First nations will blockade roads as part of 'Idle No More' protest

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Hey I'm not saying you're totally out of line.

You are right in some cases and it raises a good debate - why should an insurance company be able to violate my rights and charge me more money because I am a man and not a woman?

But they aren't allowed to keep racial stats which could or could not show that 'Chinese drivers cause more accidents than white ones'.

Insurance and actuarial practices are an interesting case. Most provincial human rights codes provide certain exemptions. For example, the Ontario Human Rights Code provides limited exceptions for insurance "on reasonable and bona fide grounds because of age, sex, marital status, family status, or handicap." Trying to determine what is "reasonable and bona fide" has, predictably, become a complex and highly litigated question.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

omg I said it earlier that was just one stupid scenerio.

Sorry I didn't think you'd get hung up on the HR practices of this made up company in this made up situation.

Make it Airport security in Islamabad screening Brits and Americans. Who cares. Thats not the point.

Why did you put it out there if you didn't want the realities of it to be discussed? If you implement a system that places an undue burden on someone simply because of their race it is racist. This is not complicated.

Security screening is a much different situation, and it also doesn't impact the long term ability of someone to exist in society (presuming we're not getting into the realm of innocent people being placed on do not fly lists or being incarcerated absent proof of any wrongdoing). I think people should have a decreased expectation of being free from profiling in that circumstance, so long as the result of that profiling is the least intrusive screening practice possible. If people of a certain race are pulled out to do the hand swab thing more than people of another race due to credible threats I don't have a problem with it. If people of a certain race are denied the right to fly or otherwise unreasonably impacted by a policy that is based strictly on race that isn't okay.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Insurance and actuarial practices are an interesting case. Most provincial human rights codes provide certain exemptions. For example, the Ontario Human Rights Code provides limited exceptions for insurance "on reasonable and bona fide grounds because of age, sex, marital status, family status, or handicap." Trying to determine what is "reasonable and bona fide" has, predictably, become a complex and highly litigated question.

So even the courts agree with me just to a different extent.

Ah sweet vindication

Originally Posted by valo403

Why did you put it out there if you didn't want the realities of it to be discussed? If you implement a system that places an undue burden on someone simply because of their race it is racist. This is not complicated.

Yup, Ill admit my example was a poor one.

and I do agree that there are limits. I think once you start to have an impact on someones life outside of the very immediate emotional short term, that you have to start seriously weighing the benefits/costs and drawing a line.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

Great, doesn't mean it's not an effective practice and it doesn't mean that other judges who don't have a problem with it in another country are wrong.

Basically what I'm getting at is...

At what point do we stop letting sensitivity get in the way of sound logic that harms no one outside of a potential feeling of slight offense? Whether it be based on Racial stats or Age stats or whatever type of stats.

The problem is that you are using examples that aren't a case of inconvenience, they are a matter of being essentially excluded and marginalized. I'm not sure how you aren't getting this.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by polak

Great, doesn't mean it's not an effective practice and it doesn't mean that other judges who don't have a problem with it in another country are wrong.

Basically what I'm getting at is...

At what point do we stop letting sensitivity get in the way of sound logic that harms no one outside of a potential feeling of slight offense? Whether it be based on Racial stats or Age stats or whatever type of stats.

I don't at all agree with your claim that it "harms no one outside of a potential feeling of slight offence." That is the problem.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by polak

So even the courts agree with me just to a different extent.

Ah sweet vindication

Well, before you start celebrating too much, I would note that insurance and acturial practices are more or less the only exceptions (that I am aware of anyway) in Canadian human rights codes and human rights law/employment law. And even those exceptions must be justifiable and are closely and strictly scrutinized by courts.

[FlamesAddiction]

As a white person who has travelled and worked with aboriginals and have stayed for months within or close to remote reserves, I can say that I have faced some pretty severe racial discrimination and generalizations based on my skin colour right down to a few completely unprovoked physical altercations. Many natives I met absolutely hate white people and don't care about your own situation as an individual. It's a form of extreme racism that I don't believe non-whites in Canada experience. I'm not saying that there isn't too much acceptable racism against non-whites, but I don't think non-whites have to fear for their safety like I did staying on the reserve.

On the other hand, some of the closest friends I have are also natives and they fully recognize that other natives can be irrationally racist towards whites. It's hard for non-aboriginal Canadians to meet them half way with all that resistance.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I don't at all agree with your claim that it "harms no one outside of a potential feeling of slight offence." That is the problem.

