Ontario's Employment Equity Act
Kamala-Jean Gopie
You are only criticizing Employment Equity out of your own
inadequacies and fears.
Immigration has been the lifeblood of Canadian and American
economies. As old cultures grow stagnant, the new cultures
bring a new vitality and without them this country would
have fallen apart. Those from the old ways who are the
reason for this stagnation are afraid of the success of the
immigrants and out of their fear and racism will do anything
to forbid the newcomers an equal chance. It is because of
this that Employment Equity becomes a necessity.
Unfortunately, Employment Equity is not enough. Those in
positions of power will use other means to block the success
of newer citizens. One method is by educational restrictions.
Therefore to have a truly equitable system other inequities
must be addressed, predominately education. Education is
effectively limited to the new citizens by: financial
restrictions and by culturally biased marking. To eliminate
the first problem, post seconday education must become more
accessable to historically discriminated groups ideally by
making their education free, but if that is not politically
possibly, then by a program of scholarships and grants to
members of those groups. Secondly, since testing is
culturally biased, it must be normalized to account for the
cultural biases in tests that give certain groups lower
marks unfairly.
Another area Employment can't address but that must be
addressed are cultural images that portray certain groups
in certain roles. Women seem to only be portrayed in
sexual or homemaker roles in our media; Blacks as athletes.
The media must start portraying historically discriminated
groups in different roles, likes women as leaders and Blacks
as scholars. The media won't do this without government
intervention.
Bob Levitt (ble...@io.org) wrote:
: As I have had several requests after one posting I made about Ontario's
: Employment Equity Act, I will be typing it up plus the regulations that
: go with it in its entirity. For now I will just be posting the
: "Preamble" in the Act.
: I believe that no matter what your beliefs on Employment Equity are,
: after reading the Act you will believe that this particular law is a bad
: one because it does not define all the requirements and leaves most of
: the decisions, not to the law, but to the bureaucrats of the Employment
: Equity Commission, an invitation to individual interpretation (that will
: vary from bureaucrat to bureaucrat and their personal political beliefs)
: and is an open invitation to abuse and even graft.
: As for my personal beliefs on this law, I believe it adds to the
: overburdening of both the public and business with more and more
: bureaucracy, it makes it desirable to hire those that are covered under
: this law (the "designated groups" only, and I am one of those
: "designated groups") and not on the basis of merit, it punishes some for
: the previous misdeeds of others in the past in the same "non-designated
: group," it rewards others for the misdeeds done in the past to those in
: the same "designated groups" and it may be one of the causes for the
: "economy" not recovering in the province of Ontario.
: I understand there is a similar federal (Canadian) law, but I don't have
: a copy of it.
: Anyways, for those who are interested in it, here is the beginning of my
: work, typing the Act and regulations that go with it.
: ************************************************************************
: BILL 79
: (Chapter 35 Statutes of Ontario, 1993)
: And Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aborininal People,
: People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women
: The Hon. E. Ziemba
: Minister of Citizenship
: 3rd Session, 35th Legislature, Ontario, 42 Elizabeth II, 1993
: 1st Reading June 25, 1992
: 2nd Reading July 19, 1993
: 3rd Reading December 9, 1993
: Royal Assent December 14, 1993
: Printed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario
: Contents
: Part I - Employment Equity
: 1. Entitlement
: 2. Employment equity principles
: Part II - General
: Interpretation
: 3. Definitions
: 4. Designated groups
: 5. Legitimate requirements, handicaps, special employment
: 6. Plan to prevail
: Application
: 7. Application of Parts III, IV and VI
: 8. Crown bound
: Part III - Obligations
: Obligations
: 9. Implementation and maintenance of employment equity
: 10. Collection of workforce information
: 11. Review of employment policies
: 12. Employment equity plan
: 13. Standard re contents of plan
: 14. Implementation of plan
: 15. Review and revision of plan
: 16. Joint responsibilities, employer and bargaining agent
: 17. Consultation with unrepresented employees
: 18. Duty to post information
: 19. Employment equity records
: 20. Reports to the Commission
: Application to the Commission
: 21. Access to Information
: Exemptions
: 22. Regulations re Aboriginal workplaces
: Implementation
: 23. Time to comply, existing employees
: 24. If exemption ceases to apply, broader public sector
: Part IV - Enforcement
: Audit and Enforcement by the Commission
: 25. Commission audit
: 26. Settlement with Commission
: 27. Commission order to comply
: Applications to the Tribunal
: 28. Application by Commission
: 29. Application for failure to implement plan or settlement
: 30. Applications re joint responsibilities
: 31. Application by employee re joint responsibilities
: 32. Application re employers
: 33. Application re intimidation, etc.
: 34. Notice to Commission
: 35. Mediation
: 36. Parties
: 37. Power to made orders
: 38. Exclusive jurisdiction
: Offences
: 39. Confidentiality of information
: 40. Obstruction
: 41. Providing false information
: 42. Intimidation
: 43. Offences and penalty
: 44. Consent to prosecution
: Part V - Administration
: Employment Equity Commission
: 45. Commission established
: 46. Functions of the Commission
: 47. Policy directives
: 48. Commission rules
: 49. Annual report
: 50. Advisory councils
: Employment Equity Tribunal
: 51. Tribunal established
: 52. Panels of the Tribunal
: 53. Tribunal rules
: Part VI - Miscellaneous and Regulations
: 54. Employment equity; government contracts
: 55. Regulations
: Part VII - Consequential Amendments, Review, Commencement
: and Short Title
: 56. Amendments to Human Rights Code
: 57. Review of the Act
: 58. Commencement
: 59. Short title
: Addendum added by the typist of this electronic version
: Regulations as published in The Ontario Gazette - O. Reg. 386/94
: Aboriginal Workplaces
: Construction Industry
: Agricultural Industry
: Definitions
: General
: - Non-application Sections 1
: - Interpretation Sections 2-5
: - Workforce Survey Sections 6-13
: - Review of Policies and Practices Sections 14,15
: - Employment Equity Plans Sections 16-21
: - Rview and Revision of a Plan Sections 22,23
: - Certificates Section 24
: - Joint Responsibilities of Employers
: and Bargaining Agents Sections 25-30
: - Consultation with Unrepresented Employees Sections 31-33
: - Information for Employees Sections 34-36
: - Employment Equity Records Sections 37,38
: - Employment Equity Reports Sections 39-41
: - Commencement Section 42
: - Workforce Survey Questionnaire Schedule 1
: ---------------------------------------------------------------
: Preamble
: The people of Ontario recognize that Aboriginal people, people
: with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women
: experience higher rates of unemployment than other people in
: Ontario. The people of Ontario also recognize that people in
: these groups experience more discrimination than other people
: in finding employment, in retaining employment and in being
: promoted. As a result, they are underrepresented in most
: areas of employment, especially in senior and management
: positions, and they are overrepresented in those areas of
: employment that provide low pay and little chance for
: advancement. The burden imposed on th people in these groups
: and on the communities in which they live is unacceptable.
: The people of Ontario recognize that this lack of employment
: equity exists in both the public and private sectors of
: Ontario. It is caused in part by systemic and intentional
: discrimination in employment. People of merit are too often
: overlooked or denied opportunities because of this
: discrimination. The people of Ontario recognize that when
: objective standards govern remployment opportunities, Ontario
: will have a workforce that is tryly representative of its
: society.
: The people of Onatio have recognized in the Human Rights Code
: the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all
: members of the human family and have recognized those rights
: in respect of employment in such statutes as the Employment
: Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act. This Act extends teh
: principles of those Acts and has as its object the
: amelioration of conditions in employment for Aboriginal people,
: peole with disabilities, members of racial minorities and
: women in all workplaces in Ontario and the provision of the
: opportunity for people to these groups to fulfil their
: potential in employment.
: The people of Ontario recognize that eliminating discrimination
: in employment and increasing the opportunity of individuals to
: contribute in the workplace will benefit all people in Ontario.
: Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of
: the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as
: follows.
: -----------------------------------------------------------------
: Part I
: Employment Equity
: Entitlement
:
GREGORY IRVING
>From: kjg...@r-node.io.org (Kamala-Jean Gopie)
>Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act
>Date: 16 Feb 1995 04:37:47 GMT
>You are only criticizing Employment Equity out of your own
>inadequacies and fears.
What do *you* know of his "inadequacies"? It seems to me that you are only
trying to silence his criticism of the Act by personalizing it. The bill
deserves criticism because of its vagueness and poor definitions. It reads
like something that was thrown together without a lot of thought.
