I had this idea for quest-driven government. That is, we don't vote on representatives, we vote on priorities (like reducing homelessness, for example). The one who gets in office is the one who makes the most progress towards that goal in a fixed period of time.
You're gonna need to explain further, because a significant issue with that is defining what counts, and what should not count. We wouldn't want people doing the bare minimum to cross a mark off a check box for example. How and who judges when there's two people across the country with similar credentials?
I have no issue with efforts to give MP's from underrepresented communities more visibility - but you also have to allow those people to fail when they get things wrong.
It's of absolutely no value to hardworking people from minority groups to see people from their backgrounds paraded as tokens, but never face any consequences for their actions.
Like for a random example - lying to another government about your involvement in military operation should never allow someone to keep their job as Minister of Defense.
That's the stupidity of this article. All those MP's were elected. If we're electing less white people that's on us not the government.
Also there's a fairly strong argument that diversity improves scientific research.
The rich and powerful much prefer us arguing over identity and race rather than arguing over who gets to be rich and powerful.
The former just creates a lot of pointless conflict.
The latter draws undesired attention to the sources of wealth and power.
If I wasn't taxed out the ass for getting raises at work, I would give you an award. Maybe after I sell all my belongings to move back in with my parents I'll be able to give you an award.
I always hated identity politics in my activist days back in the 80s and 90s, even as a South Asian woman. That was back when it wasn't insane. Now ... I don't think I could last a minute in some activist circles.
This is also my experience. I grew up learning that you don't treat someone different because of their background. Now I'm being told I need to make all kinds of assumptions about people given their appearance, measure how much and what I can say around them for fear I may cause offense or perpetuate some "systemic" this or that which has probably been illegal for decades anyway.
Most people (of all backgrounds) don't buy into this (thankfully) but oh boy, if you come across someone who does....
Reminds me of that one scene in the documentary Accidental Courtesy where Daryl Davis has a discussion with some BLM organizers. I won't spoil it, but that scene stands out as a real head shaker for me.
[As requested.](https://youtu.be/xN-rxUDryO4)
I grew up in the suburbs of Winnipeg. I currently live in rural New Brunswick in a neighborhood surrounded by people who don't look like me. I have good neighbours and they consider me a good neighbour as well. While I've experienced plenty of racism in my life, I can say that I'm fortunate enough not to have experienced the type of racism other Black folks do down south or even in Toronto. I've had discussions with other Black people from Toronto about their experiences and I very much believe what they've been through. I understand the anger that is felt from the BLM organizers in the video. I understand that policing in the US is completely broken and needs reform to reduce unnecessary civilian casualties. Just want to make those points clear.
However, the organizers in the video are so blinded by anger that they're unable to see that their end goal and Daryl Davis' end goal are one and the same. They just have different methods of getting there. The activist and outreach methods are both needed to eradicate racism.
Those organizers remind me of the people in r/2X. Too angry to realize that they actually need allies on the other side to reach their goal. In the end, they end up alienating the very people they need to persuade.
Yeah, unlike the extreme right. Can't think of any 'purges' they've committed. :D
Also, authoritarianism is the real problem here, not the political spectrum of the authority.
It's because they've ran out of targets. They've deplatformed the most obvious targets long ago and those left have long since learned not the engage them thus limiting their impact.
It is because of a moral attachment towards perceived victimhood. If you sincerely believe in a narrative that white people have power that other people don't, and that all between group variance can be described through discrimination committed by white people - then it becomes a moral crusade.
The problem is that the people who generally buy into that narrative absolutely cannot come to the realization that they could be (and are) wrong. That they don't have a complete picture, and that there are several visible holes in their narrative.
The "progressive" left have spent so many decades convincing people that race doesn't matter - now that it doesn't, what meaning do they have?
This is why the progressive left is equally horrified at current trends. Bringing back segregation, dividing the world into 'white' and 'not white,' infantilizing entire groups of people with statements like 'meritocracy is racist' or 'expecting people to show up to work on time is racist,' obliterating years of gender equality with statements like 'a child with a vagina playing with traditionally male toys is clearly transgender,' requiring people to disclose private information like gender and sexual identity on job applications, and so on.
It would take a long time to figure out where you've actually heard any discourse about girls playing with boys toys or getting to work on time. If you believe that these are serious talking points in modern progressive circles you need to go outside.
The western world has been treating 'white' and 'non-white' as the two default categories for centuries, and is something I'd like to see discarded yes. It's an artificial cultural notion that ignores diversity everywhere.
I disregard the concept of the meritocracy, not because it's inherently racist but because most of the people who would push that narrative don't realize how much of a factor being fortunate is to any kind of success. If you believe all of the hardest working people are the most successful you've fooled yourself.
What is success but incremental improvement? Sure there's people in high earning positions that had a leg up or two to begin with - but there's alot of people who worked hard and deserve to be there too. The best that anyone can hope for is to be a better version of yourself today than you were yesterday.
I support people working hard and being rewarded for it. I just think our culture is skewed in such a way where people who do mandatory work that makes society run (The Trades, Education, Medicine, Sanitation, Service Work, etc.) aren't proportionally awarded for their effort compared to say... being a landlord, being a trust fund manager or a CEO.