Okay. I get it. My situation would harm someone and it is a UN human rights violation and I'd deserve to be tried at world court

Say you're race has been responsible for a string of terrorist attacks and your at an airport (great time to think of another hypothetical situation) and you get profiled for extra screening, so they take you in a room and go through your bag.

You might feel embarrassed about someone going through your stuff, you might feel offended about being picked based on profiling and you might be a little pissed that your time is being wasted but that, to me, doesn't seem like much of a burden on you if this system is proven to be more effective then random spot checks.

Is that better? Thats what I meant by "not harming you"

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

Okay. I get it. My situation would harm someone and it is a UN human rights violation and I'd deserve to be tried at world court

Say you're race has been responsible for a string of terrorist attacks and your at an airport (great time to think of another hypothetical situation) and you get profiled for extra screening, so they take you in a room and go through your bag.

You might feel embarrassed about someone going through your stuff, you might feel offended about being picked based on profiling and you might be a little pissed that your time is being wasted but that, to me, doesn't seem like much of a burden on you if this system is proven to be more effective then random spot checks.

Is that better? Thats what I meant by "not harming you"

What is this stuff? Nobody even insinuated as such, but the fact that you think being denied employment is no big deal actually speaks volumes as to your ability to think critically on this issue. You need to actually look at the impacts, you keep saying it's not a big deal or that it does no harm but of the two scenarios you've presented one does an incredible amount of harm.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by polak

Okay. I get it. My situation would harm someone and it is a UN human rights violation and I'd deserve to be tried at world court

Now you're just descending into desperate nonsense. No one said anything of the sort.

Say you're race has been responsible for a string of terrorist attacks and your at an airport (great time to think of another hypothetical situation) and you get profiled for extra screening, so they take you in a room and go through your bag.

The idea with profiling is that it is racist but that in the view of proponents the ends justify the means if it prevents deaths. The extent to which profiling is actually effective is up for debate.

[Sliver]

I think polak's point is more, "if it's logical, then why is it racist? Racism is bad, but logic is objective, so if I'm being logical how can that be bad/racist?"

It is unfortunate, but the scenario highlights how we can all be racist. Polak, you're not going to get anybody on CP to admit what you're saying makes sense, but what you're saying makes sense. That sucks that you probably exposed a bit of racism in some of us that we wish wasn't there; however, just because we can follow your logic in your hypothetical scenario, doesn't mean we'd act on it. If that thought crossed my mind when hiring somebody, I'd deliberately go against that thought just because I wouldn't want to be racist.

It's very unfortunate that on top of all the other problems native societies have, the individuals that "break the mould" so to speak still face racism.

As a white guy it's hard to relate to, but I think I have felt 1% of that. When I was job searching after graduating university in 2000, I was beat out for jobs by hot chicks a good half a dozen times in a row. I couldn't even blame the guys doing the hiring - if you had two equally qualified people applying for a job and one was a hot chick and one was some dude, you'd probably go for that hot chick. All other things being equal, why not? When I finally did land a professional job, it was between me and another chick - I was chosen because the manager "needed more testosterone around here." If I was native, my problems likely would have been compounded significantly.

Anyway, not sure what my point was hah.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think polak's point is more, "if it's logical, then why is it racist? Racism is bad, but logic is objective, so if I'm being logical how can that be bad/racist?"

It is unfortunate, but the scenario highlights how we can all be racist. Polak, you're not going to get anybody on CP to admit what you're saying makes sense, but what you're saying makes sense. That sucks that you probably exposed a bit of racism in some of us that we wish wasn't there; however, just because we can follow your logic in your hypothetical scenario, doesn't mean we'd act on it. If that thought crossed my mind when hiring somebody, I'd deliberately go against that thought just because I wouldn't want to be racist.

It's very unfortunate that on top of all the other problems native societies have, the individuals that "break the mould" so to speak still face racism.

As a white guy it's hard to relate to, but I think I have felt 1% of that. When I was job searching after graduating university in 2000, I was beat out for jobs by hot chicks a good half a dozen times in a row. I couldn't even blame the guys doing the hiring - if you had two equally qualified people applying for a job and one was a hot chick and one was some dude, you'd probably go for that hot chick. All other things being equal, why not? When I finally did land a professional job, it was between me and another chick - I was chosen because the manager "needed more testosterone around here." If I was native, my problems likely would have been compounded significantly.

