Correctional Service of Canada: No Whites Need Apply

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Positive and negative discrimination sucks. People should be selected on the basis of their ability to do the job, not political correctness to look better externally. That means there will be, for example, male and female firefighters, as long as the woman are capable of performing to the same degree as the required level for men, not a lowered standard for the sake of PC.

We're not talking about firefighters, we're talking about jail guards, parole officers, etc. People who's job involves working with other people.

Besides, your comment is contradictory. On the one hand, you say that you oppose positive discrimination and then you say that people should get their jobs based on ability. Is it justifiable for a fire department to say: no, it will not accept applications from someone who is 5'1" and only weighs 100 pounds? The short person could claim they are being discriminated against. Do you object to that discrimination cause I wouldn't.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
I'm content with the responses to Tingkai from DaShi and Whaleboy.

Good, then I hope that means you will spare us your pointless comments.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DaShi
That was good fun

Come on Dashi, even by your lame standards, that was pretty bad. Try adding something useful to the conversation. You've done once or twice before, I'm sure you can do it again.

Actually, on second thoughts don't bother. It's not worth my time.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai


We're not talking about firefighters, we're talking about jail guards, parole officers, etc. People who's job involves working with other people.

Besides, your comment is contradictory. On the one hand, you say that you oppose positive discrimination and then you say that people should get their jobs based on ability. Is it justifiable for a fire department to say: no, it will not accept applications from someone who is 5'1" and only weighs 100 pounds? The short person could claim they are being discriminated against. Do you object to that discrimination cause I wouldn't.

I would object to the discrimination if people were excluded simply because they were "too small" and the requirement had no rational connection to a bona fide occupational qualification.

The reality is that for most small people they probably wouldn't be able to carry the dummy or do other physical tests at an acceptable standard-- but I would let them take the test.

Personally I would like to see our firefightrs to be as strong as possible .. . . all the better to carry my 200 lbs out of a burning building

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Flubber


I would object to the discrimination if people were excluded simply because they were "too small" and the requirement had no rational connection to a bona fide occupational qualification.

Whewww! I'm glad you qualified the statement at the end that sentence, otherwise I had visions of flat chested Hooters fanchises opening everywhere.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Flubber


I would object to the discrimination if people were excluded simply because they were "too small" and the requirement had no rational connection to a bona fide occupational qualification.

The reality is that for most small people they probably wouldn't be able to carry the dummy or do other physical tests at an acceptable standard-- but I would let them take the test.

Personally I would like to see our firefightrs to be as strong as possible .. . . all the better to carry my 200 lbs out of a burning building

women aren't required to carry the dummy.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Dissident


women aren't required to carry the dummy.

Just wings and beer in tight t-shirts

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Whewww! I'm glad you qualified the statement at the end that sentence, otherwise I had visions of flat chested Hooters fanchises opening everywhere.

Obviously the food and beverage industry discriminates on the basis of physical attractiveness. Last I checked that was ok

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Dissident


women aren't required to carry the dummy.

and to me that's wrong. Either being able to lift a certain weight is a necessary part of the job or it isn't. If it is, I would see ALL firefighters needing to requalify on the physical testing every few years.

An exception to this might be if you have different categories of firefighter or a different position like "pumper panel operator"

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by GePap


Yup, telling people was wrong- they should have taken the applications anyway, and simply held on to them. The mistake was, as was said before, being stupid about telling people not to apply. Its not like you need to tell people what is done with their application once you get them, even if all you do is thrown them in the trash.

Poor PR all around by the Correction services.

The mistake was being honest about what they were doing. You just can't trust the people with anything. Best to do it behind closed doors because we all know the athorities know best..

[Pyrodrew]

Good, then I hope that means you will spare us your pointless comments.

You've monopolized that market.

Nice bald assertion. Let's try the reverse, a diverse workforce always creates better results, particularly in occupations that involve dealing with a multicultural population.

Review all your posts. You're filled with bald assertions since you began. And then you return this time with a self-admitted bald assertion.

Your attempt to use an extreme example to argue against a logical position has utterly failed. The fact is that people with a criminal record are sometimes employed to counsel criminals precisely because they can say "I've been there, and I was able to change my life." Do you have some objection about employing people who have committed crimes, done their time and who are now trying to rebuild their lives?

