okay to continue it into the future. You don't get i!!!

The system is discriminatory now as it was in the past and we don't want it to be in the future.  The point you don't get is your supposed "fair" system has led to the discrimination. That is the systemic nature of the discrimination.  No one says we are hiring the guy because he is white. Everyone hires the "best possibly candidate from a pool of suitable candidates." If the white guy wins most of the time then the rules need to be changed to stop the rigged game.  Did you read the current numbers? I find them reprehensible what about you?

I think the only right that really counts is the right to be left alone.

Slavery hasn't been formally ended...it's just morphed into a less violent, more palatable form.  It doesn't take a government to just up and decide when women get to vote...people rise up and take that right for themselves.  Freedom isn't granted, it is taken.

As for the rules of the road, I think we could do away with a lot of them.  Allow people to drive however they'd like, and use the rule of law to punish those who drive in a manner that infringes on another person's ability to drive however they'd like.

Why is the "best person argument" not appropriate for this site?  I agree that in the past it's been the straight white guys who've dominated the work-force, but I don't think it's something you dwell on...you acknowledge the mistakes of the past, and you move on...vowing to hire the most qualified individual...regardless of their ethnic make-up.  If it's a straight white guy so be it...if it's someone of another race, gender and/or sexual orientation...so be it.

And what about our government sitting in Parliament?  The "most qualified" argument is really a moot point since no matter who gets elected, someone out there will have a beef, and say that so-and-so is not the most qualified for their particular seat or portfolio.  As for the ethnic makeup of our Parliament...I have no idea if it truly represents the diversity of our country...but in case you may be living in and around southern Ontario, lower mainland BC or greater Montreal - a fairly sizable portion of our country is rural and predominantly white.

If the problem then stems from white guys being the most qualified due to systemic causes i.e. better access to higher education, more affluent backgrounds - don't you think using a program like Employment Equity is a reactive, and backwards way of addressing those systemic problems?  Why not tackle the source(s) instead of stop-gap measures introduced at the end of the chain?

The idea of government using a program like Employment Equity to balance an imbalance it caused in the first place is only more evidence of how ridiculous this country is, in terms of how we run our society.

Have you read Maysie's link regarding employment equity?

Sorry, I'd rather get my head drilled without any painkiller than to talk about why we don't debate about whether employment equity is one of the baselines for a progressive site with someone who clearly doesn't get it. You want to hash it out from a point of ignorance, bias and bad information, go somewhere else.

junebug. Unfortunately, we are not here to go over first principles with you. Employment Equity, as I've stated a few times in this thread, has been active for several decades. If you're read the link, that I've now posted TWICE, you would know what it has tried to rectify (without a lot of success, but my critique is from the far left and this thread is not the place for it).

Much thanks and hugs to writer, kropotkin and others who have been patient and have flagged the various posts for the mods' attention. But enough is enough.

It's systemic preference that has the white guys in all the plum jobs. Full stop. EE is a highly flawed, but corrective teensy system, to fix that.

You need to stay out of this thread from now on. This is not a suggestion. If you have any questions feel free to email me at maysie(at)rabble(dot)ca

The problem is the white guys are not the fucking most qualified and they get most of the jobs. The systemic thing is that other white guys think they are the best man for the job and they get hired. 

I'm with you Writer if one can't understand the basics then they are either not listening or they have come to debate the core principles that define the site. 

I have always been pro- Employment Equity/Affirmative Action, but increasingly I am becoming uncomfortable with a system that acknowledges only some forms of discrimination, but not others.  A person may be white and able-bodied, but may also be from a poverty-stricken background, gay, and have a learning disability he does not wish to disclose due to the stigma against this.  Visibly, he would appear to have all advantages, and no reasons for not succeeding.  But he may still be as much of a victim of discrimination as a person from an ethnic minority who has benefited from a prosperous upbringing, is more 'traditional' in their 'lifestyle' (i.e. is straight), and does not have a learning disability.  The issue of discrimination is a lot more complicated than we acknowledge when only looking at race and visible forms of disability, and we need to be careful not to pretend that class/gender/sexuality/non-visible disabilities are not relevant.

Hi shrug. Welcome to babble.

Did you read my link to the actual Employment Equity Act in post #58 and #64?

The "issue" of general discrimination is NOT at the heart and core of the EE Act. Please read the link. I agree that the four designated groups chosen (that I listed in post #64) certainly do not represent all the ways in which people are marginalized. This is one of my critiques of EE.

However.

