B
Bogtrotter
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
(unable to load pagetext)
(unable to load pagetext)
|
|
|
S
spmarshall
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
Witht he census and government uses, it is a measure or a description, not a personal judgement. I was referring to discrimination because such persons are judged. I think there is confustion about the word "judged". If there was no discrimination, or links to social deprivation based on appearance, no one would ever use this measure.
Witht he census and government uses, it is a measure or a description, not a personal judgement. I was referring to discrimination because such persons are judged. I think there is confustion about the word "judged". If there was no discrimination, or links to social deprivation based on appearance, no one would ever use this measure.
B
Bogtrotter
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
[I deleted your previous quote and my response to it.]
Again 'it of course assumes that their is a 'visible majority', which is problematic because it implies that those of British, European decent are the original 'Canadians' and those who do not appear as Caucasion are 'newcomers'. It is a term that leads to hasty generalizations I suppose, ' and a line of thinking that is frequently not true.
"If there was no discrimination, or links to social deprivation based on appearance, no one would ever use this measure."
Yes perhaps that is he case. But the mere singling people out based on appearance (using the term for instance 'visible minorities') does have racist overtones in and of itself regardless of intention. I do know that anything that legally uses the term 'visual' in reference to physical appearance in deference to any human being under 'any' measure with intent to 'group' an individual, is bad legislation.
[I deleted your previous quote and my response to it.]
Again 'it of course assumes that their is a 'visible majority', which is problematic because it implies that those of British, European decent are the original 'Canadians' and those who do not appear as Caucasion are 'newcomers'. It is a term that leads to hasty generalizations I suppose, ' and a line of thinking that is frequently not true.
"If there was no discrimination, or links to social deprivation based on appearance, no one would ever use this measure."
Yes perhaps that is he case. But the mere singling people out based on appearance (using the term for instance 'visible minorities') does have racist overtones in and of itself regardless of intention. I do know that anything that legally uses the term 'visual' in reference to physical appearance in deference to any human being under 'any' measure with intent to 'group' an individual, is bad legislation.
B
Bogtrotter
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
I've said it merely because I think it actually is, and I've given some reason why I think it is. I haven't read why the United NAtions thinks it is racist, but I'll give it a read and get back to this board with my interpretation.
I've said it merely because I think it actually is, and I've given some reason why I think it is. I haven't read why the United NAtions thinks it is racist, but I'll give it a read and get back to this board with my interpretation.
D
Degnaw
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
"A racist term is not racist unless the people make it so"
-Degnaw
i.e. unless the vast majority of people who use the term use it in a derogatory way (i.e. nigger), the term IS NOT racist
"A racist term is not racist unless the people make it so"
-Degnaw
i.e. unless the vast majority of people who use the term use it in a derogatory way (i.e. nigger), the term IS NOT racist
D
DaninToronto2
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
Maybe unstead of constantly nitpicking about how things may be "perceived" racist, they can spend time educating people about what racism does to others and how it hurts yourself in the long run. These articles neither help the problem or offer solutions so the speech shows they have nothing better to do.
Maybe unstead of constantly nitpicking about how things may be "perceived" racist, they can spend time educating people about what racism does to others and how it hurts yourself in the long run. These articles neither help the problem or offer solutions so the speech shows they have nothing better to do.
O
Oliver Tweed
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
The concern for me here is less racism and more the limited window for the validity of this term. The term assumes a certain demographic makeup that may change.
Who knows what the demographic makeup of the country will look like in 20, 30, 40 years?
Besides, racism is a universal phenomenon. It exists all over the world, between Asians, Middle Easterners, Europeans, whomever.
The idea should be to eliminate racism of any kind. Not just the "White Majority" vs. "Visible Minorities."
The concern for me here is less racism and more the limited window for the validity of this term. The term assumes a certain demographic makeup that may change.
Who knows what the demographic makeup of the country will look like in 20, 30, 40 years?
Besides, racism is a universal phenomenon. It exists all over the world, between Asians, Middle Easterners, Europeans, whomever.
The idea should be to eliminate racism of any kind. Not just the "White Majority" vs. "Visible Minorities."
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
HTML Comments are not allowed
HTML Comments are not allowed
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
Because being visibly a minority may not entail a skin colour difference. Some people may feel they look visibly Russian or visibly different than the majority, the look of the majority being in the eyes of the individual as well. Perhaps they could be white but wearing a headscarf or a skull cap.
Because being visibly a minority may not entail a skin colour difference. Some people may feel they look visibly Russian or visibly different than the majority, the look of the majority being in the eyes of the individual as well. Perhaps they could be white but wearing a headscarf or a skull cap.
A
adma
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
In that EE light, what are Gypsies?
In that EE light, what are Gypsies?
D
disparishun
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
I don't know whether that's entirely true. Except in Quebec, where provincial employment equity deals with "cultural communities" and therefore extends to all minority ethnic groups, I had always thought there was an expectation that you will designate yourself as a visible minority only if your ethnic group corresponds with one designated "non-white".
In any case, for Statscan -- which I would argue is more important, and which is responsible for the recent prominence of the term well beyond the employment equity context -- the term is certainly not vague. People can claim to be a member of whatever ethnic group they think that they are part of. Statscan has decided which ethnic groups are "visible", and which are not, and creates its visible minority statistics accordingly.
In recent years Statscan has placed more and more emphasis on visible minority statistics, and less and less emphasis on ethnic diversity in general.
