HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Do you support affirmative action or not?

View Poll Results: Do you support affirmative action?
Yes 25 37.31%
No 42 62.69%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-28-2013, 09:12 PM
  #201
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
30% percent? Wow that's impressive. Who got the other 70%?

/dnrtfa
Thanks for making me Google dnrtfa

Me either. I just post links to facts I post when possible.

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.
Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2013, 09:19 PM
  #202
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,531
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Fark has influenced my internet jargon. Blame Troy McClure, he is the one who introduced me to that place.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2013, 10:27 PM
  #203
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 8,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
you are retarded if you think there is a politican out there who wouldnt be happy to have any vote from anybody.

but there is no incentive to court the black vote as a republican, because of the history of lockstep voting for democrats. Rand Paul is actually reaching out to the black community. If this effort results in tangible black support then others may emulate him but if he makes the effort and blacks still vote 92% democrat then why would another republican bother to try?
Mark my words: the Republicans will start trying to court the black vote in states like Arizona and Texas once they've pissed off the Latino vote to the point at which those states threaten to go blue. Or not. At the moment the Republicans aren't that great at appealing to anyone who isn't old, white and rural.

Ugmo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2013, 02:19 AM
  #204
Howard Beale
Registered User
 
Howard Beale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country:
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
you are retarded if you think there is a politican out there who wouldnt be happy to have any vote from anybody.

but there is no incentive to court the black vote as a republican, because of the history of lockstep voting for democrats. Rand Paul is actually reaching out to the black community. If this effort results in tangible black support then others may emulate him but if he makes the effort and blacks still vote 92% democrat then why would another republican bother to try?
Of course they would love to have anybody's vote, including those of blacks and hispanics, but the difficulty is that much of the Republicans' base strongly supports those very policies that alienate many blacks and hispanics from voting for them. If a Republican candidate supports too many initiatives trying to gain support among minorities, they risk losing some of the white, very conservative core support that votes in the primaries. Immigration reform is probably a good example of an issue like this. Even though it would be best for the party as a whole to attract more minorities to the tent, many Republican candidates can't do that very easily without setting themselves up to get primaried by tea partiers.

With demographic trends as they are, eventually the Republicans need to make gains among the demographics where they've been declining (young people, women, minorities), so I'm curious to see which issues they'll relax their stance on. Any chance we'll see mainstream Republicans in most states drop their opposition to gay marriage within 5 years, as has happened in Canada? Its nation-wide acceptance has already broken 50%, and is only going up.

Howard Beale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 11:32 AM
  #205
Epictetus
Global Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,502
vCash: 4200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Nope not in Canada. That is not a valid legal claim as the federal government has noted.

As the Government of Canada has clearly stated at the HRSDC website - reverse discrimination has been rejected as a viable argument against affirmative action:
In addition, Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect, further strengthening the idea of workplace equality.

This "Equality Rights" section contains protection against discrimination and makes a provision for special affirmative action programs. Subsection 15(2) acknowledges that equality requires conditions of disadvantage to be addressed. This means that the argument that employment equity is 'reverse discrimination' is not legally valid.
You've posted the legal position, which is an authoritative bodies stance on this particular topic. However, what is the justification for reaching this stance? In other words, how did Canadian law arrive at its conclusion? Why has reverse discrimination been rejected as a viable argument against affirmative action? That's what I am interested in.

Epictetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 01:04 PM
  #206
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Win it for Robidas!
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 24,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Fark has influenced my internet jargon. Blame Troy McClure, he is the one who introduced me to that place.
You're welcome.

Skimming the politics tab is the best way to keep current on every political issue of the day. After five minutes of reading the comments to any article, you will know exactly what the people on either side of an issue stand. You will also be properly trolled on every issue as well.

Troy McClure is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 05:08 PM
  #207
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
You've posted the legal position, which is an authoritative bodies stance on this particular topic. However, what is the justification for reaching this stance? In other words, how did Canadian law arrive at its conclusion? Why has reverse discrimination been rejected as a viable argument against affirmative action? That's what I am interested in.
I have posted the theory and philosophy and how it has been applied via legislation and practise behind the differing positions any number of times in various threads at this forum including this one.