Anyway, not sure what my point was hah.

Lots of things that are logical are wrong. When the 'logical choice' infringes upon the rights of others it's wrong.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by polak

Okay. I get it. My situation would harm someone and it is a UN human rights violation and I'd deserve to be tried at world court

Say you're race has been responsible for a string of terrorist attacks and your at an airport (great time to think of another hypothetical situation) and you get profiled for extra screening, so they take you in a room and go through your bag.

You might feel embarrassed about someone going through your stuff, you might feel offended about being picked based on profiling and you might be a little pissed that your time is being wasted but that, to me, doesn't seem like much of a burden on you if this system is proven to be more effective then random spot checks.

Is that better? Thats what I meant by "not harming you"

Well, in my view, that does harm me. Presuming that, due to this string of terrorist attacks, I am already viewed with distrust by some of my fellow passengers, this only embarrasses and alienates me more. To me, that would be more than just a trifling inconvenience. However, as valo noted, in places like airports, there is a diminished expectation of privacy, and perhaps in these rare circumstances such a practice could be justified (although, frankly, I don't think it could; screening should either be totally random or be specific based on some sort of credible information [for example, a tip that a middle-aged italian man will be boarding a plane at YYC sometime this week with a bomb might justify specific searches on all middle-aged italian men at YYC for that week.])

Let me put a similar, but slightly different, hypothetical to you: are police in Toronto justified in pulling over cars driven by black males? would you be comfortable with this practice?

[polak]

K guys. The first line of my post was a joke.

Let me put a similar, but slightly different, hypothetical to you: are police in Toronto justified in pulling over cars driven by black males? would you be comfortable with this practice?

If it was backed up with hard and real numbers and could be done in a non-invasive fashion that made the benefits of pulling them over outweigh the costs inflicted on the person being pulled over then yes. But then you open up the floor to another discussion on what crimes would justify such searches.

Isn't NYC doing something like this with pedestrains?


ANYWAYS...

Lets relax. Everyone is getting a bit too defensive.

Sorry for the sidebar. I just wanted to gauge opinions and see what discussions came up. Clearly I didn't think through my original scenerio on this issue and I apologize for the side tracking. Silver summed up my thoughts quite well and worded it much better then me.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

(Vulcan must feel like a child in disneyland right now)

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

K guys. The first line of my post was a joke.



If it was backed up with hard and real numbers and could be done in a non-invasive fashion that made the benefits of pulling them over outweigh the costs inflicted on the person being pulled over then yes. But then you open up the floor to another discussion on what crimes would justify such searches.

Isn't NYC doing something like this with pedestrains?


ANYWAYS...

Lets relax. Everyone is getting a bit too defensfive.

Sorry for the aside. I just wanted to gauge opinions and see what discussions came up. Clearly I didn't think through my original scenerio on this issue and I apologize for the side tracking. Silver summed up my thoughts quite well and worded it much better then me.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

(Vulcan must feel like a child in disneyland right now)

Yep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...-frisk_program

Extremely controversial, and I'll be honest, I'm not sure where I fall on it. I see the obvious racism involved, but I also know that the areas where this program is being used are the same areas where people get shot. I have no doubt that cops would stop me if I was walking through one of the housing projects after dark, the difference is it would be to tell me to get the f out of there.

[HOOT]

Soooooo how about that Idol No More movement...

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by polak

Lets say 85% of white people in Calgary over the age of 19 have their diploma and only 40% or whatever the number was of the native population does. You only have a finite amount of resources to verify diplomas... whose diplomas do you check?

We both know the logical answer. Is that still racist?

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Yes.

No, it's prejudice not racist. No one is this thread seems to know the difference.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by valo403

Lots of things that are logical are wrong. When the 'logical choice' infringes upon the rights of others it's wrong.

If you get to a "wrong" conclusion it isn't logic's fault, the premises are wrong or a logical mistake was made.

Like the earlier example of it being logical to euthanize seniors... I'd like to see the logical argument supporting that. I'll bet there's a few logical errors/omissions.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by polak

Where the hell did that come from?

Sorry misread your post as 'sound logic hurts no one'.

[darockwilder]

Theresa Spence's Twitter account calls Sen. Brazeau an 'Indian a--hole'

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics.../20523471.html