>Immigration has been the lifeblood of Canadian and American
>economies. As old cultures grow stagnant, the new cultures
>bring a new vitality and without them this country would
>have fallen apart.
Although I agree that immigration is important for Canada, it is rather
arrogant of you to suggest that the culture of this country is not
sustainable without being "revitalized" by your culture.
>Those from the old ways who are the
>reason for this stagnation are afraid of the success of the
>immigrants and out of their fear and racism will do anything
>to forbid the newcomers an equal chance. It is because of
>this that Employment Equity becomes a necessity.
This sounds like simple paranoia to me. You don't seem to realize that the
stereotypes you perpetuate here are racist in their own right.
>Unfortunately, Employment Equity is not enough.
Depends on what you mean by EE. If you mean EE in the sense that everyone
should have an equal opportunity for employment, then it is fine. If, by
EE, you mean preferential hiring, then the legislation is, by definition,
racist.
>Those in positions of power will use other means to block the success
>of newer citizens. One method is by educational restrictions.
>Therefore to have a truly equitable system other inequities
>must be addressed, predominately education. Education is
>effectively limited to the new citizens by: financial
>restrictions and by culturally biased marking.
I've got news for you. Everyone faces the same financial restrictions in
the sense that the costs are the same for everyone. If you mean that the
poor might be excluded because the costs are prohibitive given their
circumstances, then you have a point. But, it is not a race issue. As for
culturally biased marking, what the hell are you talking about?? What
evidence do you have for this charge?
> To eliminate the first problem, post seconday education must become more
>accessable to historically discriminated groups ideally by
>making their education free, but if that is not politically
>possibly, then by a program of scholarships and grants to
>members of those groups.
It is not a case of being "politically possible". It is a case of it
not being "fiscally possible". Such scholarship programs already exist,
albeit in a limited form. That is, there are scholarships that are
available only to women and some that are designed to encourage women to
pursue "nontraditional" career paths. Personally, I think such programs are
valuable and a lot more morally defensible than preferential hiring
practises.
> Secondly, since testing is
>culturally biased, it must be normalized to account for the
>cultural biases in tests that give certain groups lower
>marks unfairly.
Again, what evidence do you have for this? How is testing "culturally"
biased? Do you mean that they require a good grasp of English (or French as
the case may be)? What do you mean by "normalize"? Is this another way of
saying that you want different standards?
>Another area Employment can't address but that must be
>addressed are cultural images that portray certain groups
>in certain roles. Women seem to only be portrayed in
>sexual or homemaker roles in our media;
Where have you been for the last couple of decades? That may have been the
case at one time, but it is not now. There may still be room for
improvement, but it certainly not as bad as it once was.
>Blacks as athletes.
Would you advocate setting quotas on the number of whites and blacks in the
NBA or in major league baseball so that we can destroy these stereotypes?
>Bob Levitt (ble...@io.org) wrote:
>: As I have had several requests after one posting I made about Ontario's
>: Employment Equity Act, I will be typing it up plus the regulations that
>: go with it in its entirity. For now I will just be posting the
>: "Preamble" in the Act.
[snip]
Pax
Kamala-Jean Gopie <kjg...@r-node.io.org> wrote:
>
>
>You are only criticizing Employment Equity out of your own
>inadequacies and fears.
>
This is a racist over-generalization. For shame. Had you actually read
your opponent's post, you would understand his motivation. The current
legislation does not and cannot work.
>Immigration has been the lifeblood of Canadian and American
>economies. As old cultures grow stagnant, the new cultures
>bring a new vitality and without them this country would
>have fallen apart. Those from the old ways who are the
>reason for this stagnation are afraid of the success of the
>immigrants and out of their fear and racism will do anything
>to forbid the newcomers an equal chance. It is because of
>this that Employment Equity becomes a necessity.
>
This is unadulterated bullshit. The lifeblood of any economy is small
business. European immigrants who came to the United States and Canada
in the earlier part of this century succeeded by creating employment --
not whining to the government for a so-called "fair-shake."
>Unfortunately, Employment Equity is not enough. Those in
>positions of power will use other means to block the success
>of newer citizens. One method is by educational restrictions.
>Therefore to have a truly equitable system other inequities
>must be addressed, predominately education. Education is
>effectively limited to the new citizens by: financial
>restrictions and by culturally biased marking. To eliminate
>the first problem, post seconday education must become more
>accessable to historically discriminated groups ideally by
>making their education free, but if that is not politically
>possibly, then by a program of scholarships and grants to
>members of those groups. Secondly, since testing is
>culturally biased, it must be normalized to account for the
>cultural biases in tests that give certain groups lower
>marks unfairly.
If education is not free for everyone, why make it free for some? I have
no objection to free post-secondary education -- provided it is universal.
>
>Another area Employment can't address but that must be
>addressed are cultural images that portray certain groups
>in certain roles. Women seem to only be portrayed in
>sexual or homemaker roles in our media; Blacks as athletes.
>The media must start portraying historically discriminated
>groups in different roles, likes women as leaders and Blacks
>as scholars. The media won't do this without government
>intervention.
>
Oh yes, blame the fifth estate. Maybe so-called disenfranchised groups
could learn to make a little news instead of complaining that there is no
coverage. Reporters are not mind readers. Ever heard of the term
press-release?
Employment Equity legislation must inherently fail because it is based
upon the false assumption that the government has the ability to create
an improved standard of living for an individual or group. Dependance on
legislation or legislators is like building a house on sand.
The firmest foundation for groups currently identified in affirmitive
action law is entrepreneurship. Create your own jobs. Run your own
organizations. Build your own corporate cultures. Believe me, it's not
easy; however, it is the surest way to ensure you get a fair shake from
your employer.
Kamala-Jean Gopie
:Gopie) wrote:
:> You are only criticizing Employment Equity out of your own
:> inadequacies and fears.
:>
:I'm not.
:
:The province of Ontario has a human rights code which prohibits
:discrimintaiton in employment on the basis of gender, ethnic origin, or
:physical limitation. It now chooses to ignore that legislation and make it
:legal to discriminate on the basis of gender and ethnic origin.
:
:Fair hiring legislation makes it illegal to inquire about gender or race
:on job applications.
Just because it is illegal to inquire about gender or race, does not stop
the majority of employers from still discriminating on that basis.
The best analogy that I ever heard on the subject was by Human Rights
Lawyer Charles Roach. He said that if you have been part of a poker
game where it gets exposed the other players have been cheating, you
don't just forgive them and continue playing. You have to redistribute
the undeserved spoils that were the result of their cheating; that is
what Employment Equity is meant to do. Employment Equity, is meant to
fairly redistribute jobs at all levels and in all fields, and only
once that has been accomplished can true equity be maintained.
:However, if I hang a sign outside my business that says "No women, blacks,
:indians, asians, Catholics, or Jews need apply" I'll be hauled before the
:tribunal, accused of discriminatory hiring practices, racism, and sexism,
:and rightfully so.
:
:But, if I *dont't* hang out a sign saying "No white males need apply" I'll
:be hauled in front of the same tribunal and accused of being in violation
:of the "Employment Equity" laws.
You are distorting the facts again. Neither sign would be acceptable
under Human Rights laws. All that Employment Equity laws attempt to do
is to encourage positive measures to balance the proportions of jobs to
what they would have been without the history of systemic discrimination
that exists in business and government.
:Why not just hang a banner outside Queen's park that reads "All Ontarians
:are created equal, but some are more equal than others" or "two breasts
:good, two balls bad".
You are exposing your obvious misogny and this isn't even worthy of
any analysis.
:Pearse (The Redneck)
:
:---------------------------------------------------------------------
:
: "To someone with a hammer, many things
: look like nails that need banging in"
:
:Pearse Ward
:Dep't of Veterinary Microbiology
:Western College of Veterinary Medicine
:University of Saskatchewan
:52 Campus Drive
:Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5B4
:wa...@herald.usask.ca
:
:---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alden Iwasa
are cheating, all the cheating players have to give back all the
undeserved winnings), are you saying that all the family members and
friends of the cheaters have to give up all their winnings forever?
That's what you're asking white males of the province to do.
And under employment equity, why are some minorities more equal than
others? Maybe we should exclude white women from job competition,
because of all the women who've made it in the past, the majority have
been from the 'privileged' white group. This won't likely happen because
the NDP policy makers happen to contain a lot of white women.
As well, certain minority groups (like Jews, Asians) are not given any
preference, despite years of active discrimination. Is it because these
groups, on the whole, were able to make it by hard work instead of
whining and demands for special treatment, that they're now excluded?
GREGORY IRVING
>From: kjg...@grin.io.org (Kamala-Jean Gopie)
>Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act
>:In article <3hukqr$2...@ionews.io.org>, kjg...@r-node.io.org (Kamala-Jean
>:Gopie) wrote:
>:Fair hiring legislation makes it illegal to inquire about gender or race
>:on job applications.
>Just because it is illegal to inquire about gender or race, does not stop
>the majority of employers from still discriminating on that basis.
>The best analogy that I ever heard on the subject was by Human Rights
>Lawyer Charles Roach. He said that if you have been part of a poker
>game where it gets exposed the other players have been cheating, you
>don't just forgive them and continue playing. You have to redistribute
>the undeserved spoils that were the result of their cheating; that is
>what Employment Equity is meant to do. Employment Equity, is meant to
>fairly redistribute jobs at all levels and in all fields, and only
>once that has been accomplished can true equity be maintained.
The problem with your analogy is that it assumes that the same players are
still in the game. This is certainly NOT the case. That is the fallacy
that is perpetuated in this legislation and by its proponents. Furthermore,
the whole way of thinking behind group bias settlements (which, you have to
admit, is what EE as described by Ontario is all about) is problematic.
First, it creates doubts in the minds of those supposed beneficiaries about
the reason they got their jobs. Second, it "benefits" many people who do
not need or deserve such benefits. Not all women or minorities have been
discriminated against. In fact, I would hazard a guess that a substantial
number of them have not. So, why give those individuals a "leg up" instead
of those who specifically have suffered from discrimination? Reason: it is
easier for the government to legislate in this manner rather than have to
demonstrate discrimination on an individual basis.
>:However, if I hang a sign outside my business that says "No women,
blacks,>:indians, asians, Catholics, or Jews need apply" I'll be hauled
before the>:tribunal, accused of discriminatory hiring practices, racism,
and sexism,>:and rightfully so.
>:
>:But, if I *dont't* hang out a sign saying "No white males need apply" I'll
>:be hauled in front of the same tribunal and accused of being in violation
>:of the "Employment Equity" laws.
>You are distorting the facts again. Neither sign would be acceptable
>under Human Rights laws. All that Employment Equity laws attempt to do
>is to encourage positive measures to balance the proportions of jobs to
>what they would have been without the history of systemic discrimination
>that exists in business and government.
I'm afraid that he was *not* distorting the facts. In fact, the Ontario
government was one of those employers who placed a job advertisement of
that nature. And your last sentence makes a huge assumption that has no
basis in fact.
Lian Zerafa
>
>
>Do either the Ontario Liberals or PCs claim the intention to scrap the
>NDP's quota legislation if elected?
>
>--
>Jim Robinson
>robi...@mdd.comm.mot.com
>{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
>
The Ontario Liberals, led by the near invisible Lynn McLeod, have
been rather ambiguous about this. I believe their current position is
that this particular legislation is bad, but it needs to be revised
not scrapped (I could be wrong, its so hard to keep up with the
Liberal's moving platform).
The Ontario Progressive Conservatives, led by Mike Harris, have stated
that this legislation will be revoked if they are elected.
Since its a near certainty that the NDP will be virtually eliminated
from Ontario's political map after the next election, its reasonably
certain that this legislation will be revisited.
Here's my question: if this legislation is revoked, what are we
going to do with the small army of civil servants who play Big Brother
and enforce the act? People forget that Ontario has 1 person on the
provincial public payroll for every 6 working. And we wonder why
our deficit is over $12 billion... (this is of course for another
thread).
Lian
(PS: More fuel for the fire: the leader of Ontario's public sector
union proudly announced that the effects of the NDP's "social contract"
has eliminated only 3 jobs. That's how we save money: we get rid
of 3 positions, and keep the remaining 900,000! Only in Ontario you
say...)
Thomas Taylor
>Secondly, since testing is
>culturally biased, it must be normalized to account for the
>cultural biases in tests that give certain groups lower
>marks unfairly.
Someone please explain to me how my Calculus, Thermodynamics, Materials,
Differential equations, etc etc exams were culturally biased. I fail to see
any bias in I=CDv/Dt.
I like Newt Gingrages (sp?) statement on employment equity
' When you rig the game in favour of one American, you automatically rig it
against another'
Ken Chaddock
>Date: 20 Feb 1995 00:01:01 GMT
>The best analogy that I ever heard on the subject was by Human Rights
>Lawyer Charles Roach. He said that if you have been part of a poker
>game where it gets exposed the other players have been cheating, you
>don't just forgive them and continue playing. You have to redistribute
>the undeserved spoils that were the result of their cheating; that is
>what Employment Equity is meant to do. Employment Equity, is meant to
>fairly redistribute jobs at all levels and in all fields, and only
>once that has been accomplished can true equity be maintained.
And, as with many analogies, is inappropriate and misleading in the
extreme.
How can it be fair or equitable to discriminate or disadvantage *me* (a
typical white male who's worked damed hard to get where he is) to correct
errors or "crimes" committed by my father ?
This is Canada, not the bibical middle east where the "retribution of God
will be visited upon us unto the tenth generation" or some such foolishness.
It will *NEVER* be acceptable to discriminate against any group. Level
the playing field for sure but to try to right the wrongs of the past is
beyond out ability without committing new "wrongs" ourselves.
...Ken
Jim Robinson
rk...@ivory.trentu.ca
>In article <3i8m3t$1...@ionews.io.org>, kjg...@grin.io.org (Kamala-Jean
>Gopie) wrote:
>
>
>> The best analogy that I ever heard on the subject was by Human Rights
>> Lawyer Charles Roach. He said that if you have been part of a poker
>> game where it gets exposed the other players have been cheating, you
>> don't just forgive them and continue playing. You have to redistribute
>> the undeserved spoils that were the result of their cheating; that is
>> what Employment Equity is meant to do.
>> Last time I checked, I wasn't cheating in any poker game. In the same
notion, it is just plain unfair to deny someone else the opportunity to work in
a job that they are clearly the most qualified for simply on the basis that his
gender and race have contributed been the chief culprits (sp) of racism.
employment equity does not help to defeat racism, but rather to further the
cause of the racists that are spreading the hate.
As well, employment equity erodes the quality of the job simply by stating
that members of an underrepresented (sp) group will be given greater
consideration. If I'm trapped in a burning building, I want to know that the
best possible fireperson is trying to save me. If I'm flying in a plane, I
want to feel confident that the engineer that designed it was not simply hired
because of their sex or the colour of their skin. I truly believe that to do
something to someone simply because they did it to you might seem fair, but it
doesn't make it right.
>The analogy is false. Affirmative action hiring policies don't penalize
>those who have "cheated" in the past but discriminate against people who
>have done nothing wrong except have the misfortune to be born into the
>wrong demographic.
>
>I'll say it again; you cannot redress past injustice by perpetrating new
>injustice.
>
>> :But, if I *dont't* hang out a sign saying "No white males need apply" I'll
>> :be hauled in front of the same tribunal and accused of being in violation
>> :of the "Employment Equity" laws.
>>
>>
>> You are distorting the facts again. Neither sign would be acceptable
>> under Human Rights laws. All that Employment Equity laws attempt to do
>> is to encourage positive measures to balance the proportions of jobs to
>> what they would have been without the history of systemic discrimination
>> that exists in business and government.
>>
>I am not distorting the facts. This is exactly what the minister
>responsible for employment in the Ontario Public Service said when
>addressing Ontario's so-called Employment Equity legislation. He said that
>white, male applicants would not be considered (ie: white males need not
>apply) for probably the next five years, possibly ten, as it would take
>that long to achieve proportional representation of desginated groups in
>the Ontario Public Service. Now, exactly what facts did I distort?
>
>As if further evidence is required to illustrate that those touting
>"Employment Equity" seek anything but equity, I offer as evidence the
>figures quoted in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday or Thursday last week.
>According to the journalist (Christie ????), the Ontario Human Rights
>Commission has not hired a white male applicant voluntarily since it was
>formed, has no males in upper management positions, or on the board of
>directors, and has never promoted a male applicant. The percentage of
>white males working for the commission is far below their representation
>in the population while women, ethnic minorities, aboriginal persons, and
>the differently-abled are over-represented. Now, according to Employment
>Equity guidelines, there ought to be a policy forced upon the Ontario
>Human rights Commission to hire more white men. Think it will happen soon?
>Not likely. I'm willing to bet that this situation is more the norm than
>the exception. I'm sure if we took a look at the National Action Committee
>on the Status of Women, we would find similar violations of Ontario's
>Employment Equity guidelines. Be forewarned, when this legislation goes
>through, there will be challenges to make damn sure that these
>organizations comply.
>
>>
>> :Why not just hang a banner outside Queen's park that reads "All Ontarians
>> :are created equal, but some are more equal than others" or "two breasts
>> :good, two balls bad".
>>
>> You are exposing your obvious misogny and this isn't even worthy of
>> any analysis.
>>
>You are exposing your ignorance. Mysogyny, I don't think so. I would have
>applied the same paraphrasing to any group who think they are entitled to
>more than their fair share. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the
>reference. If not, I recommend "Animal Farm" (George Orwell), then perhaps
>you might get the point.
>>
>> :Pearse (The Redneck)
>
>It is very, very naughty of you to post something as quoted that you have
>deliberately altered.
>
>Pearse (just Pearse)
Jean Pfleiderer
>From: kcha...@neu-a.dnd.ca (Ken Chaddock)
>Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act
There is also a real problem for minorities, women, whoever is allegedly
"benefitted" by affirmative action, in always having to wonder whether you got
the job because you were good, or because you belonged to the right "group,"
and in having to deal constantly with fellow workers who will be sure to think
it was the latter, regardless. I think the fear that the world is about
to be inundated by hordes of incompetent women and minorities, in place of
competent white men, is completely unfounded. There is, however, a serious
danger of convincing not only the white men who suffer from not being allowed
to compete, but also the women and minorities themselves, that they are there
precisely because they are NOT good enough to do the job. And that strikes me
as a truly scary thought, because having some degree of confidence in one's
own capacity to do a job is an essential element in being able to do it well.
Neil Whiteside
>Just because it is illegal to inquire about gender or race, does not stop
>the majority of employers from still discriminating on that basis.
Please provide your statistics showing 'the majority' of employers hire and
promote based on gender or race.
>The best analogy that I ever heard on the subject was by Human Rights
>Lawyer Charles Roach. He said that if you have been part of a poker
>game where it gets exposed the other players have been cheating, you
>don't just forgive them and continue playing. You have to redistribute
>the undeserved spoils that were the result of their cheating; that is
>what Employment Equity is meant to do. Employment Equity, is meant to
>fairly redistribute jobs at all levels and in all fields, and only
>once that has been accomplished can true equity be maintained.
If this is the 'best analogy' you can come up with to support your 'cause',
your agument is over before it began. How dare you say the non-minority
population who have jobs and receive promotions did so by some form of
cheating; let alone that they should be demoted or fired. Yes that is what
your argument is saying, because employment 'equity' does not 'punish' the
*employer* but instead non-minority *applicants*. It is nothing more than
reverse discrimination, with non-minority workers suffering.
>You are distorting the facts again. Neither sign would be acceptable
>under Human Rights laws. All that Employment Equity laws attempt to do
>is to encourage positive measures to balance the proportions of jobs to
>what they would have been without the history of systemic discrimination
>that exists in business and government.
And in doing so punish this generation of non-minority applicants the
way you claim minorities were punished in the past? Remember these
non-minority applicants are not to blame, but the supposed racist employers of
past. Is that what you are suggesting?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The views expressed above are of the individual, and not of any organization.
(Want a better Canada? http:\\www.reform.ca)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY IRVING
>From: robinson@df06h (Jim Robinson)
>Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act
>Do either the Ontario Liberals or PCs claim the intention to scrap the
>NDP's quota legislation if elected?
No, that would take a very rare quality in political circles....courage!
Pearse Ward
br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) wrote:
> Fortunately, this type of EE isn't entrenched in the constition, and will
> probably be made short order of after the next election.
>
Unfortunately it is entrenched in the so-called Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Section 15(2) of the charter specifically exempts programs
designed to redress "perceieved historical inequities" from complying with
the Charter provisions on equality and non-discrimination. This
effectively precludes a Supreme Court challenge to the Ontario legislation
on the basis that it violates the civil rights of white males. With
respect to fair hiring policies, white males are specifically excluded
from protection under the Charter.
Pearse
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"To someone with a hammer, many things
look like nails that need banging in"
Pearse Ward
wa...@herald.usask.ca
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Freedman
Jean Pfleiderer <pfleid...@wizard.colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>There is also a real problem for minorities, women, whoever is allegedly
>"benefitted" by affirmative action, in always having to wonder whether you got
>the job because you were good, or because you belonged to the right "group,"
>and in having to deal constantly with fellow workers who will be sure to think
>it was the latter, regardless. I think the fear that the world is about
>to be inundated by hordes of incompetent women and minorities, in place of
>competent white men, is completely unfounded. There is, however, a serious
>danger of convincing not only the white men who suffer from not being allowed
>to compete, but also the women and minorities themselves, that they are there
>precisely because they are NOT good enough to do the job. And that strikes me
>as a truly scary thought, because having some degree of confidence in one's
>own capacity to do a job is an essential element in being able to do it well.
>
own actions or incompetence have unpleasant consequences.
My late cousin (lawyer) acted for a black engineer fired for incompetence
(my cousin acknowledged that the charge was true). The multinational company
chose a generous settlement (about four years' severance pay) rather than
face an expensive and damaging (PR) trial.
I've worked with a few "you can't tell me what to do - I'll complain to
the Human Rights Commission" people. The employer is faced with a long and
expensive legal process, the taxpayer pays the employee's costs.
Some employers are understandably reluctant to risk the problems and
expense involved (one co-worker was so incompetent that we left him reading
newspapers for six months rather than let him loose on REAL work).
There must be a balanced process which allows the employer to discipline
employee with cause, and protects employees from genuine abuse (not the
pathetic charges of "racism" tossed around so casually by those who have
never known the real thing).
--
mdf...@io.org Mark Freedman (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
Mark Freedman
GREGORY IRVING <irv...@UNBSJ.CA> wrote:
>In article <3hukqr$2...@ionews.io.org> kjg...@r-node.io.org (Kamala-Jean Gopie) writes:
>>From: kjg...@r-node.io.org (Kamala-Jean Gopie)
>
>>economies. As old cultures grow stagnant, the new cultures
>>bring a new vitality and without them this country would
>>have fallen apart.
>
>Although I agree that immigration is important for Canada, it is rather
>arrogant of you to suggest that the culture of this country is not
>sustainable without being "revitalized" by your culture.
Kamala Jean is absolutely right. Canadian culture lacks the vigor
and passion of cultures freshly imported from their country of origin.
Among the many facets of these new cultures, we have:
new flavours of religious fundamentalism, often much more intense
than the tired old religions in Canada. Many established religions
have lapsed into tolerance of other viewpoints; new blood is clearly
needed (and I stress the term "blood").
new flavours of hatred between various groups, often much more
intense than the tired old hatreds. The old hatreds had become jaded,
not to the point of extinction, but to the point where physical
violence was rare. It's truly refreshing to see the VIGOR of hatred
between groups of recently arrived immigrants. They are an example for
us all.
new traditions, such as "female circumcision." I must admit I find
this barbaric, cruel, and medically unsound, but that's just my
inherent racism showing.
new attitudes towards drugs and guns. we Canadians had silly notions
about both - part of our racist tradition. I now see that drugs and guns
go together, and form an important part of a national culture. As one
reggae musician put it, "people bring their guns to the concert and
shoot in the air if they like the music." Silly me ... I never realized
that a handgun is a fashion accessory. The few Canadians I know who
own guns keep them locked away except when practicing marksmanship at
a shooting range. In my inhibited Canadian way, I've never done more
than applaud a good performance.
new attitudes towards authority - any authority. We've always had a
few anarchists in Canada, but they never had the moral and financial
support of government bodies. It's good to see fanatical resistance to
the laws which had controlled the level violence and crime. After all,
rules are part of the racist tradition; everyone should be allowed
to do whatever they please without fear of intervention.
I've doubtlessly missed numerous other examples of the inherent
superiority of any culture which isn't Canadian. I leave their
discovery as an exercise for the reader.
Steve Howie
: Robert Osborne (rob...@isgtec.com) wrote:
: : This game sucks. And it sucks worse than when we were just playing
: : with the cheaters.
: : Rob.
: : --
: : Robert A. Osborne ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or rob...@isgtec.com
: You are just fearful that you have lost all the advantages that your
: paternalistic white culture used to provide to people of your ilk.
"Advantages"
"Paternalistic white culture"
"people of your ilk"
Gee, now where have I heard this same old tired retort before ... ?
Why can't you accept the fact that's it's impossible to right past
injustices by forcing reverse discrimination on this "paternalistic white
culture"? And please don't come back with the same old answer that it's
"impossible for white males to experience discriminiation, because
marginalized groups have no power". That is complete utter nonsense.