I constantly hear complaining and whining that I only post "legal stuff" - I do not. It stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the legislative process. Much of our legislation is the implementation of policy decisions after due review and consideration by legislators and others. As I have noted on this issue in the past:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
If you read the history of employment equity, the Charter negotiations and approval by Parliament and the provincial legislatures, it is hard to view it as arbitrary unless your definition means extensively studied, reviewed by federal and provincial lawmaker and then passed - that does not seem arbitrary to me

Since the Charter specifically provides for the amelioration of past actions through such programs directed at only specific groups as not being unlawful, I am unsure how it sounds ridiculous. Reverse discrimination is a US concept and not a legally valid claim in Canada vis a vis these particular groups. Time to quit using a US model.

The reason visible minorities were included, along with women the disabled and aboriginals was because the Royal Commission found that the historical inequities were greatest for those groups and Parliament chose to identify them as such.
And when I do set it out in detail? You get the mouth-breathing morons that infest this forum responding with TL;DR.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to read the thread? All I can do is put out the material, unfortunately I cannot require others to read and comprehend what is posted. As always:



http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...27&postcount=6
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=71
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...5&postcount=75
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=82
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=84
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=130

And that is just in this thread - in other threads I have laid it out as well in detail:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=12
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=19
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=26
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...3&postcount=44
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=49
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...9&postcount=13
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...4&postcount=21
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...6&postcount=37
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...9&postcount=40
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=44
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...2&postcount=49
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...8&postcount=73
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...8&postcount=82
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...2&postcount=91
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=114
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=124


I have many more links if you want them.


In Canada affirmative action is not principally race based as is the US experience - it is something more. It is not just minorities per se but rather visible minorities and other groups who are easily identified. In Canada we focus upon four groups who historically had been disadvantaged - women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and people with disabilities.

We have had a Royal Commission (Royal Commission on Equality in Employment aka The Abella Commission) which was accorded an expanded mandate and given effect by the Progressive Conservative government of PM Brian Mulroney. That Royal Commission examined these issues in detail from a historical perspective and recommended legislation which is now to be found in the Employment Equity Act which makes the purpose clear in Section 2 -
Purpose of Act

2. The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
Canada specifically rejected the SCOTUS Bakke approach of formal equality - "means more than treating persons in the same way" (reverse discrimination - a simplistic and flawed view of equality that ignores history and redress) in favour of a broader and more procedural approach - "requires special measures and the accommodation of differences." "Special measures" of course refers to affirmative action programs.

In Canada we favour social inclusion:
Social Inclusion forces us to go beyond the realm of formal equality and into the realm of substantive equality which is characterized by discrimination, exclusion and inequality. Social inclusion begins from the premise that it is democratic citizenship that is at risk when a society fails to develop the talents and capacities of all its members. The move to social inclusion is eroded when the rights of minorities are not respected and accommodated and minorities feel “Othered”. For social inclusion there is no contradiction between democratic citizenship and differentiated citizenship (where people can hold dual and even multiple loyalties).

In response to this reality there arose a demand among advocates for minority rights that laws and policies that were blind to differences could, despite their intentions be discriminatory. It was the Abella report that advanced the notion that equality does not mean sameness and that equality means that we have to treat differences differently.
http://www.ccsd.ca/subsites/inclusion/bp/as.htm

This purpose statement in the Employment Equity Act pretty much mirrors what Madame Justice Abella said in her Royal Commission report:
Sometimes equality means treating people the same, despite their differences, and sometimes it means treating them as equals by accommodating their differences.

Formerly, we thought that equality only meant sameness and that treating persons as equals meant treating everyone the same. We now know that to treat everyone the same may be to offend the notion of equality.
~ Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella - 1984 - Royal Commission on Equality in Employment

I have referenced that Royal Commission with links earlier in this thread noting the research and review of the issue of affirmative action (Madame Justice Abella coined the term "employment equity" but it means the same thing), consideration of numerous academic and other submissions and a conscious policy decision to reject the US approach in Bakke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The entrenchment of affirmative action in the Charter and the federal Employment Equity Act were conscious policy decisions based upon research and evaluation of other jurisdictions such as the United States. A decision was made specifically to reject the US approach. The in-depth study of the issues inherent in the subjects and policy choices preceded the legislation.

Section 15 (2) of the Charter was included to make that abundantly clear to future courts that affirmative action that met the conditions set out therein were considered to be within Canada's definition of equal rights and that claims such as reverse discrimination were not legally viable in this country.