Discrimination against people who are marginalized by gender (ie women), race (ie people of colour and Aboriginal people) and ability (people with "obvious" physical disabilities as well as those with so-called "invisible" disabilities), however, is huge. Racism, sexism and ableism are extremely marginalizing, not only in employment but throughout many/all of our systems and institutions, as well as individual behaviours. This is a first principle of babble. This is not to set up an "oppression olympics" but merely to suggest that these particular areas were chosen for good reasons. 

But given the tenor of this thread, and the fight to maintain the basic core principles of babble, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for now. I don't think your advanced critique is going to fly. Also, being so new, we have no idea if you're a troll or not. I hope you understand.

And the discrimination doesn't stop there especially when female MP can't get an audience with Harper, as can't think of it every happening to a man.  I know Harper made it pretty clear than he wouldn't waste his time with any woman's group and it looks like he sticks with that one all across the board.

Maysie - It looks like you've given me a slap on the wrist in my first post, though generously giving me "the benefit of the doubt" --??  The benefit of the doubt for what??  I did not write anything offensive -- as you acknowledged, I merely expressed something that you wrote was the basis of your own critique of EE.  Your "I don't think your advanced critique is going to fly" comment has no substance or argument to it. I understand very well that 'the "issue" of general discrimination is NOT at the heart and core of the EE Act' -- that is my criticism. I agree that "these particular areas [ie race, gender and visible disability] were chosen for good reasons"; however, I think it may be time to progress into acknowledgement that these are not the only forms of discrimination, and to see if it's possible to develop more inclusive anti-discrimination policy. Far from being a reactionary comment (and certainly not supporting the Harper government in any way), my comment is a call for more progressive reforms to EE. As it stands, it is flawed for the reasons I expressed.

Meanwhile, when compared with my comment, I find it shocking that comment #29 (from remind) received no reprimand, although he/she was belittling another commenter for the possible crime of not being Canadian! This kind of xenophobia is surely not part of the 'basic core principles of Babble' you say you are trying to uphold.

You joined Babble yesterday (welcome, nevertheless)  and you are accusing remind of (belittling and) xenophobia?  Don't you think that you have plunged too early and hurt the neck of your credibility?

Mahmud - I think I am allowed to have an opinion whether I joined yesterday or five years ago.  Could you not judge my comment by its content rather than by my newbie status?

Hi shrug, it's not xenophobic to point out that "Affirmitive Action" in the American context has a much different tenor than in the Canadian context. I'm not sure spelling "color" without a U is enough to condemn anyone, but it's not worth a moderator's intervention. Besides, we know remind's politics.

As you can see, this thread has been a magnet for new posters writing ignorant nonsense againt the mandate of babble. I think Maysie was just offering a friendly caution to remind you of babble's policy. I accept your criticism, although in the context of the thread and the trolls who have joined in, it is easy to see how one could be wary of a new poster offering such a post at such a time.

Regardless, I agree in spirit with your critique of EE. I look forward to reading more of the same.

Oh, and welcome to babble.

Thanks Catchfire.  I agree that pointing out the difference between American 'AA' and Canadian 'EE' is not xenophobic, but that is not what I read in Remind's comments.  Being new, I do not know Remind's politics, so perhaps I am not able to read between the lines as you are.  From just reading what was written, and the repeated accusations that Sentinel73 was not Canadian (so what if he/she isn't? ... and I know many Canadians and non-Canadians who spell color without the u, and are not evil), it seemed like belittling and xenophobia to me -- a bit of a non-Canadian witchhunt.

As for this thread being full of ignorant nonsense... I think the thread would be rather dull if only people who agreed with each other contributed.  As long as nothing hateful is written, I see no problem with some healthy debate.  Unless I've missed something (I must admit I haven't read every post carefully and in full)....

Ah I see, your answer to remedy discrimination and racism is to have more discrimination and racism. You just shift it onto another group.

No, I don't think Canada belongs to white males. I used the term white male simply because I am one and the issue at hand has to due with anyone not being a "minority", being white that is, can be refused a job based on their skin tone. If Sara Landriault was black and refused a job in the same way, I would also be saying it is racism.

It's plain and simple, you refuse to hire someone, you blocked their resume etc..whether because they are white, black, Chinese or whatever...it is racism.

As for me being Canadian, well I am. Never thought I would have to explain who I am on here, but since it bothers you so much of a way I spell a word I shall let you know....born Newfoundlander with a long family history on the island like many others. Well, seeing your so technical on things, maybe in your opinion not a "real" Canadian like you since we only joined in 1949.

I'm really getting tired of telling people to read the ACTUAL EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT that I've posted twice in this thread already. But Sentinel, go read it.

No. It's. Not.

White people are not, NOT, NOT victims of racism if an equally qualified person from one of the designated Employment Equity groups is hired instead of them. And two of the designated groups are inclusive of white people, by the way. 