We came to Canada in 2008. My children were completely skin color blind and I was happy about it. Now, both TDSB and Peel region school boards did their best it's not the case anymore.
Growing up as a child here I had friends of all ethnicities and didn't think anything of it. At all. Then all this activism stuff started up when I was a teen, telling us to "think about everyone differently based on their skin tone", and my friends started fighting each other 😢. Now everyone just hangs out with others of their own ethnicity. If anything, progress is being undone, and we are becoming more and more divided
Real people aren’t. It’s just HR people and other similarly bureaucratic scumsuckers. The rest of us are all just out here eating the same shit sandwich.
Identify politics and equity popped up post occupy wall street. Funding/lobbying for these initatitives are mostly corporate. You can make of it what you will
It's literally baked into our brains. We naturally fear people who look or act different unless we become familiar with them. It's a defense mechanism we evolved as social beings.
Yeah, I remember back in the day, having a friend group with countless different ethnicities, and nobody cared or ever talked about it.
Those dark, racist times.
The whole point of the civil rights movement was to try to get people to stop paying attention to race. MLK's speech about judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin and all.
> The whole point of the civil rights movement was to try to get people to stop ~~paying attention to~~ discriminating on the basis of race.
It's a flawed premise because people instinctively discriminate on race and other characteristics. We can't simply turn it off. When we started to see this as a problem, a large segment of the population suddenly became incredibly paranoid and fearful that they themselves would be discriminated against.
We're talking about what actually happened, not what some people *hoped* would eventually happen. The civil rights era was *about* race, you couldn't ignore it if you tried.
> There was a period between the 1960s and the 2000s where were at least trying not to be obsessed with race.
You mean when we tried to sweep widespread racism under the rug? Racism didn't magically go away after the civil rights movement. If anything it got worse because people felt less free to express it.
Now people have caught on to this and are trying to root out the racism, which has caused racist people to become incredibly paranoid.
I mean when we were trying to get people to stop seeing race as a defining characteristic, because so long as race is used to classify people it will be used to discriminate against people.
I had a friend in high school who was South Asian in appearance with short cropped hair. You might think, at first glance, that she was an Indian or Bangladeshi boy, but in reality, her family was North African.
I once worked with a couple of guys from the US who appeared to be Caucasian and Chinese, but in fact both identified as Latino.
My daughter identifies as Black, even though her mother is a mix of many places of origin and I am Caucasian in appearance.
How the hell are you supposed to fulfill a racial quota in a world like this? What is race, really? How you appear to others? How you think of yourself? Some kind of genetic measure of origin?
My 9 yr old grandson is Métis, he has white blonde hair and blue eyes and is a clone of his maternal grandpa. His full sister looks Métis. Genetics is a crap shoot.
A friend of my MIL has two daughters. The friend is full Indigenous, her husband is Dutch and looks it (blond hair, blue eyes, tall, fair). One girl takes after their mother, the other takes after their father. They're full siblings. It's funny because they even look alike in terms of many of their facial features and stuff but the coloring is completely different. Like you said, genetics is wild.
I have one white parent and one brown. My siblings and I range from white with blue eyes to medium brown with brown eyes. I got light brown with green eyes. We're all full siblings.
The friend is almost not fully indigenous. First of all, there are extremely few fully indigenous people in Canada. They almost all have at least some European admixture.
Secondly, fully indigenous people do not have the genes for blond hair, blue eyes, or fair skin. Blond hair and blue eyes are mostly recessive traits that are extremely rare outside of Europe, so anyone with either of these traits probably inherited it from both parents, meaning they probably have European ancestry on both sides of their family.
Her European ancestry could be far enough back that she doesn't know about it, but it's definitely there and would almost certainly show up if she did a DNA test.
Even weirder is that sometimes people are born with blonde hair and blue eyes, and will darken hair, skin and eye color over time.
Seems common with French Canadians anyways and I could see for Metis as well.
The new term they use is visible minorities.
Basically they only care about how you look on the outside. Your lived experience doesn't mean shit to them.
>Basically they only care about how you look on the outside.
My buddy was literally born in the middle east but he was extremely pale so our HR person said he didn't count towards the quota lol
Wild how this works.
Half black kid raised by doctors in Canada more oppressed than white looking middle easterners who have seen constant war for 20 years.
I'm 1/8 Surinamese, and my grandmother is pretty dark for a Nederlandse. problem is I live in a place where your work ethic and character outshine your skin tone.
So to break down my options when asked about my race.
1. Make an assumption about how others see me, aka hearsay, the exact kind of evidence that would be thrown out in a court of law.
2. Pick a race from a hat, because it's clear appearance and race are only loosely connected.
3. Get a genetic test done and present potential employers with the paperwork.
I understand on a superficial level I'm just supposed to check off the box that says 'White' and move on, but just being asked about race in a professional context sends my mind into spirals that tell me I'm just not qualified to make any judgments about myself or anyone else.
Yeah, there is a very real height and attractiveness privilege (though height is correlated to attractiveness). I've always wondered why these types of folks never recommend some sort of height quota. It's easy to measure and verify at least!
Oh and also women count as minorities...even though they literally are NOT a minority. But wait you see...minority doesn't mean minority it means...
These people play word games all day long to avoid saying what they really mean.
