[kenmore]

Well andyt.. I was just kidding about voting for them. I have the same fears of their extreme right wing agenda as you do. But some things have to change and immigration,affirmative action, and multiculturalism are at the top of my list.

[GreenTiger]

Bodah is correct racial disciminatis racial discrimination. Who is doing it to who is irrevant and just plain wrong. This is something that needs to be codified into law so that NOBODY can change it.

[EyeBrock]

Lemmy Lemmy:

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

The charter allows for affirmative action it doesn't state you MUST have it

Yeah, but think through the logic. The first person to not be hired because an affirmative action program was cancelled is going to go to the Supreme Court and prove that the program-cancellation disadvantaged him/her. What's going to happen? The Court is pretty much handcuffed, aren't they?

There is no case law past the original Section 6 that sets up a government for judicial remedy on affirmative action.


"4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada."

That basically means a government is protected IF it conducts an affirmative action program. It doesn't open the door for litigation if a government DOESN'T provide such a program.

[Canadiana55]

Love it. Typical NDP pinkos...When Bob Rae was premier of Ont. he brought in all sorts of affirmative action policies. It was a nightmare trying to find a gov't job as a white male.

[Lemmy]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

There is no case law past the original Section 6 that sets up a government for judicial remedy on affirmative action.

That could make it MORE dangerous. It leaves the precedent to be set.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

"4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada."

That basically means a government is protected IF it conducts an affirmative action program. It doesn't open the door for litigation if a government DOESN'T provide such a program.

But if the government were to direct a sweeping policy of dismantling affirmative action programs, it may open the door to a Constitutional challenge of that new policy. And it's easier to predict the winning horse at Woodbine than to predict the Supreme Court's decision on anything.

[EyeBrock]

No, it's the reverse Lemmy.

It's not been challenged for good reason and I can't see anybody having a real go at this. The Charter wording is the usual and alludes to my interpretation.

Even in 1982 people realised that any form of discrimination, 'positive' or not, was still discrimination.

This is just the pendulum swinging back a bit and it will be popular with all sides.

The Charter is a funny thing, but we all kinda know what you can and can’t do with it.

Binning hiring preferences that promoted gender and ethnicity above competence was well overdue.

[hurley_108]

Overheard somewhere in Ottawa:

"Crap, we're getting beat up over this census thing. What can we do to deflect attention from that? Oh, hey, there was that story about that lady who wanted to apply for a job but couldn't 'cause she's white. Send out a press release right away: we're reviewing affirmative action!"

It's amazing to me how reactionary this government is. Olson's getting a pension, change the pension rules NOW! Homolka's going to be eligible for a pardon, change the pardon rules NOW! Someone couldn't apply for a job, review affirmative action NOW!

I'm not saying that any of these things aren't the right thing to do. They are. But if they're so demonstrably the right thing to do, why weren't they done proactively? Why is there always some news report on something, and then only after that is there a sudden, mad rush to fix the problem?

It's not like these were unforseeable problems either. Why weren't they identified earlier in the Conservatives' four years in power?

[RUEZ]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Overheard somewhere in Ottawa:

"Crap, we're getting beat up over this census thing. What can we do to deflect attention from that? Oh, hey, there was that story about that lady who wanted to apply for a job but couldn't 'cause she's white. Send out a press release right away: we're reviewing affirmative action!"

It's amazing to me how reactionary this government is. Olson's getting a pension, change the pension rules NOW! Homolka's going to be eligible for a pardon, change the pardon rules NOW! Someone couldn't apply for a job, review affirmative action NOW!

I'm not saying that any of these things aren't the right thing to do. They are. But if they're so demonstrably the right thing to do, why weren't they done proactively? Why is there always some news report on something, and then only after that is there a sudden, mad rush to fix the problem?

It's not like these were unforseeable problems either. Why weren't they identified earlier in the Conservatives' four years in power?

So you're upset they are doing something?