And in the case of employment equity (our version of affirmative action in the area of employment) the result of the findings of the 1984 Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, chaired by Madame Justice Rosalie Abella after extensive hearings and submission of numerous briefs.
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301...la1984-eng.htm

Here is a select bibliography of submissions and materials considered by the Abella Commission:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301...-part3-eng.pdf
If you read the Abella Report you will see these sorts of issues being examined in detail as well as the comparison of substantive equality taking a historical view to correct past discrimination (the Canadian policy choice) with formalistic equality which the US adopted and which basically ignores the historical context.

Essentially it has to do with taking a historical view of inequality (rather than a simple snapshot of the current point in time) and applying a remedial/restorative approach (aka amelioration) to past discrimination. This is in line the basic underlying principles of our legal and social justice philosophy. In Canada restorative justice is one of the major pillars of our justice system, both civil and criminal.

Canadians do not get to ignore what has occurred in the past. One of the consequences when you correct historical inequalities for minorities is that some members of the majority today are affected - too bad, so sad. That is the price to be paid for remedial action. Why? Because Canadian society as whole has accepted it is the right thing to do.


That is what Section 15 (2) of the Charter speaks to:
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
IMHO it underlies the basic difference where Canada has embraced the concept of multiculturalism and entrenched it in our Constitution as we have also done with affirmative action in s. 15(2).

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 05:13 PM
  #208
Epictetus
Global Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,502
vCash: 4200
Cool. Thanks for the information. I'll get back with a response when I have some more time to read through it and to articulate an opinion of agreement or disagreement.

Epictetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 01:42 AM
  #209
Kevin Malone
Registered User
 
Kevin Malone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Thanks for the insult, but it sure seems like Republicans are doing whatever they can to get blacks to vote Democrat.

Why should a black man in Michigan vote Republican because of Rand Paul? Senator Paul represents Kentucky, not Michigan. I think most blacks realize, or believe, that Republicans don't represent their interests. Even if it's not true, the Republicans have some work ahead of themselves to win black hearts and minds.
Ahhh yes the black man in Michigan who has voted strictly Democrat for the last 60 years and it has gotten him exactly where??

I could care less about the Republican party and whose vote they court. My point was based on the history on the Democratic Party which has led to blacks solely voting for them.

Why should a black man vote for Rand Paul??? Well because he certainly couldn't do a worse job than the democrats have done in the last half century. You act as if courting the black vote is actually more important than getting results for black people which democrats seem to be great at.

I have had a first row seat and have seen Michigan/Detroit go from being the world leader in technology and production to resembling that of a third world country. When blacks split their vote amongst the two parties Detroit was the wealthiest city in the world. Since Detroit became a Democrat stronghold year after year poverty and crime increased, jobs left and cronyism has run rampant.

Every election cycle in Detroit is the exact same thing. The rhetoric is never about what democrats have done for the black community its always over the top scare tactics about how Republicans are responsible for their current mess. Many local city council members will actually blame white suburbanites for the cities mess to deflect blame from their citizens. Detroit is the strongest democratic stronghold in the country and yet the poorest and most violent as well. Do you honestly believe the democrat party does not hold some responsibility for this?

Just because Democrats court the black vote doesn't mean black people are better off voting for them. Democrats are like a used car salesman. They will tell you anything you want to hear to get you in that new car. Once the sale is done they are no where to be found. It's just sad now a days that people think that a politician must court all different races, religions, sexes etc to be elected. Whatever happened to doing what was best for all of society and running on a platform that treats everyone as equals...

Kevin Malone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 02:26 AM
  #210
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,772
vCash: 500
Gotta love the "The Blacks are too dumb to realize they're voting for the wrong party" mantra.

Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 03:20 AM
  #211
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,929
vCash: 500
Don't the blacks know that the modern Republican party is the path to success? They just need people to tell them they're too lazy to find high-paying jobs and to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and stop mooching off the government. It's called tough love, blacks.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 03:25 AM
  #212
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,929
vCash: 500
Also I love the idea that manufacturing in the Midwest (and Detroit in particular) has declined because black people stopped voting for both parties. I think Kevin Malone needs a little lesson in the difference between correlation and causation.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 11:40 PM
  #213
Kevin Malone
Registered User
 
Kevin Malone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,343
vCash: 500
LOL, why should I expect any better from some of you...