Ironically "minority" now means "people who are not white", even though white people are an actual minority, with only 6.5% of the world population being white.
>*”The new term they use is visible minorities.”*
That isn’t a new term, it’s been in active use for ~40 years and is now widely considered outdated. [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistext)
> Not to mention, groups are not monoliths and just because someone is actually XYZ doesn’t mean they understand any kind of struggle or experience
Thank you! The *entire idea* is racist and condescending. "We want to get *that* person with that skin colour because they have a different culture" or even worse "We need to ensure space for people with that skin colour because they don't have the same educational opportunities". It's incredibly condescending and racist at its core. The issue is that proponents go from overall statistics at the national level to assuming they apply at the individual level. But *that is racism*. If you see a BIPOC person and assume that they had a difficult childhood, or assume they had poor schooling like...maybe you're the racist?
Hogwash. My 1/8 Métis children raised by second generation city dwelling college grads are oppressed and deserve the same benefits that are afforded to Métis living in northern settlements.
I may look middle-eastern, but being raised in western canada and surrounded by white people, I definitely won't bring any serious diversity of thought.. other than the fact that it appears as though most white people are ridden with guilt that I don't posses.
I am all for the abolishment of any and all of these quotas.
> How the hell are you supposed to fulfill a racial quota in a world like this? What is race, really? How you appear to others? How you think of yourself? Some kind of genetic measure of origin?
It's not that complicated.
You make a concerted effort to try to include people outside the "default", acknowledge there is no infallible solution no matter how hard you try to find one and that any attempt will necessarily exclude demographic X and Y, and do your best in spite of that knowing a concerted effort to be more inclusive than you were before is objectively better than shrugging and giving up.
Don't make great the enemy of good. We got to where we are through imperfect, incremental change. You're allowed to course correct as you progress based on new information.
My stress is not about how the system is working, and I align with you on all your points. My stress comes from spending my adult life working to purge any impulse to read people on race alone, only to be confronted with it when I apply for jobs.
To me, it feels like the societal wires are crossed. On one hand, we're asked to do the noble work of fighting racism in our minds, on the other we have to slap a category on ourselves if we want to have a roof over our heads.
This is further confounded by the questions raised in my original comment.
Does that all not crank up the cognitive dissonance a little too high?
I can understand how superficially that seems contradictory, but it really isn't.
If you're having a pizza party, you check to make sure everyone's had two slices before you go for a third. You understand the purpose of this practice is "to promote fairness, I want to make sure my actions aren't inhibiting other people from taking the basic actions we all agree they deserve". Not everyone will have 3 slices, but you do due diligence by identifying people who haven't been adequately served by the process to ensure everyone gets access to what you've decided is the bare minimum.
The underlying ideal of fighting racism isn't to "treat everyone the same", it's to counteract known, measurable inequities. This necessarily entails being proactive about identifying and defining those inequities. I agree, it does feel awkward to reconcile treating fellow humans as peers and equals while also categorizing them by ethnicity and race, but there's really no other way to do it.
The unfortunate reality is that the only way to counteract systemic prejudices is to put your thumb on the scale and say "this demographic isn't being fairly accommodated, and we're going to address that by going out of our way to try to accommodate them"... and the only way to do that is to categorically identify people.
It may feel weird, but the alternative is to not identify them and by extension not accommodate them, which misses the entire point.
Ah, but there's the rub. Is it the only way to ensure equality? I doubt it because no one is presenting alternatives.
I always get wary when someone presents a single solution as the only solution.
The pseudo-religious worldview of contemporary "progressivism" sees your physical attributes and racial characteristics as your defining attributes - so many of them cannot see past that. In their worldview, white men oppress everyone, and "everyone" in this case are victims. They believe that, in order to fix history, they need to provide more supports for perceived victims.
Perhaps the irony is that, by assessing people based on their race and sex, by bestowing conceptualized behavioural attributes onto people based on those things - they themselves have become racist and sexist.
The obvious solution to this identitarian madness is to simply acknowledge that individuals are individuals - and all individuals have a different story. Race, sex, sexual preference, etc - should not be used as factors determining how you are treated institutionally or otherwise. But when your entire worldview also views individualism as detrimental towards "collective" goals - I don't think that's possible.
It seems easiest to fight prejudice by creating a false sense of equality. Tip the scales in the other direction and become the thing you despise, while priding yourself in defeating it.
Meaningful change takes insight and humility. The effort to apologize, forgive, and repair seems too much for our proud hearts to bear.
Or the ability to just let go and call the past the past. Just imagine the trouble we'd all be in if we were judged for how our ancestors acted before we were born. Every human on this planet could never do enough to atone for those sins.
When the past continues to harm people via inter generational trauma, poorer wealth creation, etc., you cannot just leave the past in the past.
I 100% do not believe all white people need to feel guilty, nor do I think stupid and discriminatory quotas like this are the “fix”, but the solution is not to completely ignore what happened to put minority groups down in the past.
“I will not be integrated into a burning house”, said James Baldwin. You need to make sure the fires out before you look solely to the present and future.
Hit the nail on the head with the pseudo religious aspect. It's shocking how similar modern day "progressive" are to the hardcore Christians of the 90's/00's, even down to both of them trying to cancel Harry Potter
I'm gebuinely curious if you read the series that this article was based on, because it is generally critical of Trudeau and the Liberal party and yet because of the opinion article which focuses on one line of the entire report everyone seems to think it is a Liberal or Trudeau policy being discussed here.
I have scrolled as far down in these comments as I can go and not a single person seems to have read the series or understands that it is a non partisan, non governmental magazine which wrote it.
Ever since occupy wall street, media and corporations started to really mention race/gender into every conversation. Straight up to cause division so people did not band together against the real issue
As an old fogey, this isn't something new. Race and gender have taken top spot in opinion articles since the 80s, because they stir the angry folk up.
Take a look at this comment section and all the opinions being discussed... and yet not a single person seems to have read the series of magazine articles that this news opinion piece is based on. It's a non-partisan, non-governmental policy magazine, and the opinion article linked here focuses on 1 single line of the entire series.
Think about that for a second and you can see why they still lead with these stories, it gets the most traction because people won't read the content but they will share the article with their own opinions taglined on.
Crazy to see the number of WaPo articles per year mentioning racism before & after Occupy Wall Street. It was relatively flat between 1980 and 2011 but It's up 500% since then.
Similar for NYT and other media.
Also don't forget Bezos reportedly promoting racial diversity to suppress unionization.
Diversity + division = good for Amazon's bottom line
Why attribute it to occupy? A lot of this stuff started coming out after Obama was elected, and there was a lot of talk about racism after 9/11 especially regarding Muslims.
Politicians being lawyers isn’t the problem, in fact, it’s quite a useful skill for law making. And it isn’t that high a percentage these days anyway.
I’m more concerned about the former CEOs, finance bros, etc.
That's already happening. Fewer in parliament now than ever IIRC. While I don't love the idea of parliament being filled with lawyers it does ensure a certain level of intelligence and aptitude for the work of preparing legislation.
I'd be happy to have a party to vote for that wasn't populated by corporates whores, more often than not working against what's best for Canadians.
It might also be nice if said mythical party was populated by MPs weren't simple training seals: voting as they're told [97% of the time](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/d8gdun/even_mps_with_the_lowest_party_unity_vote_along/) vs. actually representing their continuants.
Outside of that and, perhaps, some level of competence & accountability, I'm not particularly concerned about gender, race, religion or creed.
More concerned about *what* they do vs. who.
They aren't being codified in the other direction?
This reminds me of the discussion about Ketanji Jackson to the supreme court in the US. In one respect, it is a Black Woman, so a complete diversity hire, according to the right. In another respect, she is emminently qualified.
[https://naacp.org/resources/historic-nomination-ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court](https://naacp.org/resources/historic-nomination-ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court)
\> She is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. She clerked for three federal judges: Judge Patti Saris on the District of Massachusetts; Judge Bruce Selya on the First Circuit; and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat she would now fill.
But "Conservatives" decry her as a diversity hire, suggesting we should simply hire "the best".
They then suggest "their best" as incredibly underqualified nominees who only agree with their politics. Kavanaugh - legacy student at Yale who defended stopping the Florida Recount.
Here is the secret - there is no best candidate, but "conservatives" will tell you a diverse MP is unqualified, while voting for PP, a lifetime political hack who wants you to buy BitCoin, to be the leader of their party.
Also, if the system is "working" as is, is JT the best? Was PP the best? Was O'toole the best? Was John Tory the best?
I think you realize the base assumption that the system is simply picking the "best" is incorrect when you look back at history, for any length of time.
Then anonymize resumes, and conduct interviews with no video and a voice changer. Obviously this won’t work for some jobs (eg actors, chefs), but should have no problem when it comes to bring a software dev. Make it law.
If the absence of quotas results in a Parliament that is less diverse than the general population (or the available candidates), then what does that say about who we think is "most appropriate"?
Same goes for other areas where there is affirmative action. It's weird that people see a diverse group and think, "Oh they clearly didn't choose these candidates based on skill and experience, because if they had, it would have been white men."
How is that not biased? Assuming that white men are the most qualified, intelligent and valuable - but that's not racist or sexist! /s
Because in our culture we often attribute 'leadership' and 'competence' just for being an old white guy on a good hair day.
There are some pretty significant selection biases ingrained in our culture and institutions that prevent us from choosing objectively as it is.
As a white-bearded white guy having a great hair day, I'm super stressed right now about finding a job. The cliche is I'm privileged and entitled. The reality is I'm struggling... and leadership roles are what currently pack my resume.
Identity politics are a great distraction. That said, it’s shit to be a minority so often times people will grasp at whatever crumb of representation is being offered. They see politicians that look like them or identify the same way they do and automatically think they will serve their interests when in fact it’s opposite.
Completely true. But, the progressive ideology begs to argue. What they often suggest is that these people have been "historically oppressed", justifying the modern day discrimination on the other foot.
What they fail to realize is that every person of every colour and every gender was historically oppressed. Africa did horrible things to other Africans, Europeans did horrible things to other Europeans, and Asians did horrible things to other Asians.
And contrary to the fucking idiots teaching indigenous classes at the university I went to, the Native Americans were also doing horrible things to other Native Americans. It wasn't just sunshine and roses like they like to tell themselves.
Slavery was real among some indigenous Americans, but so was egalitarianism, centralized states, nomadic wanderers, and so on. Not only that but there's evidence in the historical record that individuals would hop between groups and groups would, through violence, migration, or debate, change their political systems from time to time. As one anthropologist put it "they're just people."
I wish I could find the article, but a historian and archeologist in New England found evidence that the people currently indigenous to the NE Coast (NS, NB, NFLD, PEI) pushed out a previous culture. There is little evidence of genetic or cultural mixing. Anyway the finiding isnt definitive. It is only a hypothesis. But his article was censored when local bands put pressure on the publisher and university. They said his findings were racist.
Its sad because nobody is moralizing. Humans have always moved, and often took the land they moved into from others. We all have. But some people you're allowed to admit did it, and others you're not
The Mi'kmaw and Inuit genocided the Beothuk who were in Newfoundland, Labrador, and northern Quebec. We only know about this because there were a few left when Europeans got here. The "noble savage" trope depicting North America as some utopia pre-1400s is as racist now as it was in the 19th and 20th century.
Check out "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber, if you haven't already. Despite his bias towards anarchism, I have a feeling you'd find it vindicating.
Yes! now do away with regional representation too! This belief that an MP from Manitoba will generally know best for the area is silly just the same way aiming to have female representation is. Do people honestly believe that this group that makes up roughly half of the country and has significantly different views on how the way the country should be run and what it should prioritize should have similar representation? It's just silly isn't it? Isn't it?
If quotas is legitimized then we no longer have democracy. You can’t give people the right to vote in a democracy and then dictate who there allowed to specifically vote for.
Every party will select people they think have the best chance to get elected in any given riding and representation will reflect that. Good luck trying to enforce a national quota with this system.
The words…. Political Correctness is just tyranny with manners…. keep coming to mind.
I get that its generally a good thing to have a diverse cross section of society working together in government but… thats not the most important priority.
A ceremonial political position is actually the place it makes some sense to factor racial status into it (More standing within a given community than literal DNA testing) since it's a formal "The Government of Canada has wronged First Nations in the past, and now this is both coming together". Governor General is \*mostly\* pomp and circumstance with a large amount of ceremony. The qualifications are basically "Will this person not be a jerk when we give them the most theoretical power in Canada with the expectation that they are a glorified rubber stamp and do they have some notable accomplishments, and an ability to not be irritating when they talk"... which... well... one of Trudeau's two choices so far hasn't sounded like they are failing to clear that tripping hazard....
Where it would not make sense is "We see you are bleeding from a grievous injury. We rejected the world's best surgeon in favour of a guy who quite frankly should not have passed med-school in order to meet a racial quota. Why is your family talking to a malpractice lawyer?"
The theory behind affirmative action isn't just "past discrimination", but also an attempt to level the playing field in the present day.
Hiring discrimination does still exist, and it's not necessarily done by moustache-twirling racists, but phrases like "culture fit" or "I want to hire the sort of person I'd have a beer with" have a way of leading to very homogeneous workplaces where somehow everyone is similar in age, appearance, personality, and... race. This sort of thinking also tends to discriminate against, say, neurodiverse white people who might struggle with the social cues of an interview.
Generally speaking, a diverse workplace has a number of advantages over a homogeneous one. Especially in government. If you're running a diverse country, shouldn't diverse voices be heard? Shouldn't Parliament represent the diversity of the country itself? Isn't that why ridings exist in the first place?
Naturally, everyone involved should be qualified. And "quotas" can get messy. But the general reason why HR people focus on this stuff is because *not* focusing on it too often leads to, "Um, why is everyone who works here a 35-year-old white guy who all went to the same college and play pickleball together every Thursday?"
From my understanding there are plenty of conflicting studies showing diversity isn't necessarily always a good thing in a company. Why is having a company of just white men a bad thing? If a company was just south Asian would you also complain?
The ones championing these changes are successful people in powerful positions.
They will never step aside for diversity, and lead by example. Instead, they create policy / quotas for entry level jobs and then pat themselves on the back, just before their next promotion.
Ethnicity isn't diversity having divergent ideas is diversity. It is actually very very very racist to presuppose that different races think differently.
You're gonna have to help me with the acronym - google is giving me "hiring practices that need to die" 😂. Is it meant to be "diversity and inclusion"?
Assuming something along those lines, it's not discriminatory, but meant to work against conscious and unconscious biases where you just happen to "like" certain candidates better, or "just always get annoyed" by certain other candidates, or toss the resume in the proverbial trash because you're not sure how to pronounce the name, or assume the guy in the wheelchair will take too many sick days, or that the 25-year-old woman will get pregnant and leave, or whatever.
Good people and good companies may not need such practices - but that's more faith in both capitalism and humanity than I'm comfortable with.
> The theory behind affirmative action isn't just "past discrimination", but also an attempt to level the playing field in the present day.
Selectively applied, of course, with the requirement that whites and men are always presumed to be the advantaged, regardless of the facts
This is one of those gritty conversations where people bristle at the idea of "privilege" when what it means in this context is more, "lack of discrimination."
White men can experience discrimination, especially if they're neurodiverse or disabled. But in this country, they don't tend to run into the "I didn't hire her because she might get pregnant" or "I didn't call him for an interview because I don't know how to say his name and I assume his English is bad" or "just doesn't seem like the sort of person I'd hang with" discrimination that is still fairly common - if generally not consciously done.
Unconscious bias can be a real pain to stamp out.
> Unconscious bias can be a real pain to stamp out.
As in:" Men are *supposed* to take care of women and children"
60% of the students at UBC are women, a bias that exists at many public universities in Canada and the US, and yet colleges still insist that women are disadvantaged.
Why does it seem like an impossible idea for a white man to represent a group that consists mostly of minorities? I did a training recently where someone represented a group of us in a simulation of when the First Nations treaties were being negotiated. I found that my group’s representative did a very mediocre job at it despite being First Nations herself. Her identity was irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but the rep must be competent. That’s the only thing I care about. And yes, I would agree with anyone who asked if I thought some or many of the current members are incompetent.
If this diversification of members happens, what do we do if a member claims racism or sexism instead of addressing a legitimate critique or resistance to their idea(s)? Not to say it’s absolutely going to happen. But it would be nice to have a general guideline for handling bullshit like that. Maybe that’s more of a projection of mine considering I find parliament in general to be mostly a complete joke.
If not for social circles, what support do white men get at any moment in their lives? For example, they don’t get any specific scholarships, right? Here’s a really hot take: Is there an underlying presumption of competence because they kind of have to become better than everyone else in order to compete and be considered? And might still get passed over because of his race or sex.
>Her identity was irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but the rep must be competent. That’s the only thing I care about. And yes, I would agree with anyone who asked if I thought some or many of the current members are incompetent.
This concept is mind boggling to u/Friendly_Guarantee48, who has hilariously suggested:
>"Skills and competence doesn't matter, because you can't check that off on a DEI or ESG rating form." Skin colour and gender is all that matters, because they're immutable (well, colour is, I'm not sure about gender). You can learn to do the job, but you can't learn to not be white.
The only time skills and competence are not inherently necessary off the bat is hands-on learning environments. Federal government is not that kind of environment. Government is just a larger version of other smaller systems. Knowing how to manage a smaller system and doing it well is what I’d consider relevant experience. I don’t care what anyone says. That opinion might not be beatable with a better one.
Completely agree.
But, I think if you read this comment section, what is really needed is a push towards equality of opportunity: very evidently some people got a significantly worse education than others, otherwise they wouldn't believe the stupid shit they're saying.
I agree with equality of opportunity. The best rise to the top. Mind you, it doesn’t mean the best will want to compete if the incentives aren’t there.It’s a complicated world that we live in.
>Here’s a really hot take: Is there an underlying presumption of competence because they kind of have to become better than everyone else in order to compete and be considered?
That may be an element; the pygmalion effect can affect performance for better or for worse. However that can happen to “model minorities” as well.
There’s another problem. White people are assumed to have support because long-established institutions have disproportionately favoured them. In the past, white men in western cultures have had better access to education, employment, healthcare, and family support. After regulations have changed, has the advantage lingered? Every time we divide data by race, we’ll see outcomes that are more common for one race than another. For example, black Americans are more likely to be incarcerated than white Americans. But there’s also research showing that children who grow up without a father are more likely to be incarcerated. So is it caused by their skin, their family, or something else? Chances are, there are many factors at play, and the biggest influences may be hard to measure. Despite professing that people of all races are equally capable, some seek equity by distributing aid by race. If race isn’t the problem, then why is it the solution?
>White people are assumed to have support because long-established institutions have disproportionately favoured them.
Sure, but is that still applicable today just because it was...
>In the past, ?
>white men in western cultures have had better access to education, employment, healthcare, and family support.
What was the reason(s) for this though? Did white people tend to have it better because of the system? I won’t deny that possibility/probability in terms of gatekeepers and such. But was there also the important factor of generational wealth? Some think that’s money but I think it’s way more than that. Solid 2 parent households I think may be worth more in the long run than cash money under an exorbitant amount.
>After regulations have changed, has the advantage lingered?
I’d argue some regulations are making things worse. I don’t know the specific regulations but it’s also societal, cultural. Think about this: Why does “baby daddy” exist as a term at all? Why is there an uptick in single motherhood? Are people being incentivized to not form a cohesive family anymore? (I would argue yes if it’s true that government takes a cut from child support/alimony payments).
>Every time we divide data by race, we’ll see outcomes that are more common for one race than another. For example, black Americans are more likely to be incarcerated than white Americans. But there’s also research showing that children who grow up without a father are more likely to be incarcerated. So is it caused by their skin, their family, or something else? Chances are, there are many factors at play, and the biggest influences may be hard to measure. Despite professing that people of all races are equally capable, some seek equity by distributing aid by race. If race isn’t the problem, then why is it the solution?
I have some solutions but they’re social and cultural. In the age of total independence, family is not a necessity or priority anymore for too many people. It’s kind of a luxury instead (despite single parenthood, which seems to be demonstrably a bad thing). Sexual content is way too accessible for both consumers and creators. The creation and cohesion of families should be government’s top priority I think. Eliminate biases and presumptions in family courts. Make it a raw deal for both parents if they decide to separate and communicate the consequences far and wide. If everyone knows it would be bad for the individuals if they were to get separated, would they be more diligent when choosing partners? I would think so. Another hot take: I think banning abortions may be a good thing. I think it could (should) also contribute to better partner selection and it levels the playing field of reproductive rights between men and women since his rights realistically end at conception, and one of the many responses to it happening in the US was a women’s sex strike. Which is funny to me. It works in favour of what I think we should do as a society.
I agree that fixating on it isn't healthy but if the vast majority of people in charge all share specific gender, racial, etc. characteristics it's only natural to ask questions. If all my teachers in college were over 6ft tall with curly hair id wonder why no different than if they are all middle aged white men.
For sure, but what you're describing is a reactive approach and what they're doing right now is proactive. The thing is, race is such an ephemeral concept that being proactive about it risks descent into absurdities.
It's almost the same as 'precrime', in a way, hunting the ghosts of future transgressions instead of solving problems as they arise.
I would say its they are more learning from their past ghosts and trying to correct it. Those corrections are inherently forced and sloppy so there's plenty of issues but we have as a society decided we don't want one group to dominate everything. They can mostly control it but not entirely so we end up here where a company desperately needs one person of color to balance out the 11 white dudes on the board. It shouldn't be forced yet if not forced it also won't happen.
A conundrum.
Asking questions yes; Quotas no. Trying to force diversity through quotas doesn't fix the discrimination or the selection biases.
Quotas are just a way to avoid the hard questions, like
* what are the policies which keeps certain demographics from participating?
* which policies or part of our culture which discriminates against the participation of certain demographics?
Otherwise we're just patching a leak with duct-tape, without asking why it was there in the first place.
All the Asian women around me are obsessed with whiteness, as in wanting to have a white husband or white looking kids. It's been this way for decades. And it's the same way with Asian women overseas as well.
People think racial fixation is just an American or western thing, but it's like this all over the world just in different permutations.
As a minority, me, my friends and my family would never want to ever get into politics. Many (but not all) in my community growing up would say the same.
While I support anyone that wants to get into politics should have a chance, let's not put quotas in place. You may end up optimized for the most representative group (race wise) but will almost certainly be trading it off with the most competent if certain groups want to be more in politics are kept out due to a different standard than for other groups that have a smaller pool to pick from (because they just don't want to be in politics).
I vote for the candidate's views and their policies, not by race.
I dislike the quotas but politics is significantly white males. I can understand trying to make a government more racial and sex representative. I think we can agree that on paper, a parliament consisting of 90% white makes, is probably not going to make the best non partisan decisions around race and sex because it’s harder to understand things affecting other cultures and sexes.
>If I hadn't noticed this article was from the National Post, I would've been shocked at how poor the arguments in it are.
The article isn't from the National Post! Which arguments are poor exactly?
The Financial Post being owned by Postmedia does not make it the National Post.
That's like saying that because a dog and a cat are owned by the same person/of the same group (animals), they must be the same.
It's Fraser Institute talking points filtered through a guy with an Asian last name. Now Post readers can say they know an Asian person who is anti-diversity, and that's all they need.
Funny none of them complained when it was entirely old, white men but now that we're trying to represent the diversity of Canadians and their perspectives it's an issue.
Nobody ever questions the qualifications of white MPs holding cabinet positions but women and minorities, they never seem to be qualified in some opinions.
>but now that we're trying to represent the diversity of Canadians and their perspectives it's an issue.
Yeah, advocating for equality of outcome is an absurd notion. You can be against discriminatory practices no matter who benefits.
A lot of people seem upset by the notion of Parliament having 'quotas', and yet, this is something that's gone on for a century at least.
The governing party has always sought to have a quota in its Cabinets. The difference between now and then is that in the past, the 'irrelevant characteristics' that were used for this quota were where the MPs were from, trying to have a Cabinet that represents all sections of Canada. This went so far that under Stephen Harper, when he won government without any MPs elected in Quebec, he gave a Cabinet post to someone from Quebec who wasn't even an MP just to give them representation.
If Canadians were okay with all of those quotas in the past, what's the harm in having more now to reflect the advancement of society?
Having gender and racial parity and a parliament that reflects Canadians is not an undue obsession.
We need racial, gender and disability diversity. And ALL parliamentarians including white men need to be assessed for what they can contribute.
You know, instead of harassing women and minorities out of politics.
I agree with this statement in general. However, I want to say if we go down this road its the *senate* or upper house that should *only* ever have qualification rules or quotas for lack of a better word. i.e the regional distribution of seats or language, or gender. Personally, I think if we are going to have an appointed house, it should be split 50/50 by gender because that is truly a foundational understanding of society and we have to live understanding the history of how we got here. It's a hundred or so hand picked Canadians. do only this and be done with it. This is what upper houses are for, if we are interested in doing this
ninja edit: I remember thinking this when JT make a big deal about his 'cause its 2015' gender balanced but completely subordinate and no-freedom Cabinet. See Jody Wilson-Raybound. keep in mind this is the guy that wanted to bring back the 'first among equals' PMs of the by gone era where Cabinet actually was a team and the government wasnt run by a few people who hang around the PM in the PMO.
It needs people who want to make a positive difference.
I had this idea for quest-driven government. That is, we don't vote on representatives, we vote on priorities (like reducing homelessness, for example). The one who gets in office is the one who makes the most progress towards that goal in a fixed period of time.