You fell off track, as my reply was a direct response to your jail guard fairytale - as if they must have a certain quota of jail guard applications with a criminal history for a criminal history jail guard position. And the fact you admit this criminal experience qualifies for a "I've been there" connection further destroys your argument to neglect people's experience for your fictitious "I've been there" position. Although I understand why you tried to jump off your failed fairytale.

The best work places are those that are diverse, where people can provide different perspectives on the world

one way to do that is by having a multicultural CSC staff.

As I pointed out earlier kid, culture and race are 2 different things.

Furthermore, diversity and different perspectives is more reason not to reject people solely on their race first. You fail to grasp the obvious. People can have very "different perspectives on the world" that involve aspects other than race (their socioeconomic status, age, culture, sexual-orientation, gender, height, weight, religious beliefs, etc.) and yet you blind yourself to all of these. And then there are the life experiences you ignore that also create very "different perspectives" - history of overcoming a disadvantage, challenging living situations, education, work history, accomplishments, extra-curricular activities, etc. etc.

If your contention is that someone's race trumps all these other aspects combined for "providing different perspectives on the world" then you're more crazy than I thought. Individuals are more complex than race and skin color, well except maybe you.

Prove to me that I am wrong.

As DaShi explained, the burden is on you to prove something unproven exists, not vice-versa.

In every social group there is someone who blames their problems on other people. Denying reality is going to help people.

There are plenty of skills and experience HR can review to address "someone who blames their problems" on others. Not only did you narrow that for your fairytale to 1 specific problem, "white man keeping me down", but you failed to show why another minority or non-minority could not handle the "white man keeping me down" problem, even if they have superior experience specifically dealing with such issues.

Aye-yeah. Do I really have to explain this?

Yes, elaborate on your warped logic how only one's race always makes someone superior in the ability to connect with others regardless of all other aspects of individuals.

Companies routinely screen potential job applicants by setting specific requirements for a job, for example, 10 year's work experience.

You just like to make me laugh.
10yrs experience shows that person has a proven ability to do that job. Skin color does not prove that.

In Canada, a Native person in this context means a Status Indian. Someone who is 1/16th Native is either a Metis or not, but not a Status Indian...blabla.

You're like Wild E. Coyote with your own ACME lines destroying you.

First, read the article at least once. This is not about Status Indian, review the "visible-minority" portion and how the individual was rejected. I cannot stop you from dancing around the questions, but you must free yourself from your tunnel vision perspectives if you wish to grow up.

Second, Canada recognizes the Metis as an aboriginal group, which shows again you didn't read the article and don't know your own history.

Third, this further goes into the problem of when a mixed race, mulatto or anyone is no longer a "visible-minority".

Finally, if you have courage, post the "legal definition" for what qualifies someone to fit in a certain race. It would be perfect, before I and others completely bury you in the grave you dug yourself.

As I mentioned before, CSC has a long list of white applicants and some of these white people will be hired. CSC is also looking for people who have different qualifications.

Again, this is not about "white people will be hired", but about the individuals being rejected with discrimination to fill 1 narrow superficial racial quota. The ends does not justify the means.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by St Leo
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.

openess in the hiring process in the public sector is probably not a stupid thing imho.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Positive and negative discrimination sucks. People should be selected on the basis of their ability to do the job, not political correctness to look better externally. That means there will be, for example, male and female firefighters, as long as the woman are capable of performing to the same degree as the required level for men, not a lowered standard for the sake of PC.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Come on Dashi, even by your lame standards, that was pretty bad. Try adding something useful to the conversation. You've done once or twice before, I'm sure you can do it again.

Actually, on second thoughts don't bother. It's not worth my time.

Actually, that was a fairly blatant copy of your posting style. I wasn't being subtle at all in it. I just rearranged a few words and borrowed some from your posts in other threads. Glad to see you have no retort for your own inane ramblings. Maybe now you understand why no one respects your opinions. It's not just your puerile attitude (but a lot of it is).

[Az]

Silly decision, and people who support it should be ashamed of themselves .