"James" <lsjames@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:foo9so$atq$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Meldon wrote:
>> "James" <lsjames@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:fom8qa$h4b$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Meldon wrote:
>>>> "James" <lsjames@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:folqfc$98p$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Meldon wrote:
>>>>>> "James" <lsjames@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:foledj$7a2$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> James wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jani wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Meldon" <meldon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:13qrs24senqbi2a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>> "Jani" <jani@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:fok6jb$28ph$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>> "Meldon" <meldon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:13qppjqmepls584@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jani" <jani@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:foicmn$25p0$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Meldon" <meldon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:13qoh284961754a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One such example is an Act in Canada called Employment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its a bit scary really. The site is loaded with such
phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as "Racism-Free Workplace" but when examined, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation does not include white anglo males. Here are
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups that are protected from discrimination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a.. aboriginal people b.. persons with disabilities c..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members of a visible minority d.. women
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/labour/employee_rights/index.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless I'm completely stupid, please point out to me where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> white, anglo males are protected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they're a visible minority, they're in category c. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a majority, why do they need protection?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jani
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly they are not a visible minority as defined in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> statutes
>>>>>>>>>>>> so they must be part of a majority. Members of a majority
can
>>>>>>>>>>>> experience discrimination also and therefore should be
entitled
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> protection from discrimination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Members of a majority are not free from experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>> discrimination just because they belong to a majority are
>>>>>>>>>>>> they?.
>>>>>>>>>>> Any individual can be the victim of discrimination, certainly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So discrimination against an individual is perfectly acceptable
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> against a member of a special class is not? This seems unfair,
>>>>>>>>>> inequitable and allows discrimination to occur against member
of
>>>>>>>>>> excluded groups.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So much for equal protection for ALL.
>>>>>>>>> Where did I say that discrimination was acceptable?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think a majority should receive protection from racial
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> ethnic discrimination or not and if so why?
>>>>>>>>>>> I think you'd have to show that discrimination exists solely
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> of one's membership of the group in question. If the group is
a
>>>>>>>>>>> privileged majority (even though some individuals *within* the
>>>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>>> may not be particularly privileged), that might be difficult.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jani
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess you've hit the nail on the head and confirms my claim.
>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>> again, so much for equality under the law.
>>>>>>>>> So, what is the evidence you're presenting to show that "anglo
>>>>>>>>> white
>>>>>>>>> males", *as a group*, suffer discrimination?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jani
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To begin with the French ran a half million Anglophones out of
>>>>>>>> Quebec
>>>>>>>> and currently occupy 68% of all federal supervisory positions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not bad for a 23% linguistic minority.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The federal government should be encouraged to make as many
>>>>>>> positions
>>>>>>> bilingual as they want so long as 23.5 % of the staff is Franco
and
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> remainder are anglophone at all levels of government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who could object to that?? Trudeau did exactly that, with the
forces
>>>>>>> back in
>>>>>>> his day, and all the French were pleased.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to see the actual legal wording of that strategy. You
know,
>>>>>> the ones
>>>>>> that look good on paper to a layman but have loopholes big enough
to
>>>>>> drive a truck through which all the lawyers know of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> There was no legal wording to it. Trudeau simply told J Dex
(Jacques
>>>>> Dextraze
>>>>> the CDS ) to put 28% frenchmen in every rank level of the forces,
>>>>> regardless of qualification, and he did.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Who could object to that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Exactly! It seemed fair to everyone but the guys passed over for
>>> promotion at the
>>> time. Now its mostly like the federal government; you have to be
french
>>> to
>>> be anything.
>>
>> Ahh I see. So its the french that are the problem? That's a pretty weak
>> effort to divert from the actual threat and to encourage hate toward an
>> innocent group.....
>>
> Exactly!
Are you ignorant or complicit in the surreptitious genocide?
|
