Announcement

**Flubber** · February 23, 2005, 11:41

Actually it probably is legal. I haven't read the federal version lately but most human rights codes permit discrimination on behalf of a "disadvantaged group". In other words, affirmative action. Although my recollection was that such discrimination was usually supposed to be approved by the human rights commssion. I'm not up on the latest Charter caselaw to know if a Charter challenge could be successful.

I hate the absolutism of it. I can understand slight preferences in favor of groups that have been traditionally disadvantaged but I have always thought it goes to far when the very very best possible candidate can be excluded based on race.

**Flubber** · February 23, 2005, 11:50

To follow up

7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,

(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

BUT

16. (1) It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program, plan or arrangement designed to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are suffered by, any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be based on or related to the prohibited grounds of discrimination, by improving opportunities respecting goods, services, facilities, accommodation or employment in relation to that group.

So the Human Rights Act would appear to allow this and the only way such activity would be illegal would be if section 16(1) were struck down. This is unlikely since even the Charter allows affirmative action.

Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs

(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.

**Asher** · February 23, 2005, 11:51

I remember being told off by certain people on these forums when I mentioned the federal gov't has quotas for visible minorities and aboriginals.

**Donegeal** · February 23, 2005, 11:57

Anyone want to argue that white middle class males aren't being discriminated against?

**Admiral** · February 23, 2005, 12:09

Originally posted by Donegeal
Anyone want to argue that white middle class males aren't being discriminated against?

Ok. White middle class males aren't being discriminated against.

More seriously, it is obvious that something is wrong. At my college, among tenured faculty, 156 are white, and around 13 are some visible minority. Moreover, my college officially celebrates diversity, and at least among students, certainly encourages minorities to apply. Hence, the above disparity is symbolic of a problem with the way our society works. Now, affirmative action is not that good a solution. Negative discrimination is still discrimination. But, given the greater problem, it is at least a step in the right direction (though, really, we should be intervening at a lower level, and making sure there is equality of opportunity during primary/secondary school level).

So, my real response to your question is, anyone want to argue that white (middle class) males are not overrepresented in academia and higher-level jobs?

**Asher** · February 23, 2005, 12:11

Correctional service = academia and high-level jobs?

**Wezil** · February 23, 2005, 12:18

Originally posted by Flubber
Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs

(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.

This is the relevant bit - the Charter.

Yes, under our BS Charter such practices are allowed and as you know, the Charter trumps provincial (or federal) human rights legislation.

All animals are equal in Canada, but some animals are more equal than others. The Constitution says so.

**Patroklos** · February 23, 2005, 12:20

Hence, the above disparity is symbolic of a problem with the way our society works.

Not at all, it could and probobly does mean that the institution was hiring solely on merit and not race. Or it could be minority simple did not apply for those jobs.

i don't see anyone throwing fits when "black" colleges have staffs of thousands that are 90% minority.

Affirmative action is a hypocritical solution, because the logic of it should garuntee that everyone have at least 65% white employees too.

**GePap** · February 23, 2005, 12:23

So lets see, the Correction services have a field of equally qualified candidates (one assumes, unless people here are then going to start arguing that white cadidates are inherently better qualified, period), and have decide they will advantage certain candidates in order to fulfill other policy priorities....

Oh, yes, shameful- trully, trully terrible.

**Kuciwalker** · February 23, 2005, 12:26

So lets see, the Correction services have a field of equally qualified candidates (one assumes, unless people here are then going to start arguing that white cadidates are inherently better qualified, period), and have decide they will advantage certain candidates in order to fulfill other policy priorities....

No, they decide they will not accept any white candidates at all. It's not just an "advantage" - it's total exclusion. It's as if Harvard decided it would only accept blacks and hispanics.

**Patroklos** · February 23, 2005, 12:34

No, they decide they will not accept any white candidates at all. It's not just an "advantage" - it's total exclusion. It's as if Harvard decided it would only accept blacks and hispanics.

Or better yet, only whites.

They specifically quantified that the reason no whites are being hired is not because everyone was equal (which is stupid) but because they are white.

**Admiral** · February 23, 2005, 12:34

Originally posted by Patroklos

Not at all, it could and probobly does mean that the institution was hiring solely on merit and not race. Or it could be minority simple did not apply for those jobs.

i don't see anyone throwing fits when "black" colleges have staffs of thousands that are 90% minority.

Affirmative action is a hypocritical solution, because the logic of it should garuntee that everyone have at least 65% white employees too.

I'm sure it was hiring solely on the basis of merit. My point was that when such a vast majority of the qualified applicants (for a respected institution) are white, this points to greater problems. There are more whites in America than non-whites, but as you suggest, its closer to 65-35 than it is to 93-7. And, my defense of affirmative action is that it does lead to increased minority representation in academia/higher level jobs. I don't particularly like it (and ironically, if I was a minority, I might have gone to a better college), but it is better than nothing.

Correctional service = academia and high-level jobs?

My apologies for the threadjack.

**St Leo** · February 23, 2005, 12:35

How much "merit" do you really need to be a prison guard?

Presumably, the CSB has found its guards to be in a white-boy-club situation, so they are acting to ameliorate that. Their only mistake was sending out the stupid rejection letter.

**St Leo** · February 23, 2005, 12:37

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No, they decide they will not accept any white candidates at all.

For all time? I seriously doubt that. It's probably just for the current round of hiring.

Announcement

Correctional Service of Canada: No Whites Need Apply

Correctional Service of Canada: No Whites Need Apply

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment