Correctional Service of Canada: No Whites Need Apply

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wezil


Amen sister. A point conveniently overlooked by the social engineers.

Well, actually poor white men are NOT as downtrodden as a group as poor black men- after all, in the US about 1/3 of all black males are, or have been in prison, which is an endlessly greaster problem for getting any sort of employment, specially in private firms that have no affirmative action policies. And in many states that means they also lose their right to vote. AND they die earliert than any other group.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


NO, they have decide they will not look at any MORE white candidates- this of course assume shtat they had many openings, many have been filled, but most of those by white applicants that got there early (early bird, worm, that sort of thing) and now they are looking to fulfil their other policy by hoping to get more qualified candidates from one pool.

Again, how awfull and terrible....

Regardless of the merits/demerits it is criminally stupid to exclude applicants, period. Even if they have a quota to fill, it takes all of two seconds to discount the person once they do a meet and greet on the basis of race. Boo friggin hoo that they have to do a little more interviewing until they can find the requisite amount of minorities to fit the bill.

Proof positive that the government run corrective system needs an overhaul if they are too lazy to actually do the necessary battery of interviews. I'ld recommend firing all the admin/HR losers effective immediately and restart a new round of hiring to fill the admin/HR slots.

Damn - xpost

[Patroklos]

Shhhhh, if it is secret it is alright.

Words to live by.

How many whites apply to teach at historically Black colleges?

That matters not if your into affirmative action.

Thanks for the support there

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


All the other poor white people who applied early, got position were not discriminated against.

You got stats on that.

[DaShi]

Hooray for Canada! Once again showing us poor ignorant nations the way! Yay Canada! Friend of the minority!

[Dis]

boohoo.

Whites get so many advantages, who really cares if other groups are brought back to a level playing field.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Dissident
boohoo.

Whites get so many advantages, who really cares if other groups are brought back to a level playing field.

While thats true in many places, my experience growing up was different. Newfoundland Canada has not been good economically for quite a while so there has not been much immigration. The result was a lilly white population where any visible minority person was likely a doctor or engineer or professor. That was my experience growing up-- "White" folks made up 99% of the population while "minorities" were almost exclusively in the top 10% or so of income.


Actually just last summer a minority friend of mine was in rural Newfoundland and stopped at a bar. The bartender inquired if he was a doctor? he was puzzled until the bartender pointed out the group of doctors at a back table ( all but one was non-white)

[Wezil]

Whites are, or soon will be, a minority in Toronto. They need to get their program going so they can stop being hassled by The Man.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Wezil
Whites are, or soon will be, a minority in Toronto. They need to get their program going so they can stop being hassled by The Man.

Pluralities are interesting.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Wezil
Whites are, or soon will be, a minority in Toronto. They need to get their program going so they can stop being hassled by The Man.

Pluralities are interesting.

They can be but that is not the situation in this case. Here we are talking about whites compared to "...aboriginal and visible-minority candidates...".

ie Two groups.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
NO, they have decide they will not look at any MORE white candidates- this of course assume shtat they had many openings, many have been filled, but most of those by white applicants that got there early (early bird, worm, that sort of thing) and now they are looking to fulfil their other policy by hoping to get more qualified candidates from one pool.

Again, this is the same as Harvard saying it will accept whites, just not this year

[Dis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Again, this is the same as Harvard saying it will accept whites, just not this year

there's nothing wrong with that. It just sucks if you happen to be graduate this year.

So you have to wait a year. Big deal. Whites have more money, and more advantages anyways. They can handle it.

Yes it seems like I'm trolling here, but I really want to improve the quality of minorities in this (and our neighboring) country. We are still not quite there yet. Maybe in 10 years.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


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.

Not really. First recourse on discrimination matters is to the appropriate human rights commission. Here there is no recourse

And while the Charter does "trump" human rights legislation in a way ( in the same way that it "trumps" all legislation) it specifically permits AA. Now if the exception for disadvantaged groups did NOT exist, you could have a fun Charter argument. A person discriminated against from an "advantaged group" could argue that the human rights legislation permitting affirmative action was a violation of their Charter Rights. The government would have to acknowledge that affirmative action IS discrimination on prohibited grounds ( race) and then argue the section 1 proportionality test to save the legislation.

Instead, they saved themselves the hassle and decreed it right there in the Charter -- affirmative action= OK. Personally I think they could have won the argument anyway.


There is part of me that wishes that affirmative action programs themselves had to be "proportional".

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Dissident


there's nothing wrong with that. It just sucks if you happen to be graduate this year.

So you have to wait a year. Big deal. Whites have more money, and more advantages anyways. They can handle it.

Yes it seems like I'm trolling here, but I really want to improve the quality of minorities in this (and our neighboring) country. We are still not quite there yet. Maybe in 10 years.

Well I think Canada does better than the US on this -- I wonder if I can scare up some stats?-- Right now its just a feeling based on the larger black and hispanic populations in the US that seem to be generally poorer.


Diss

Is it ok to steal a thousand dollars from a very rich man?? That would seem to be the same logic . . . They are doing ok so screw 'em.

I actually support affirmative action generally but I just don't like what I see as crazy absolutism. If you have 90% whites in a type of job when they are 50% of the population, why not hire 75% minorities from now on.

It may take a little longer but you should get a better overall workforce and you also don't end up with a workforce segregated racially by seniority. As well on a fairness issue, you don't totally slam the career chances of a young white guy to enter a given field. I hate any system where a very good person is excluded regardless even if they exhibit superior merit.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber



Not really. First recourse on discrimination matters is to the appropriate human rights commission. Here there is no recourse

Agreed, but it is little more than a symbolic step on the way to the Charter argument if the claim is a breach of Charter rights.

And while the Charter does "trump" human rights legislation in a way ( in the same way that it "trumps" all legislation) it specifically permits AA.

A major failing. Rights are rights (or should be). Section 24 suffers the same fault as does section 1 to some extent.

Now if the exception for disadvantaged groups did NOT exist, you could have a fun Charter argument. A person discriminated against from an "advantaged group" could argue that the human rights legislation permitting affirmative action was a violation of their Charter Rights. The government would have to acknowledge that affirmative action IS discrimination on prohibited grounds ( race) and then argue the section 1 proportionality test to save the legislation.

My preference.

Instead, they saved themselves the hassle and decreed it right there in the Charter -- affirmative action= OK. Personally I think they could have won the argument anyway.

Perhaps, but I would like to hear the argument made and the policy defended.

There is part of me that wishes that affirmative action programs themselves had to be "proportional".

Hence my Toronto point.