Education, education, education is the answer.
Scotty --
=================================================================
Steve Howie Email: sho...@uoguelph.ca
NetNews and Gopher Admin. Phone: (519) 824-4120 x2556
Computing and Communications Svcs. Fax: (519) 763-6143
University of Guelph
If it's not Scottish its CRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPP
=================================================================
Robert Osborne
# Robert Osborne (rob...@isgtec.com) wrote:
# : This game sucks. And it sucks worse than when we were just playing
# : with the cheaters.
#
# You are just fearful that you have lost all the advantages that your
# paternalistic white culture used to provide to people of your ilk.
My grandfather worked 10 years in the lumber camps, 12 hours a day, 7
days a week with 1 day off each year for Christmas. With what little
money that job paid he made a down payment on a 100 acre beef farm. He
married my grandmother who was kicked out of her home at 16 because her
parents couldn't afford to let her live at home anymore. He feed his
children pork because he couldn't afford to eat the beef that he was
raising. Since it was impossible to raise a family just by farming my
grandfather also was a hunting guide. When this industry dried up in
the 50's he took a job with the township.
My other grandfather worked in a lumber mill until he could afford a
down payment on a 100 acre dairy farm. Unfortunately he couldn't make a
go of it as just a farmer so he had to take another job as a ploughman
for the township.
My father started working in the lumber mills when he was 15. At 18 he
caught a major break and became a blacksmith apprentice, he swung a 28
pound sledge hammer from then until he finished his apprenticeship at
22. He then performed back breaking (literally) manual labour until he
was promoted to foreman when he was 46. In order to make ends meet we
had 2 acres of potatoes and another half acre of vegetable garden. We
also cut pulpwood and firewood off of a 200 acre woodlot that my father
bought with one of his brothers.
I paid my way through university by pounding spikes for the ONR for 10
hours a day and by cutting pulpwood with my uncle. One summer I got
lucky and got a job brushing out canoe portages, it was still hard work
but the view was better.
"Paternalistic white culture" indeed. My ancestors were as oppressed as
anybody. Stop blaming, and punishing, the white working poor for the
faults of some racists just because those racists are also white.
What I'm fearful of is that racist bigots like yourself will undo all
the hard work I did to get to where I am because of your insistence that
all white people gained from some imaginary "white race" conspiracy to
keep down "people of colour" and women. By claiming to be oppressed by
"people of your ilk" you are being as racist as those you critize and
show that you are just trying to turn the tables. Why not fight for
equality?
GREGORY IRVING
>From: kjg...@wink.io.org (Kamala-Jean Gopie)
>Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act
>Robert Osborne (rob...@isgtec.com) wrote:
>: This game sucks. And it sucks worse than when we were just playing
>: with the cheaters.
>: Rob.
>: --
>: Robert A. Osborne ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or rob...@isgtec.com
>You are just fearful that you have lost all the advantages that your
>paternalistic white culture used to provide to people of your ilk.
Thank you for demonstrating who the *real* racists are.
Glen Moore
federal law and with some provinces such as Ontario) and is only reverse
racism. Reverse racism is still racism.
From the Toronto Star, Sat. Feb. 25, 1995 p. D-15, classified display
ad:
THE MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SEEKS
APPLICATIONS TO FILL EIGHT VACANCIES ON THE POLICE-RACE RELATIONS
MONITORING BOARD
Police-Race Relations Monitoring Board will assist police services and
communities in the monitoring and implementation of Race Relations
initiatives. It is expected that the Board will meet on average two
days each month, normally in Toronto. The Board will work
collaboratively with the Policing Services Division of the Ministry of
the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, as well as with police
services and organizations in the racial minority communities across
Ontario.
As a board member, you will be expected to:
*Work with the Ministry to develop and revise as necessary, race
relations standards for audits of police services;
*Work with the Ministry to develop race relations monitoring and audit
protocol, methodology and a schedule for these audits;
*Review completed audits and evaluate findings;
*Review action plans prepared in response to findings and make
recommendations on the adequacy of these plans to the Minister;
*Review progress on race relations/policing issues, employment equity
implementation, race relations training, race relations policy
implementation.
A per diem will be given to each appointed member. Reimbursement will
be made for essential approved travel and accomodation.
Candidates should be familiar with race relations and policing issues,
including employment equity and community policing. They should also
have a good understanding of Ontario's racial minority and aboriginal
communities and their diverse needs. Candidates will have a commitment
to being part of a team which is working collaboratively towards
continuous improvement in police race relations. Candidates will be
expected to have good analytical skills as well as some knowledge of
organizational development.
Anyone interested in serving on this provincial Police-Race Relations
Monitoring Board may apply by forwarding their resume to:
The Public Appointments Unit
The Ministry of the Solicitor General
and Correctional Services
11th Floor, 25 Grosvenor St.
Toronto, ON
M7A 1Y6
FAX 416 314-3536
Tel 416 314-9335
Resumes must be submitted by March 10, 1995.
In accordance with our employment equity goals, applications are
particularly encouraged from aboriginal people, persons with
disabilities, racial minorities and women.
[large logo: "Ontario"]
----------------------------------------------------------------
It sure sounds like they really want to have a biased commission!
First you have to have experience in race relations, employment
equity and have a good understanding of Ontario's racial
minorities and their needs. Then they say that applications are
"particularly encourages from aboiginal people, persons with
disabilities, racial minorities and women.
It sure sounds like they don't want any "white males" on the
Police Race Relations Monitoring Board. It seems like they
might already have a predetermined agenda for the board.
Kamala-Jean Gopie (kjg...@r-node.io.org) wrote:
: You are only criticizing Employment Equity out of your own
: inadequacies and fears.
: : BILL 79
: : Contents
: : Part II - General
: : Interpretation
: : Application
: : Part III - Obligations
: : Obligations
: : Application to the Commission
: : 21. Access to Information
: : Exemptions
: : Implementation
: : Part IV - Enforcement
: : Applications to the Tribunal
: : Offences
: : Part V - Administration
: : Employment Equity Commission
: : Employment Equity Tribunal
: : Aboriginal Workplaces
: : Construction Industry
: : Agricultural Industry
: : Definitions
: : ---------------------------------------------------------------
: : Preamble
: : -----------------------------------------------------------------
: : Part I
: : Employment Equity
: : Entitlement
: :
Bob Levitt
if I either posted a copy of Ontario's Employment Equity Act, and/or my
personal criticizisms of the Act and Regulations. This was obviously
an attempt to silence me, though I have no idea what purpose this would
serve. As long as I accurately post the Act and Regulations and give
my personal viewpoints on what is wrong on specific clauses there are
no grounds whatsoever for any legal action.
I must thank him (you know who you are) as lately I have been so
preoccupied with other things that I completely forgot my promise to
the readers of this newgroup. Without your reminder I would never have
gotten around to posting anything. I should have it completed by
tonight for posting.
BTW, on Tuesday night, CTV's W5 is going to have a documentary piece of
some sort about Employment Equity. I hope it will be as good as most of
the documentaries on W5 are.
Val Dodge
kjg...@r-node.io.org (Kamala-Jean Gopie) wrote:
[Bob Levitt's analysis of the Employment Equity law, and Kamala-Jean's
"rebuttal" strep-a'd]
> You are a fool and everybody knows that. Why don't you stop your flames?
Speaking of flames...
I didn't see any flames in Bob's article, I just saw a point of view
about a piece of legislation. I did see a few flames in *your*
article, though. In short Kamala-Jean, you are the fool. You couch
your own racist views in politically-correct catch phrases and fear
mongering. You are so unwilling to see any point of view other than
your own that your articles continually and constantly demonstrate
your sadly limited range of thought. You defend your ideas with empty
platitudes, attack your opponents with labels, ignore those who
disagree, and lose all credibility in the process. The worst part of
it all, Kamala-Jean, is that people like you will ultimately create
the backlash that you are so desperate to avoid.
I am saddened to think that your heart is filled with such hatred, but
do not make the mistake of blaming me for your station in life. I am
not the racist here, and neither is Bob Levitt. You -- who demands
that people with ideas different than yours not be allowed to run for
public office, who thinks that Wolfgang Droege is representative of
all Canadians, who thinks that someone who doesn't support the
Employment Equity Act for any reason is a fool, who thinks that any
reduction in funding to feminist groups against the backdrop of
reduced government funding to everyone is inherently misogynistic, who
alternately criticizes CTV for being racist and praises them for
having incredible insight on the basis of separate episodes of a
single television show, who is too short-sighted to see beyond her own
petty self-interests -- it is you who are racist, sexist, and all
those other labels you slap on your perceived enemies, Kamala-Jean,
not me. It is you who needs to stop hating, fearing, and insulating
yourself from those of differing appearances and ideas, not me. It is
you who needs to open your eyes, not me. It is you who must look in
the mirror, not me. It is you who is the fool, Kamala-Jean, not me.
--
Val Dodge | Tell me no lies, and I'll ask you no
Toronto, Ontario | questions.
Neil Whiteside
>: "Every employer shall implement positive measures with respect to the
>: recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment and promotion of Aboriginal
>: people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women."
>: This seems to imply that these "designated groups" shall be considered
>: before others, (ie. the "non-designated group",) and this Act nor its
>: Regulations never make any references to qualifications nor merit in
>: making these considerations.
>Why do you lie so much. Of course the abilities are taken into
>consideration. If there are two people of roughly equal ability then
>the disadvantaged group deserves the job to make up for the
>discrimination that would have prevented them from ever being considered.
1) The sad truth howerver is that the typical employer will not even attempt
to make such an 'equal ability' interpretation, and will always err on the
side of conservatism. That is to say an employer who does not wish to incur
the rath of this legislation will hardly use the 'equal ability' test at all,
and simply hire minorities over non-minorities to prevent possible retribution
in the future. End result? I see Employers hiring a minority applicant who
*lacks* skills possessed by the non-minority applicant, just because they
absolutely do not want to end up in court defending such a judgement call.
(Especially when the mood of the Employment Equity document sings of 'Employer
guilty until proven innocent'.)
2) This legislation is *not* truly 'Equitable', the bottom line remains the
same. Non-minority applicants are legislatively made inferior to minorities
for the purpose of hiring. The net result remains by definition that
non-minorities are now being descriminated against.
You can *never* justify discrimination, even in an attempt to right so-called
previous discriminations. I refuse to accept the concept that non-minority
applicants should be so punished in recompense for the so-called racist hiring
practices of *employers* in the past. You should be redressing such 'moral
wrongs of the past via education and eventual change in employer views; not by
direct disadvantaging of a group which has in itself done nothing to incur
such legislative reverse discrimination.
>You are a fool and everybody knows that. Why don't you stop your flames?
Methinks you throw the term 'everybody' around without a true grasp of how the
targets of this reverse-discrimination (like myself) feel about this
legislation.
Mark Freedman
Employment Equity Act, and your commentary. I am glad that you were not
intimidated by those with vested interests in the act, e.g. Kamala-Jean.
From the quality of her articles and the Email you received, I infer that
she would never get the job she wants WITHOUT givernment intervention.
Most employers look for a minimal level of competence and personal integrity.
It is interesting that Kamala-Jean appeared shortly after Himy Syed
vanished, and continued posting in Himy's self-serving racist style. One
wonders if there is a connection, other than a desire to take as much
from Canada as possible with no concern for the longterm effects on
others, especially others who might superficially belong to the same "group."
In article <3jj4de$6...@ionews.io.org>, Bob Levitt <ble...@bonk.io.org> wrote:
>How can I take anybody seriously who sends me the following e-mail?
>Try to have me charged. I haven't done anything wrong. You like a very
>few people on some newgroups are only trying to censor those who you
>disagree with. Actually, you are trying to get us to censor ourselves.
>It won't work.
>
>
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 10:04:45 -0500 (EST)
>
From: Kamala-Jean Gopie <kjg...@io.org>
>
To: ble...@io.org
>
Subject: Your Racism
>
>If you post anything more on Employment Equity or Immigration I will
>
have the Congress of Black Women and the Black Action Defense Committee
>
charging you under Canada's Hate Crimes Act.
Matthew Lowry
: Why do you lie so much. Of course the abilities are taken into
: consideration. If there are two people of roughly equal ability then
: the disadvantaged group deserves the job to make up for the
: discrimination that would have prevented them from ever being considered.
What about the situation where the non-"designated" individual has
slightly better qualifications than the "designated" individual. Should
the "designated" individual get the job in essence for no other reason
than the color of their skin or their sex or their beliefs. Isn't that
the definition of discrimination.
: This is necessary to prevent backlash from those who fear their loss of
: being specially treated.
What about a backlash from all of those that this law discriminates
against? Doesn't discrimination even reverse-discrimination simply breed
greater discrimination, isn't education the best solution so that all of
the people now growing up learn a better way instead of learning that its
all right to discriminate against others as long as you are in the
"designated" group.
Kamala-Jean Gopie
fabricated letter.
Fred Parker
>How can I take anybody seriously who sends me the following e-mail?
>Try to have me charged. I haven't done anything wrong. You like a very
>few people on some newgroups are only trying to censor those who you
>disagree with. Actually, you are trying to get us to censor ourselves.
>It won't work.
>
>
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 10:04:45 -0500 (EST)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Do you think you can do anything about Stephnie Payne's anti-Semitic
blatherings from the Show Boat debate while you're at it?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>? Help M Main Menu P PrevMsg - PrevPage D Delete R Reply
>
>
>[ALL of message text]
>
Steve Howie
: Bob Levitt (ble...@nudge.io.org) wrote:
: : These are my criticisms of the
: : (Ontario) Employment Equity Act, 1993
: : by: Bob Levitt
: : The Preamble
: : "Every employer shall implement positive measures with respect to the
: : recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment and promotion of Aboriginal
: : people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women."
: : This seems to imply that these "designated groups" shall be considered
: : before others, (ie. the "non-designated group",) and this Act nor its
: : Regulations never make any references to qualifications nor merit in
: : making these considerations.
: Why do you lie so much. Of course the abilities are taken into
: consideration. If there are two people of roughly equal ability then
: the disadvantaged group deserves the job to make up for the
: discrimination that would have prevented them from ever being considered.
That's exactly why this legislation is racist.
: This law doesn't go far enough. It should apply to all places of
: employment. It should also address training, and equity in post
: secondary admission as well as financial grants to make this possible.
You've said some pretty bizarre things in the past but this takes the cake.
Just exactly HOW is "equity" in post-secondary admission going to solve
ANYTHING. Wake up, for Christ sake.
: : ONTARIO GAZETTE - GENERAL
: : Section 3 discusses the geographic bases census data that is used to set
: : the employment equity plan goals (quotas). Of course these census racial
: : proportions include children which may cause dramatic distortions in the
: : figures used. Again the goals are solely based on community proportions
: : of the designated groups without any consideration made to the occupational
: : skills of the people available.
: You are making some big assumptions here and your racism is showing as
blah blah
KJ, if you have any *realistic* proof to substantiate your claims that
everyone who disagrees with is "racist", you may have a little bit of
credence to some of your arguments. Until then, rant away as much as you
like because not too many people are listening to your bizarre theories
about "racism".
: You are a fool and everybody knows that. Why don't you stop your flames?
And why don't you stop slamming people just because they take a contrary
position to you. Please.
On a happy note - this whole stupid, ill-conceived piece of legislation will
be at least gutted, and hopefully scrapped when the next government takes
over later this year.
Mark Freedman
Matthew Lowry <mlo...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Kamala-Jean Gopie (kjg...@r-node.io.org) wrote:
>
>: Why do you lie so much. Of course the abilities are taken into
>: consideration. If there are two people of roughly equal ability then
>: the disadvantaged group deserves the job to make up for the
>: discrimination that would have prevented them from ever being considered.
>
>What about the situation where the non-"designated" individual has
>slightly better qualifications than the "designated" individual. Should
>the "designated" individual get the job in essence for no other reason
>than the color of their skin or their sex or their beliefs. Isn't that
Keep in mind that Kamala-Jean also advocates fudging marks for target
groups to compensate for cultural bias in our educational system. Giuliana
Cola...@tvo.org provided the following example of the inherent unfairness
in the Canadian educational system.
>1. Akiko has to travel a total of 802 km from Quebec City to Toronto for a
>business meeting. When she reaches Montreal, Akiko has travelled 256 km.
>What further distance must Akiko travel in order to get to Toronto?
She felt that references to Quebec City, Montreal, and Toronto gave
Canadians a clear advantage when doing subtraction.
>What about a backlash from all of those that this law discriminates
>against? Doesn't discrimination even reverse-discrimination simply breed
>greater discrimination, isn't education the best solution so that all of
>the people now growing up learn a better way instead of learning that its
>all right to discriminate against others as long as you are in the
>"designated" group.
