Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[groovynooby]

Corrected Version

I have learn't that ethnicity can be a preferred attribute and can legally be used as the deciding factor when choosing between two 'equals' when one equal doesn't have the preferred attribute, although in simplistic terms this is blatant racial discrimination it is not a bad thing because the ultimate aim is to achieve equal representation and, as an organisation has expressed a desire to achieve equal representation, this is ok.

Excellent understanding of Positive Discrimination....ooops sorry Positive Action, except that it is not only limited to ethnicity or race. Gender, religion, even sexuality or disability can be the reason for Positive Action.

Cool.

Obviously the candidate without the preferred attribute could feel negatively discriminated against

Accepted.

Cool.

however in reality they should feel good because they have been sacrificed on the alter of progression and because some people may think that they are racially prejudiced if they complain, so... probably best keep schtum.

Is this your argument against Positive Action?

I've already given my reasons for not supporting discriminatory practises, I'm sure you don't want me to repeat myself, and, as currently I am more likely to be a member of a majority group why would I support potential discrimination against myself/my group/people sharing similar attributes?

I think the general rule of thumb here is that if you discriminate against the majority on grounds of ethnicity then this is good racial discrimination, conversely, discrimination in favour of a majority is bad racial discrimination.

Now the "words" are Positive Action not Discimination because any discrimination is not legal.
Additionally, it is not limited to ethnicity, see above.

Cool.

I must admit I find this slightly counter intuitive as I was always led to believe that discrimination was a bad thing but obviously things change!

Only in that all discrimination has been declared illegal.

It would appear that if a policy is labelled as discriminatory it is illegal, however, the same policy with a different name is quite legal.

Is my understanding correct?

I hope I've clarified where necessary.

Yes, thank you.

 

[RogueHanger]

I've already given my reasons for not supporting discriminatory practises, I'm sure you don't want me to repeat myself, and, as currently I am more likely to be a member of a majority group why would I support potential discrimination against myself/my group/people sharing similar attributes?

I was being sarcastic................. for once.

It would appear that if a policy is labelled as discriminatory it is illegal, however, the same policy with a different name is quite legal.

Yes, see my post about murder, taking money against one's wishes, forcing entry into one's house, depriving someone of their liberty, etc.
Edit: additionally some action may be described as assault, when perpetrated against an adult, but punishment when perpetrated against a child.

Yes, thank you.

my apologies again if I offended you, re the time-wasting or genuine comments.

 

[groovynooby]

my apologies again if I offended you, re the time-wasting or genuine comments.

No worries, it's only the internet; thanks for the discourse... everyday's a school day!

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, see my post about murder, taking money against one's wishes, forcing entry into one's house, depriving someone of their liberty, etc.

This is where you have it wrong.

Whilst killing someone can be both lawful and unlawful, murder is always unlawful.
Whilst forcing entry can be both lawful and unlawful, burglary is always unlawful.
Whilst depriving someone of their liberty can be lawful and unlawful, kidnapping is always unlawful.

Therefore, discrimination on the grounds of race is always unlawful and renaming the practice does not make it lawful.

As I said, it is just political subterfuge.

 

[Big Tone]

I think I've learnt that "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." You'll lke that one RH

Who woke it back up!

 

[RogueHanger]

Yes, see my post about murder, taking money against one's wishes, forcing entry into one's house, depriving someone of their liberty, etc.

This is where you have it wrong.

Whilst killing someone can be both lawful and unlawful, murder is always unlawful.
Whilst forcing entry can be both lawful and unlawful, burglary is always unlawful.
Whilst depriving someone of their liberty can be lawful and unlawful, kidnapping is always unlawful.

Therefore, discrimination on the grounds of race is always unlawful and renaming the practice does not make it lawful.

As I said, it is just political subterfuge.

Thank you for your clarification of those actions which have been deemed unlawful. However, I didn't think it was necessary. We already knew.

Perhaps you would care to clarify when those same actions are legal? Albeit with a different label.

Your opinion on the actions or processes does not make it unlawful.

If your opinion of positive action on ethnicity is that you consider it bad. What is your opinion on positive action in terms of gender, religion, sexuality, disability, etc?
You may put any description on the action or process, you wish. But it doesn't change the legality of it.

Page 27 and counting.
Does this make it a record?

 

[RogueHanger]

I think I've learnt that "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." You'll lke that one RH

Yes but doesn't Hamlet say something like that because he doesn't want to get into, what he sees, as a pointless agument?

 

[RogueHanger]

A hypothetical scenario to illustrate the point. Admittedly, not a particularly likely scenario.

I've just moved into the area because my partner had to move as part of work
I'm looking for a new school fo my child. I enter my child into the nearest local school. It looks OK on the surface, everything appears to be normal.

First PTA, I discover that a) all the teachers have the same surname, say "Radcliffe-Smythe" and b) thay are all the same religion, say "Amish".

I arrange an appointment to discuss this with the Head because I've become a little concerned that a) my child is not being exposed to a plurality of views, b) the views that the child is exposed to are vehemently against my own, and c) my child is not receiving any teaching in some subjects that I consider important.

I then find that all the teaches have the same surname because they are all from the same family due to a practice of nepotism duing the selection procedure.

I am concerned and I ask the Head to consider hiring a range of staff.

When the next vacancy is identified a non-Amish, non-family member, with a different surname is recruited.

I then find that this new member of staff is a p/t dinner lady.

I complain again and the next recruitment is for a cleaner and the same happens again.

Then a teacher's post becomes vacant and the new member of staff is a Radcliffe-Smythe!

The another vacancy occurs for a lollipop person and a non-family member is employed.

It's pretty obvious that although a token Positive Action is being practised, it is not in the spirit of the policy.