So your telling me that blacks in Detroit have benefited from the Democrat party being in charge for the past 50 years??

Your proof that blacks are better off now that they vote solid democrat??

Let me guess you'll blame it on the infamous white flight which happened to just about every city in the 1960s. A racist Democrat mayor in Coleman Young only exasperated the problem by telling white businesses that Detroit didn't need their money.

Detroit is a disaster in every sense of the word. To absolve the one political party that has ruled the city with an iron fist with mayoral, council, state and national representatives from any wrong doing is absolute madness. What's ironic is that Detroit has become one the most racist cities in America at the council level and the left completely ignores it.

Of course Detroit had to face the consequence of global manufacturing. However many of those consequences were brought on by their own decisions.

Detroit followed the Democrat handbook to a tee with almost unilateral support from amongst its people. The smugness of those on the left to continually blame Detroits problems on outside forces primarily Republicans is laughable. When Republicans ran Detroit it was the richest city as well as the fastest growing city in the world. It was also the most multicultural city in the world as well.

The arguement was why would a black man in Michigan vote Republican. When the black man in Michigan voted Republican he enjoyed a standard that very few in the world enjoyed at the time. In terms of current day wealth America has yet to emulate the wealth that was produced in early 20th Century Detroit in the which the city voted staunchly Republican.

But hey, who needs proof on these boards when we have one liners, emoticons and overused gifs. Ahh the incredible intellect of some on here, keep up the great work...

Kevin Malone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 11:51 PM
  #214
Tubby Tuke
Drafting my Overalls
 
Tubby Tuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,546
vCash: 500
Basically since Kevin Malone is against it, I'm for it.

Tubby Tuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 11:53 PM
  #215
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Malone View Post
What's ironic is that Detroit has become one the most racist cities in America at the council level and the left completely ignores it.
As opposed to the early 20th century when Detroit was a stronghold for the Ku Klux Klan.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Malone View Post
When Republicans ran Detroit it was the richest city as well as the fastest growing city in the world. It was also the most multicultural city in the world as well.
I'm guessing this is the part where I challenge you to support these statements with facts, and you disappear because you have been caught making shit up yet again.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 11:55 PM
  #216
Colt45Blast
is in your head
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: everytime
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
As opposed to the early 20th century when Detroit was a stronghold for the Ku Klux Klan.
Good old liberals love live in the past and make stuff up in small minded fashion.

Colt45Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 11:58 PM
  #217
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP View Post
Good old liberals love live in the past and make stuff up in small minded fashion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Quote:
The Klan became most prominent in urbanizing cities with high growth rates between 1910 and 1930, such as Detroit, Memphis, and Dayton in the Upper South and Midwest; and Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston in the South. In Michigan, close to 50% of the Klan members lived in Detroit, where they numbered 40,000; they were concerned about with finite housing possibilities, rapid social change, and competition for jobs with European immigrants and Southerners both black and white.

Sorry, facts disagree with you yet again, fat man. Time for bed.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 12:37 AM
  #218
Colt45Blast
is in your head
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: everytime
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan




Sorry, facts disagree with you yet again, fat man. Time for bed.
Wiki the Liberal Encyclopedia + Iikka stupidity = still living in the past

Colt45Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 01:16 AM
  #219
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Win it for Robidas!
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 24,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I have posted the theory and philosophy and how it has been applied via legislation and practise behind the differing positions any number of times in various threads at this forum including this one.

I constantly hear complaining and whining that I only post "legal stuff" - I do not. It stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the legislative process. Much of our legislation is the implementation of policy decisions after due review and consideration by legislators and others. As I have noted on this issue in the past:



And when I do set it out in detail? You get the mouth-breathing morons that infest this forum responding with TL;DR.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to read the thread? All I can do is put out the material, unfortunately I cannot require others to read and comprehend what is posted. As always:



http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...27&postcount=6
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=71
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...5&postcount=75
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=82
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=84
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=130

And that is just in this thread - in other threads I have laid it out as well in detail:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=12
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=19
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=26
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...3&postcount=44
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=49
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...9&postcount=13
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...4&postcount=21
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...6&postcount=37
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...9&postcount=40
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=44
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...2&postcount=49
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...8&postcount=73
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...8&postcount=82
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...2&postcount=91
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=114
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=124


I have many more links if you want them.