Unfortunately Kamala-Jean and her ilk give credibility to the arguments
used by her fellow racists (e.g. the Heritage Front). How many laid-off
middle-aged Canadians will accept being excluded from competition for jobs
because they're Canadian/white/male/able-bodied ?
Much as I hated history as taught in school, I wish people received an
general overview of world history. We could learn much about the politics of
hatred by studying Germany between WWI and WWII.
Marco Anglesio
: Your mail is a fake. I could have you charged with Slander for your
: fabricated letter.
Ummm. .... Kamala-Jean, he didn't mention _your_ name, did he?
Slander my ass. You need to identify a person to slander them. He didn't
go so far as to say "bigot", "racist", "idiot", "cretin", "dunderhead",
or anything like that, which would readily identify you.
Go away.
marco
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Marco Anglesio, Materials and Metallurgical Engineering, Queen's U |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <3m...@jeff-lab.queensu.ca> | Caught between the bright lights/ and |
| <3m...@qlink.queensu.ca> | the far unlit unknown/ nowhere is the |
| <angl...@unixg.ubc.ca> | dreamer/ or the misfit so alone |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lewis
Hareesh Kesavan <khar...@bnr.ca> wrote:
>someone else wrote:
>>What about a case were 90% of the workers in a field are women. do you
>>advocate affirmative action in these areas to boost the representation of
>>males to 48% (their representation in the general population). Take
>>nursing for example, 98% of all nurses are women.
>Okay, you've got me on that one. :) Though I don't necessarily think
>it would be a bad to break that stereotype. On the other hand,
>how many fields are like that?
Quite a number actually. The entire range of health professions are
either that way already, or will be soon. Which is why blanket legislation
such as this is a mistake. Either you ignore such imbalances in your
rush to force 50% in others, or be consistent, and restrict women from
such professions. Both are unfair - either you end up with 50% women
(for example) in some professions and >>50% in others, or you end up
with 50% overall, and a lot of women are discouraged access to professions
that they traditionally _wanted_ to join (particularly those already
in the educational streams to that profession).
If a "minority" is already balanced, or almost balanced, or already
overrepresented in a particular profession, what is the sense of
uniform legislation?
Having lived in this province quite a number of years, the one thing
that always gets me is the instability caused by government micromanaging
professions. One year we have a surplus of, say, nurses. The government
steps in and restricts nursing positions in University. 3-4 years later
there's a severe shortage. It always happens.
>>Women make up 52% of the student body at this university.
>[etc.]
>>given that the pool of graduating
>>professionals is greater than 50%, if a level playing field exists (and
>>existing legislation is sufficient to enforce fair hiring policies under
>>the federal and provincial charters), then greater than 50% of all new
>>hirings will be women.
>There's a lot of "ifs" involved! In some fields, I can truly
>believe that fair hiring is a reality today, and that women will
>be as likely to be hired as men. But if you set up a system
>where some *consistently* have imbalanced representation (and
>this is true in some fields), then there is a problem that must
>be fixed.
>>In less than a generation, women will be equally represented in all the
>>professions.
>
>I take extreme issue with this statement! Just looking at high-tech
>fields like electrical engineering, I don't see any evidence to
>show that there will be *equal* representation any time soon!
>Just look at the numbers of females doing graduate studies
>in Elec. Eng, or Computer Science. Sure it's growing, but is
>it fast enough?
I am convinced that, given the attitudes and patterns of the last
decade or two, that the medical profession (MDs) will settle down to
being around 75% female without being coerced in any way. Along with
most of the other medical-related specialities already being well over
50% female (such as nursing, technicians etc).
So electrical engineering or computer science, taken individually,
might settle down to, say, 75% male. (I disagree strongly with
computer science, you need only walk into many large corporations and see
a _much_ better balance than that, indeed, in some places I've worked,
both the non-management and lower to middle management levels had
considerably more than 25% women, some layers >50%.)
So you have a situation where some highly paid professions will
be >50% female, and others won't be. Is that necessarily a problem?
Why is it so all-fired important that every profession be *exactly*
the same level (unless it's already overbalanced), as long as,
everybody gets equal chance, and that across the workforce as a whole
employment at various pay levels is balanced?
As long as it balances out in the end, why _must_ it be fixed? If
"tradition" evolves into a situation where all the women become
doctors, and all men become engineers, why is it so all-fired
important to destroy "tradition" for it's own sake? Maybe they
like it that way.
>>The problem is that those who favour discriminatory legislation
>>aren't willing to wait. They want to unfairly discriminate against one
>>group to accelerate the progress of another.
>Well, I can see their point. There is no such thing as equality of
>opportunity as long as societal expectations are causing consistent
>imbalances. Promoting "non-traditional" fields to disadvantaged
>groups is best done by showing them deeds, not by cajoling them.
I don't believe that "cajoling" (actually, let's call it for what
it really is, _forcing_ quotas) people into non-traditional fields is
in their best interests. I believe in improving attitudes, encouraging
those groups less historically inclined to try for the things they're
interested in, and removing barriers. Only 30-40 years ago, women were
strongly discouraged from entering University at all. One of my great
grandfathers made a _huge_ fuss about my mother even thinking about going
on to University. My grandparents ignored him (they ignored a lot
of things he did ;-), and my mom went anyways.
I believe most people aren't in the slightest against better representation
all through employment, but believe that blind quota enforcement (with
the implicit unfairness to the people already in the "pipeline") is
going to cause a lot more problems than it solves.
These things of necessity take time. Global attitudes have to change.
People have to grow up bathed in the evolving attitudes. Generations
have to pass. Forcing it to go any faster does a lot more damage than
it solves, and is in fact counter-productive - it will make the very
real problems this is supposed to solve _worse_, not better.
--
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_
Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Latest psroff: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/psroff3.0pl17/*
Latest hp2pbm: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/hp2pbm/*
Ian Maione
Kamala-Jean Gopie <kjg...@r-node.io.org> wrote:
>
>: The preamble says certain groups experience higher levels of discrimination
>: in employment and promotion, especially in senior and management positions;
>: this law is to stop this.
>
>I can't dispute this, this is the truth.
>
Well, I'm sure you wouldn't even try to dispute this, but no one ever
seems to be concerned with actually finding out to what extent it actually
happens. Yes, it happens to *some* extent, but what does that mean? Why
do we assume that only certain groups experience this sort of discrimination?
White males can also experience discrimination. *Everyone* can.
>Why do you lie so much. Of course the abilities are taken into
>consideration. If there are two people of roughly equal ability then
>the disadvantaged group deserves the job to make up for the
>discrimination that would have prevented them from ever being considered.
>
Give me a break. How often do you think it actually happens that you
get two applicants who just happen to have exactly the same skill set, so
we'll just hire the minority person? That's got to be pretty rare. The
Act specifies that certain proportions of the workforce will be made up of
certain groups. You are implying that Employment Equity is just some kind of
"tie-breaker" legislation which gives minorities a bit of an edge. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
>Minority Layoff Protection, as you put it, is a good and necessary
>ideal, to make up for the decades when the reverse were true. Most
>employers still prefer to make up for temporary needs by hiring
>part-time employees and they prefer to hire minorities at low wages,
>while their preferences for full-timers are white males. These
>inequities are adresses in this law as they should be.
>
You truly frighten me. A person who has committed no crime or injustice
*CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT* be held responsible for the crimes or inequities
of their parents, or previous generations. Such a notion is an odious
twisting of the notions of individual responsibility which our society
supposedly operates on. What you're basically saying is that a white male
before he is even born, is "guilty" of being part of a group, some of whose
members have acted in a discriminatory manner in the past. Shall we start
going into the history books to start redressing every wrong which has been
perpetrated against a group of people? Should we start making German people
"pay" for the crimes of the Nazis during WWII today? In 20 years, are we
going to have white males asking to "make up" for the decades in which
government policy made them second class citizens?
Regards,
Ian
Ian Maione
Hareesh Kesavan <khar...@bnr.ca> wrote:
>In article <3jkm6j$s...@hppadbk.waterloo.hp.com>,
>Jonathan Evans <ev...@waterloo.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>Many people would argue that "individual rights" are the *cornerstone* of a
>>"just society". I'm one of them.
>
>But there is always a limit to individual rights! Deciding
>where the limits should be is difficult, but I submit to you
>that it is *always* necessary. For every right, there is a
>reasonable limit.
>
Yes, BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT.....limitations on individual rights in our
society APPLY TO EVERYONE, EQUALLY. We have laws which restrict the rights
of people to kill other people, for example. But murder is an offense no
matter who commits it. It's not like some "designated groups" are allowed
to commit some murders while everyone else isn't, which is roughly analagous
to the situation here.