Anti-Racism Anti-Oppression 101. Please read the links.

..............

So.

After some consideration, and given the amount of racist content this thread has attracted since it was opened, I'm closing it.

This is first principles stuff, people (you know who you are). 

Ok, here's what we're going to do.

Sentinel73, you are no longer permitted to post in this thread. If you do, you will be suspended. This thread is not going to be derailed by someone concerned about the increasing immiseration of white able-bodied men everywhere. To paraphrase my colleague Maysie: our jobs are safe. Chillax.

Anyone else who wishes to take this thread off-topic with further waxings about the plight of our best and brightest will be invited to take a similar hike. This discussion will continue in the spirit of babble's mandate: that is, from an anti-racist, feminist, pro-labour and anti-ableist mindset. Cool?

Although I disagree with Sentinel, I am very surprised that Babble thinks he has crossed a line with his comments.  I find it depressing that this forum does not allow more freedom of debate.  If just having a differing opinion is offensive, it seems to undermine the whole purpose of having a discussion forum.  Again - unless I missed something, Sentinel did not write anything abusive or anywhere close to outrageous.  He simply doesn't agree with EE, and was expressing that.  If this is a forum that is only about preaching to the converted, what is the purpose of it?  Are we so weak in our arguments that we have to ban people who oppose us?

I agree that Sentinel's argument and definition of racism is simplistic and somewhat ignorant, but I don't think that there has been a fair effort to communicate with him in a non-belligerent way.  "No. It's. Not" is not an competent argument, and I would expect a better editorial approach from such a respected news forum.  The reality is that many, many people agree with Sentinel's views - aren't they the very people we should be trying to reach?

It appears you have missed something, shrug. To wit, the babble policy statement (linked to at the top of every page and which both you and Sentinel agreed to when registering for this site). It reads as follows:

We're not here to discuss everything. We're here to discuss leftist topics from a leftist point of view, in the hopes of extending and enriching leftist thought. For those keeping score, that does not include protecting the privilege of white, able-bodied, heterosexual men (of which I am one). It's also not up for debate. If you want to debate such elementary first principles, feel free to head to CBC, the Globe and Mail, or the National Post, all of which, sadly, still like the look of the wrong side of history.

Not sure if Maysie actually closed this or not (it seems not) but....

CBC's "The House" was on this morning, and while I wasn't actually paying attention, my ears did perk up when I heard "employment equity" mentioned during a discussion about the long form census. Actually it was a comment along the lines of "I don't want to answer questions that be used to hurt me" that made me pay attention. I didn't get the guy's name, but they did identify the three guests as regular Canadians, not pundits, and one was called a "libertarian", so my guess that was the boy.

Officially or through the grapevine, I guess they are cross-referencing these two agenda items now in order to try and scare people and shore up support for their census decision any way they can.

Hey 6079, here's the full audio of today's "The House". The bit about the census is toward the end. Can you find the part you were talking about please?

Well if I have to..... but you realize that means I have to sit through a half hour of Michael Ignatieff. That's part of the reason I was hoping I could squeak through without a proper reference this time, but I guess not.

(edit) ah, good. I found the podcast. wait a sec...

The piece starts about 30 minutes in. The person is Jean Serge Bisson, and he is actually a member and candidate for the Libertarian Party. He also said the notion that there is a real penalty is a joke because he refused to answer it once and was not fined. They just asked him the short form over the phone.

Here it is, at 37 min... an almost direct quote:

"to what point might these questions I don't mind answering be used against me somewhere later on down the road, whether it's employment equity, because I am sure that is where some of the information is coming in for employment equity."

I don't know why they identified a candidate for a political party as a regular Canadian, though.

Gee I can't remember the last time they had a candidate for the Marxist party on the CBC. Libertarianism is the new buzz word for unfettered capitalism so it makes sense that the state media would have them on.  On the left we say no, no, lets not discuss anything further left than social democracy because the voters would be frightened. Meantime the state media provides an ultra free enterprise fringe party a podium.  I think I need to laugh to keep from crying.

Thank you, 6079 - sorry to put you through that torture - and indeed I'm sorry I put myself through that small bit of torture as well!

From Judy Rebick:

The following letter has been signed by several organizations and now they would also like individuals to sign. If you agree to sign send your name and association to Avvy Go [goa [AT] lao.on.ca]

[drift] Shrug, discussions of babble policy or moderation belong in rabble reactions. That way, the thread doesn't get derailed, inadvertently or otherwise, and the mods don't have to close it as they already did once. [/end drift]

Has there been any reaction from the so-called "opposition" parties to this trial balloon, or are they on summer holidays?