[hurley_108]

RUEZ RUEZ:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Overheard somewhere in Ottawa:

"Crap, we're getting beat up over this census thing. What can we do to deflect attention from that? Oh, hey, there was that story about that lady who wanted to apply for a job but couldn't 'cause she's white. Send out a press release right away: we're reviewing affirmative action!"

It's amazing to me how reactionary this government is. Olson's getting a pension, change the pension rules NOW! Homolka's going to be eligible for a pardon, change the pardon rules NOW! Someone couldn't apply for a job, review affirmative action NOW!

I'm not saying that any of these things aren't the right thing to do. They are. But if they're so demonstrably the right thing to do, why weren't they done proactively? Why is there always some news report on something, and then only after that is there a sudden, mad rush to fix the problem?

It's not like these were unforseeable problems either. Why weren't they identified earlier in the Conservatives' four years in power?

So you're upset they are doing something?

No. Try some reading comprehension (hint bolded). These are the right things to do. But they're being done in a haphazard, rushed fashion, and they're beating down the opposition for doing its job because they didn't get to fixing the problem before it blew up in their faces. They're the government now. They're supposed to lead, not follow.

[Bodah]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

"Crap, we're getting beat up over this census thing. What can we do to deflect attention from that? Oh, hey, there was that story about that lady who wanted to apply for a job but couldn't 'cause she's white. Send out a press release right away: we're reviewing affirmative action!"

Have you seen some of the questions on this long form census ? I wouldn't answer them, none of their business as far as I'm concerned. To be fair I believe I think the long form census will still exist I just think they're remove the part where it states if you don't fill it out we can fine you and throw your ass in jail part.

For the rest of your post, better late than never.

[hurley_108]

Bodah Bodah:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

"Crap, we're getting beat up over this census thing. What can we do to deflect attention from that? Oh, hey, there was that story about that lady who wanted to apply for a job but couldn't 'cause she's white. Send out a press release right away: we're reviewing affirmative action!"

Have you seen some of the questions on this long form census ? I wouldn't answer them, none of their business as far as I'm concerned. To be fair I believe I think the long form census will still exist I just think they're remove the part where it states if you don't fill it out we can fine you and throw your ass in jail part.

No, I've never had to fill it out. But why not just remove the offending questions? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

$1:

For the rest of your post, better late than never.

Haste makes waste. Hey, this is a great way to argue a point: just use flippant proverbs.

[Bodah]

Canadiana55 Canadiana55:

Love it. Typical NDP pinkos...When Bob Rae was premier of Ont. he brought in all sorts of affirmative action policies. It was a nightmare trying to find a gov't job as a white male.

Thanks to that prick it brought an end to me pursuing a firefighting career with the City of Ottawa after he was fighting hard to emplace a moratorium white dicks from working with any FD in Ontario. I was young then I should of perserved and kept up my training and applying going through the tests every year, one thing it did do was move me politically from the left to the right.

Haven't gone back ever since.

[Bodah]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

No, I've never had to fill it out. But why not just remove the offending questions? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

What may be offensive to you may not be offensive to others. Isn't easier to make it optional or even answer the questions you don't find a little intrusive.
Instead of setting up a year long committee deciding whats offensive and what isn't.

Now that's wasteful.

[RUEZ]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

No. Try some reading comprehension (hint bolded). These are the right things to do. But they're being done in a haphazard, rushed fashion, and they're beating down the opposition for doing its job because they didn't get to fixing the problem before it blew up in their faces. They're the government now. They're supposed to lead, not follow.

So they are dealing with problems as they arise. What exactly is your problem with that? My guess is you wouldn't be happy either way.

[hurley_108]

Bodah Bodah:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

No, I've never had to fill it out. But why not just remove the offending questions? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

What may be offensive to you may not be offensive to others. Isn't easier to make it optional or even answer the questions you don't find a little intrusive.
Instead of setting up a year long committee deciding whats offensive and what isn't.

Now that's wasteful.

If you make it optional, you make it worthless. THAT'S wasteful.