Hang on RH!!! You can't get away with that. You said there is no difference. Here it is, highlighted in bold.
Well, we can draw conclusions when a person resorts to ad hominem attacks.
Kettle, pot, black.
As you can't tell the difference between Positive Discrimination and Poistive Action, allow me to give you my take on the difference.
There is no difference!
Harriet Harman, Joe Swinson and the reporter use the two terms interchangably, which perhaps indicates the confusion.
Would you agree? If not, why not?
Now logic dictates that if they are one and the same then they must both either be legal or illegal. Yes?
No! The concept itself is not illegal. It's illegal to call it Positive Discrimination.
But EHRC wanted to simplify the situation so they declared all discrimination illegal. That meant finding a terminology for Positive Discrimination that did not have the word discrimination in it, hence Positive Action.
I don't appreciate that your digging at cajar,
Sorry BT, It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. When someone tells me I described Positive Discrimination and I did not describe Positive Action. Then claim that I have somehow lost the argument and become a racist, deserves being called a buffoon.
or anyone else, over something which is at best ambiguous and at worst still racist.
You provided the definitions of Discrimination and Racism:
Discrimination based on treatment and racism based on belief.
They are different.
Cajar accused, and others, have accused me of supporting racism or of being a racist, because I support Positive Action. I understand their confusion because they can't tell the difference.
Racism is based on a belief in supriority due to race or ethnicity.
Discrimination is the treatment of people based on their different classifications (race, ethnicitiy, religion, gender, sexuality, etc) and is sometimes legal, based on the reason for the discrimination, e.g. occupational requirements. But we can't call it discrimination.
Positive Action is another word for Positive Discrimination, to avoid the "legal definition" problems. It could be argued that Positive Action goes futher, along the "Rooney Rule" concept that micilin introduced.
Positive Action still allows for the selection of candidates based on classification, as long as the other criteria are also met. As did my original description of Positive Discrimination.
Discimination or Action based on disability (or whatever then "in" word is) does not depend on the other criteria to be met for the disabled candidates to reach the shortlist. They are automatically guarranteed entry to the shortlist.
Insults are usually a sign of a flagging argument. Maybe I'm a simpleton or buffoon....
You're welcome to see it however you wish.
I suspect the discussion has reached a stage of you either support Positive Action or you don't. I do.
We can't support Positive Discrimination because it's illegal.
There may be shades of grey where some may support the Rooney Rule, but stopping short of actual selection based on classification.
I would like to assume that we all abhor racism, but some of the comments on this forum means I can't (Before you go off on one, BT, I do not include you in this, because you have declared publicly that you also abhor racism. I comend you for that. I wish more would join us.)