In reality, these are very good points. They go further -- "skin colour difference" is really quite subjective, and perception of ethnicity is rarely based on it alone. Relatively common occurrences, all to friends of mine: Greeks who are mistaken for Italians who are mistaken for Jews who are mistaken for Lebanese who are mistaken for ... well, etc. Bizarrely, Statscan wants one of these to be a "visible minority" and counted in diversity figures; the others, not.
But, yes, at least as importantly, perceived "skin colour" is not the only vector for ethnic discrimination. The idea that there just can't be any discrimination against Portuguese, Poles, Hasidic Jews, whomever, in Toronto -- or that noone would know, in any meaningful context like a job interview, that they were "minorities" -- just doesn't stand up.
For these reasons, and without having seen the U.N. report, I would be inclined to agree with some of the ideas, at least insofar as they regard how Statscan churns out the data and reports that drive quite a bit of policymaking.
I don't know whether that's entirely true. Except in Quebec, where provincial employment equity deals with "cultural communities" and therefore extends to all minority ethnic groups, I had always thought there was an expectation that you will designate yourself as a visible minority only if your ethnic group corresponds with one designated "non-white".
In any case, for Statscan -- which I would argue is more important, and which is responsible for the recent prominence of the term well beyond the employment equity context -- the term is certainly not vague. People can claim to be a member of whatever ethnic group they think that they are part of. Statscan has decided which ethnic groups are "visible", and which are not, and creates its visible minority statistics accordingly.
In recent years Statscan has placed more and more emphasis on visible minority statistics, and less and less emphasis on ethnic diversity in general.
In reality, these are very good points. They go further -- "skin colour difference" is really quite subjective, and perception of ethnicity is rarely based on it alone. Relatively common occurrences, all to friends of mine: Greeks who are mistaken for Italians who are mistaken for Jews who are mistaken for Lebanese who are mistaken for ... well, etc. Bizarrely, Statscan wants one of these to be a "visible minority" and counted in diversity figures; the others, not.
But, yes, at least as importantly, perceived "skin colour" is not the only vector for ethnic discrimination. The idea that there just can't be any discrimination against Portuguese, Poles, Hasidic Jews, whomever, in Toronto -- or that noone would know, in any meaningful context like a job interview, that they were "minorities" -- just doesn't stand up.
For these reasons, and without having seen the U.N. report, I would be inclined to agree with some of the ideas, at least insofar as they regard how Statscan churns out the data and reports that drive quite a bit of policymaking.
B
Bogtrotter
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
"In recent years Statscan has placed more and more emphasis on visible minority statistics, and less and less emphasis on ethnic diversity in general."
Can you give an example of a 'visible minority statistic'?
"In recent years Statscan has placed more and more emphasis on visible minority statistics, and less and less emphasis on ethnic diversity in general."
Can you give an example of a 'visible minority statistic'?
D
disparishun
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
I'm not sure I quite follow what you're asking, but see generally this page for Statcan's "Statistics by Subject", selecting the subject "Visible Minorities".
More broadly see, for instance, the Community Profiles series which now report census data for "Visible Minority" groups, but not for other ethnic minorities (Toronto's here).
Data availability in the latter instance has, in turn, led to more and more emphasis on "Visible Minority" groups, and in turn flattened more and more ethnic diversity into a meaningless and debatable "White" category, such as here.
Are these the kinds of example you are interested in?
I'm not sure I quite follow what you're asking, but see generally this page for Statcan's "Statistics by Subject", selecting the subject "Visible Minorities".
More broadly see, for instance, the Community Profiles series which now report census data for "Visible Minority" groups, but not for other ethnic minorities (Toronto's here).
Data availability in the latter instance has, in turn, led to more and more emphasis on "Visible Minority" groups, and in turn flattened more and more ethnic diversity into a meaningless and debatable "White" category, such as here.
Are these the kinds of example you are interested in?
A
adma
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
At this rate, "white" might as well refer to something like this
At this rate, "white" might as well refer to something like this
P
Poetic Revival
Guest
Re: UN to Canada: "Visible Minorities" term is rac
Believe this or not, the Employment Equity policy actually violates the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms which state: 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.
15.(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.
So 15.(1) states everyone is equal, then in 15.(2) the laws says, programs or activities (Employment Equity falls included) that favor (ie. a form of discrimination) any of the protected groups mentioned are allowed! So much for everyone being treated equally!
So a policy that is meant to prevent discrimination in hiring actually ends up being discriminatory and racist itself. For those that will laugh at me, please see the following articles describing how white males had their applications turned down for simply being white males.
"White males need not apply"
National Post, November 19, 2005
"A major federal department has temporarily banned the hiring of able-bodied white men..."
www.canada.com/national/s...3991e9d12e
"Correctional Service disqualifying whites
By Kathleen Harris, Ottawa Bureau, Sun Media
cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Cana...4-sun.html
Believe this or not, the Employment Equity policy actually violates the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms which state: 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.
15.(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.
So 15.(1) states everyone is equal, then in 15.(2) the laws says, programs or activities (Employment Equity falls included) that favor (ie. a form of discrimination) any of the protected groups mentioned are allowed! So much for everyone being treated equally!
So a policy that is meant to prevent discrimination in hiring actually ends up being discriminatory and racist itself. For those that will laugh at me, please see the following articles describing how white males had their applications turned down for simply being white males.
"White males need not apply"
National Post, November 19, 2005
"A major federal department has temporarily banned the hiring of able-bodied white men..."
www.canada.com/national/s...3991e9d12e
"Correctional Service disqualifying whites
By Kathleen Harris, Ottawa Bureau, Sun Media
cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Cana...4-sun.html