In Canada affirmative action is not principally race based as is the US experience - it is something more. It is not just minorities per se but rather visible minorities and other groups who are easily identified. In Canada we focus upon four groups who historically had been disadvantaged - women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and people with disabilities.

We have had a Royal Commission (Royal Commission on Equality in Employment aka The Abella Commission) which was accorded an expanded mandate and given effect by the Progressive Conservative government of PM Brian Mulroney. That Royal Commission examined these issues in detail from a historical perspective and recommended legislation which is now to be found in the Employment Equity Act which makes the purpose clear in Section 2 -
Purpose of Act

2. The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
Canada specifically rejected the SCOTUS Bakke approach of formal equality - "means more than treating persons in the same way" (reverse discrimination - a simplistic and flawed view of equality that ignores history and redress) in favour of a broader and more procedural approach - "requires special measures and the accommodation of differences." "Special measures" of course refers to affirmative action programs.

In Canada we favour social inclusion:
Social Inclusion forces us to go beyond the realm of formal equality and into the realm of substantive equality which is characterized by discrimination, exclusion and inequality. Social inclusion begins from the premise that it is democratic citizenship that is at risk when a society fails to develop the talents and capacities of all its members. The move to social inclusion is eroded when the rights of minorities are not respected and accommodated and minorities feel “Othered”. For social inclusion there is no contradiction between democratic citizenship and differentiated citizenship (where people can hold dual and even multiple loyalties).

In response to this reality there arose a demand among advocates for minority rights that laws and policies that were blind to differences could, despite their intentions be discriminatory. It was the Abella report that advanced the notion that equality does not mean sameness and that equality means that we have to treat differences differently.
http://www.ccsd.ca/subsites/inclusion/bp/as.htm

This purpose statement in the Employment Equity Act pretty much mirrors what Madame Justice Abella said in her Royal Commission report:
Sometimes equality means treating people the same, despite their differences, and sometimes it means treating them as equals by accommodating their differences.

Formerly, we thought that equality only meant sameness and that treating persons as equals meant treating everyone the same. We now know that to treat everyone the same may be to offend the notion of equality.
~ Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella - 1984 - Royal Commission on Equality in Employment

I have referenced that Royal Commission with links earlier in this thread noting the research and review of the issue of affirmative action (Madame Justice Abella coined the term "employment equity" but it means the same thing), consideration of numerous academic and other submissions and a conscious policy decision to reject the US approach in Bakke.



If you read the Abella Report you will see these sorts of issues being examined in detail as well as the comparison of substantive equality taking a historical view to correct past discrimination (the Canadian policy choice) with formalistic equality which the US adopted and which basically ignores the historical context.

Essentially it has to do with taking a historical view of inequality (rather than a simple snapshot of the current point in time) and applying a remedial/restorative approach (aka amelioration) to past discrimination. This is in line the basic underlying principles of our legal and social justice philosophy. In Canada restorative justice is one of the major pillars of our justice system, both civil and criminal.

Canadians do not get to ignore what has occurred in the past. One of the consequences when you correct historical inequalities for minorities is that some members of the majority today are affected - too bad, so sad. That is the price to be paid for remedial action. Why? Because Canadian society as whole has accepted it is the right thing to do.


That is what Section 15 (2) of the Charter speaks to:
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
IMHO it underlies the basic difference where Canada has embraced the concept of multiculturalism and entrenched it in our Constitution as we have also done with affirmative action in s. 15(2).
That is a long post that essentially does nothing to address his post. He asked why reverse racism does not factor in, and all you have answered is that affirmative action is the law.

Troy McClure is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 01:45 AM
  #220
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure View Post
That is a long post that essentially does nothing to address his post. He asked why reverse racism does not factor in, and all you have answered is that affirmative action is the law.
I laid out the differences in philosophy and approach quite clearly.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 03:28 AM
  #221
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP View Post
Wiki the Liberal Encyclopedia + Iikka stupidity = still living in the past
Maybe the guy who thinks climate change means it won't get cold any more in the winter isn't exactly the best arbiter for determining stupidity.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 03:30 AM
  #222
Rangerboy030
Registered User
 
Rangerboy030's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 459
vCash: 500
Yes, but hopefully we won't need it one day.

Rangerboy030 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.