 

[RogueHanger]

Are you accusing me of unjustified abusive behaviour?

I bet you've got a different term for it; something like proactive rebuffing

Yep, tit for tat.

Well my twopence worth. I am against PD and until they redefine the definition I'm also anti PA, for the reasons I gave earlier.

Fair do's BT we're all entitled to our political views.

People can be encouraged into positions without disadvantaging anyone. In fact it happens all the time. The time-honoured way is by making it pay well, or at least better.

And the contra-argument also holds true. People can be discouraged into positions (or out of positions) by seeing failure of others for whatever reason. As per the Rooney Rule mentioned by micilin.

 

[groovynooby]

....
You may put any description on the action or process, you wish. But it doesn't change the legality of it....

Sorry RH but I'm confused again, you've stated a number of times that PD and PA are one and the same but PD is unlawful whereas PA is not, in fact I stated as well in an earlier post "It would appear that if a policy is labelled as discriminatory it is illegal, however, the same policy with a different name is quite legal." to which you agreed??

Does this not contradict the statement quoted above?

 

[Big Tone]

I’m Tony’s lodger, Maria, and he’s left the laptop on while he's gone to the loo. So I thought I’d quickly say something... Going back to an earlier comment someone made, (Oh no!)

If it was a white Christian school all manner of people can get in until one day it’s all black Muslim perhaps, maybe, I don’t know. And then if white Christian people want to get back through the door it becomes a scandal because being a certain colour or religion gives you immunity perhaps, maybe, I don’t know. Cough

Joe was right on the money earlier IMO, about who is the minority in Brum.

Gotta dash, he's coming back down stairs...

 

[EFLImpudence]

RH, you are just playing with words for the same reason as whoever thought up the new phrase to disguise the illegal practice of racial discrimination and pretend it is not racial discrimination because they are calling it something else.

Sorry RH but I'm confused again, you've stated a number of times that PD and PA are one and the same but PD is unlawful whereas PA is not, in fact I stated as well in an earlier post "It would appear that if a policy is labelled as discriminatory it is illegal, however, the same policy with a different name is quite legal." to which you agreed??

Does this not contradict the statement quoted above?

Yes.

 

[RogueHanger]

....
You may put any description on the action or process, you wish. But it doesn't change the legality of it....

Sorry RH but I'm confused again, you've stated a number of times that PD and PA are one and the same but PD is unlawful whereas PA is not, in fact I stated as well in an earlier post "It would appear that if a policy is labelled as discriminatory it is illegal, however, the same policy with a different name is quite legal." to which you agreed??

Does this not contradict the statement quoted above?

I don't think so, if I understand your question correctly.
The government, the authority, or whoever is in charge, deems what is lawful and unlawful. If they decree that police breaking into a house, for whatever reason, is lawful, whereas, a person breaking into a house to steal something is illegal, so be it.
They have different lables, etc, but the process is basically the same, i.e. someone breaking into a house against the owner's/tennant' s wishes.

However, and I think this is what you were getting at, if I describe, say, my breaking and entering, with a description of "entering with a warrant to search", it does not change the legality of my action just because I describe it differently. It is still breaking and entering.
If however the government, justice, authority, etc, describe or justify my action as "entering with a warrant to search, etc. it does become a lawful action.
But it is still the same process and the same result.

 

[RogueHanger]

I’m Tony’s lodger, Maria, and he’s left the laptop on while he's gone to the loo. So I thought I’d quickly say something... Going back to an earlier comment someone made, (Oh no!)

If it was a white Christian school all manner of people can get in until one day it’s all black Muslim perhaps, maybe, I don’t know. And then if white Christian people want to get back through the door it becomes a scandal because being a certain colour or religion gives you immunity perhaps, maybe, I don’t know. Cough

Joe was right on the money earlier IMO, about who is the minority in Brum.

Gotta dash, he's coming back down stairs...

Again, BT, I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that PA is only for ethnicity. Try the same analogy but with a different characteristic, e.g gender, and the answer becomes obvious.

Having said that, there are times when exclusion of other characteisitcs is justifiable, e.g religious school, perhaps.
There might be an argument that only the followers of that religion should be allowed entry. I think the EHRC deals with it as "occupational requirements."
It would be ludicrous to insist that, say, muslims should be allowed to teach in an Amish school, if that Amish religion required adherence to the faith.
Where there is no adherence to the faith required, then it could be argued that occupational characterisitcs do not apply. I suppose.

 

[groovynooby]

....
You may put any description on the action or process, you wish. But it doesn't change the legality of it....

Sorry RH but I'm confused again, you've stated a number of times that PD and PA are one and the same but PD is unlawful whereas PA is not, in fact I stated as well in an earlier post "It would appear that if a policy is labelled as discriminatory it is illegal, however, the same policy with a different name is quite legal." to which you agreed??

Does this not contradict the statement quoted above?

I don't think so, if I understand your question correctly.
The government, the authority, or whoever is in charge, deems what is lawful and unlawful. If they decree that police breaking into a house, for whatever reason, is lawful, whereas, a person breaking into a house to steal something is illegal, so be it.
They have different lables, etc, but the process is basically the same, i.e. someone breaking into a house against the owner's/tennant' s wishes.

However, and I think this is what you were getting at, if I describe, say, my breaking and entering, with a description of "entering with a warrant to search", it does not change the legality of my action just because I describe it differently. It is still breaking and entering.
If however the government, justice, authority, etc, describe or justify my action as "entering with a warrant to search, etc. it does become a lawful action.
But it is still the same process and the same result.

The reason for the confusion is your assertion that positive action and positive discrimination are the same thing, they're not and, to be honest, I am surprised that you are supportive of illegal discriminatory practises!

Where's the report racist thread button...