>>And "only for a while?" When does this "while" stop? Who decides? When
>>racism is totally eliminated from our society? Neither you nor I will be
>>around to see that.
>
>The "while" stops when we (the voting public) decide it should
>stop. That's assuming we still have control of our government...
>As to "when" that should be, it's a matter of personal interpretation.
>
If you think that the majority of the public would support Employment
Equity if it came to a vote or referendum, you need to take that crack pipe
out of your mouth. Most reasonable people, whatever their background,
recognize it to be a racist and indefensible piece of legislation. The NDP
is responsible for EE, not the public. The people who support it are
special interest groups and those who have a vested interest in it.
>I would say that we need more stereotypes to be broken -- this means
>that the public should get used to having "designated" groups in all
>types of careers. What I'm really saying is that children from any
>group should not get any preconceived notions about what they
>*can't* become when they grow up... They should receive more positive
>and supportive ideas from the public at large, and should see for
>themselves that "engineer" doesn't mean "man" (for example).
>
Oh, for God's sake. What is this, a societal cuddle session? If someone
wants to be an engineer, then they should be an engineer, and to damned with
what anyone else thinks. Yes, we want to have conditions in society that
support people in whatever they wish to pursue, but the idea that women
*can't* be engineers, or doctors, or whatever, just because society isn't
"supportive enough" of them is ridiculous. There are more
and more examples of these people in society all the time. Nothing stopped
them.
Ian
GREGORY IRVING
>From: khar...@bnr.ca (Hareesh Kesavan)
>Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act
>In article <wardp-09039...@oisin.usask.ca>,
>Pearse Ward <wa...@herald.usask.ca> wrote:
>>Any law that requires specific exemption from the Charter of Rights and
>>Freedoms to escape being overturned by the courts is a priori in violation
>>of that Charter, and by extension, unjust.
>I certainly don't paint the world in terms of absolute black and
>white, nor absolute right and wrong. You have certain rights,
>and I have certain rights, and where they conflict, one or both
>of our rights are bound to be curtailed, at which point, one or
>both of us cry, "Injustice!" Law must weigh the benefits of one
>group against another, and find the greatest common good. If
>there has been a historical injustice against one group, then
>there will often be a time when a balancing injustice is necessary
>to create "equality".
I am growing weary of the argument about historical injustices. It is a
case of the children paying for the sins of the father. No, even worse..it
is a case of the children paying for the sins of someone else's father.
Economically disadvantaged white males are no better off, historically
speaking, than the other so-called disadvantaged groups. And the
individuals who benefit from this legislation are *NOT* those who suffered
these past injustices. So, what is accomplished? Nothing but increasing
polarization and resentment among various segments of society. NOw, that is
something to crow about, isn't it?
>>What about a case were 90% of the workers in a field are women. do you
>>advocate affirmative action in these areas to boost the representation of
>>males to 48% (their representation in the general population). Take
>>nursing for example, 98% of all nurses are women.
>Okay, you've got me on that one. :) Though I don't necessarily think
>it would be a bad to break that stereotype. On the other hand,
>how many fields are like that?
>>Women make up 52% of the student body at this university.
>[etc.]
>>given that the pool of graduating
>>professionals is greater than 50%, if a level playing field exists (and
>>existing legislation is sufficient to enforce fair hiring policies under
>>the federal and provincial charters), then greater than 50% of all new
>>hirings will be women.
>There's a lot of "ifs" involved! In some fields, I can truly
>believe that fair hiring is a reality today, and that women will
>be as likely to be hired as men. But if you set up a system
>where some *consistently* have imbalanced representation (and
>this is true in some fields), then there is a problem that must
>be fixed.
But, is the consistent imbalance the result of discrimination? If not, what
is the point of this law? If the number of women in the applicant pool is
low because women are disinterested in a certain profession, then
preferential hiring is not going to provide a remedy. Rather, it is going
to undermine those women who would get the job on their merits because
doubts have been automatically raised regarding the reason they got the
job. And those doubts are raised in *their* minds as well as those of their
male coworkers. There is a substantial body of research that shows the
negative impact of preferential hiring on its supposed beneficiaries. The
ones most often harmed are those individuals from the supposed disadvantaged
groups who do not need such a leg up on the competition. The only ones who
truly benefit are those who are undeserving.
>>In less than a generation, women will be equally represented in all the
>>professions.
>I take extreme issue with this statement! Just looking at high-tech
>fields like electrical engineering, I don't see any evidence to
>show that there will be *equal* representation any time soon!
>Just look at the numbers of females doing graduate studies
>in Elec. Eng, or Computer Science. Sure it's growing, but is
>it fast enough?
I take issue with his statement as well, but for different reasons. Is it
*realistic* to expect equal representation? Has anyone considered what
interests people in a career?
>>It's quite simple. You cannot claim to support equity and justice and
>>allow for discrimination. If you want to claim that to address past
>>injustices, it is necessary and desirable to perpetrate new injustices,
>>then make your case on those grounds but don't try to sugar coat it by
>>calling it "equity".
>I guess I said exactly that. In a nutshell, we disagree about:
>"Future equity is achieved by current injustice."
I guess you subscribe to the notion that "two wrongs DO make a right". The
question becomes, where does it stop? Retribution is not the answer and
that is what this law proscribes.
>Of course, things are not as bad as they were before... we've
>really come a long way. I must admit that the necessity (and
>practicality) of this legislation is approaching its end.
Now, *that* was an understatement!
>Hareesh.
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Hareesh Kesavan (khar...@bnr.ca) BNR Japan
>"Forty-two."
>Any opinions expressed herein are My Own (TM).
Geoffrey Welsh
> Why is it so all-fired important that every profession be *exactly*
> the same level (unless it's already overbalanced), as long as,
> everybody gets equal chance, and that across the workforce as a whole
> employment at various pay levels is balanced?
Not just every profession; every *employer* is expected to make their
workforce 'reflective' of the community.
Geoffrey Welsh ge...@zswamp.uucp, [xenitec.on.ca|m2xenix.psg.com]!zswamp!geoff
"Was Windows 3.1's code name 'San Andreas'?!?" - Peter Spitz
Mike Gingell
>Date: 10 Mar 1995 14:04:16 GMT
>: Imagine what would happen if, say, 40% of all "experts" interviewed
>: on TV were women. And I mean real professionals, not just
>: experts on "how women are treated in this type of job". I think
>: you'd find that people would not assume that they got the job
>: because they were women, but that they had some ability in that
>: area. And girls might say, "Hey, that sounds like an interesting
>: career, maybe I could do that when I grow up!"
But therein lies the problem. I don't think you'll get much argument from
me at least, that if you have two equally quallified candidates , one
from an under represented target group, you should use the employment equity
philosophy to make the final determination as to who gets the job
***BUT***
We seem to have a *real* problem getting "properly" or "equally" qualified
candidates. Your contention falls completely on it's face when you see some of
the *experts* from target groups make fools of themselves because they
obviously AREN'T quallified. This is one of the main reasons (IMHO) why there
is such a backlash against employment equity, people see minority people who
are obviously unqualified get jobs while qualified people from non-target
groups don't get jobs !!
>: - they haven't considered the field as a possibility, possibly
>: because they don't feel comfortable in a classroom or workplace that
>: is male-dominated
>: - they haven't been encouraged to find an interest in subjects which
>: are necessary if one wants to succeed at that field
Not always, quite often the job is simply something that doesn't appeal to
the majority of women. Men and women *REALLY* are different Kamala-Jean. Many
women won't take many of the jobs that men take because they *DON'T WANT TO*
not because they are restricted from applying.
This applies to men as well. For example, the most gender-biased profession
in North America is dominated by *women* ! Does the "old-girls network"
activily try to exclude men from the nursing professions profession ?? Maybe
we should start applying the concepts of employment equity to nursing , in
which case the cry of "No woman need apply" would be heard for the nexct
twenty years !!
>To eliminate the systemic racism Employment Equity is not enough. We
>must extend it prinicples to the Education system. Employers will try
>to use the excuse that there aren't enough trained people so we must
>extend employment equity principles to post secondary education
>admissions and grading systems. Once Equity principles are taught
>throughout all levels of the school system and practiced in both the
>education system and the workplace, will the historic inequities die.
It's not an *excuse* Kamale-Jean, there *aren't* enough properly qualified
people from the various minority groups. I agree that education *must* be the
first step. You cannot force employers to hire unquallified personnel *AND* be
competative *AND* be liable *AND* be all the other things we want our
businesses to be.
...Ken