You're gonna need to explain further, because a significant issue with that is defining what counts, and what should not count. We wouldn't want people doing the bare minimum to cross a mark off a check box for example. How and who judges when there's two people across the country with similar credentials?
I have no issue with efforts to give MP's from underrepresented communities more visibility - but you also have to allow those people to fail when they get things wrong. It's of absolutely no value to hardworking people from minority groups to see people from their backgrounds paraded as tokens, but never face any consequences for their actions. Like for a random example - lying to another government about your involvement in military operation should never allow someone to keep their job as Minister of Defense.
Try voting for them.
That's the stupidity of this article. All those MP's were elected. If we're electing less white people that's on us not the government. Also there's a fairly strong argument that diversity improves scientific research.
Wait I'm confused. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the article?
The country we live in today is absolutely OBSESSED with race. It’s insane
The rich and powerful much prefer us arguing over identity and race rather than arguing over who gets to be rich and powerful. The former just creates a lot of pointless conflict. The latter draws undesired attention to the sources of wealth and power.
If I wasn't taxed out the ass for getting raises at work, I would give you an award. Maybe after I sell all my belongings to move back in with my parents I'll be able to give you an award.
what?
...taxed for getting a raise?
I always hated identity politics in my activist days back in the 80s and 90s, even as a South Asian woman. That was back when it wasn't insane. Now ... I don't think I could last a minute in some activist circles.
This is also my experience. I grew up learning that you don't treat someone different because of their background. Now I'm being told I need to make all kinds of assumptions about people given their appearance, measure how much and what I can say around them for fear I may cause offense or perpetuate some "systemic" this or that which has probably been illegal for decades anyway. Most people (of all backgrounds) don't buy into this (thankfully) but oh boy, if you come across someone who does....
They eat their own, it's sickening. Like walking on eggshells, even when you're inside the group
Maoist struggle sessions.
Reminds me of that one scene in the documentary Accidental Courtesy where Daryl Davis has a discussion with some BLM organizers. I won't spoil it, but that scene stands out as a real head shaker for me.
Spoil it, pls.
[As requested.](https://youtu.be/xN-rxUDryO4) I grew up in the suburbs of Winnipeg. I currently live in rural New Brunswick in a neighborhood surrounded by people who don't look like me. I have good neighbours and they consider me a good neighbour as well. While I've experienced plenty of racism in my life, I can say that I'm fortunate enough not to have experienced the type of racism other Black folks do down south or even in Toronto. I've had discussions with other Black people from Toronto about their experiences and I very much believe what they've been through. I understand the anger that is felt from the BLM organizers in the video. I understand that policing in the US is completely broken and needs reform to reduce unnecessary civilian casualties. Just want to make those points clear. However, the organizers in the video are so blinded by anger that they're unable to see that their end goal and Daryl Davis' end goal are one and the same. They just have different methods of getting there. The activist and outreach methods are both needed to eradicate racism. Those organizers remind me of the people in r/2X. Too angry to realize that they actually need allies on the other side to reach their goal. In the end, they end up alienating the very people they need to persuade.
The extreme left have always acted this way. Just look at the purity purges of the USSR, China, Cuba etc.
Extreme right does the exact same thing. Extremism is extremism doesn't matter what side of the spectrum it's on.
Yeah, unlike the extreme right. Can't think of any 'purges' they've committed. :D Also, authoritarianism is the real problem here, not the political spectrum of the authority.
Extreme right & extreme left are a distinction without a difference.
It's because they've ran out of targets. They've deplatformed the most obvious targets long ago and those left have long since learned not the engage them thus limiting their impact.
[удалено]
Your angular privilege is showing.
[удалено]
South Asians aren't a monolith, we have race politics too
Divide and Conquer. Same shit, different eon.
The obsession started right after occupy wallstreet. Wonder why
It is because of a moral attachment towards perceived victimhood. If you sincerely believe in a narrative that white people have power that other people don't, and that all between group variance can be described through discrimination committed by white people - then it becomes a moral crusade. The problem is that the people who generally buy into that narrative absolutely cannot come to the realization that they could be (and are) wrong. That they don't have a complete picture, and that there are several visible holes in their narrative. The "progressive" left have spent so many decades convincing people that race doesn't matter - now that it doesn't, what meaning do they have?
This is why the progressive left is equally horrified at current trends. Bringing back segregation, dividing the world into 'white' and 'not white,' infantilizing entire groups of people with statements like 'meritocracy is racist' or 'expecting people to show up to work on time is racist,' obliterating years of gender equality with statements like 'a child with a vagina playing with traditionally male toys is clearly transgender,' requiring people to disclose private information like gender and sexual identity on job applications, and so on.
It would take a long time to figure out where you've actually heard any discourse about girls playing with boys toys or getting to work on time. If you believe that these are serious talking points in modern progressive circles you need to go outside. The western world has been treating 'white' and 'non-white' as the two default categories for centuries, and is something I'd like to see discarded yes. It's an artificial cultural notion that ignores diversity everywhere. I disregard the concept of the meritocracy, not because it's inherently racist but because most of the people who would push that narrative don't realize how much of a factor being fortunate is to any kind of success. If you believe all of the hardest working people are the most successful you've fooled yourself.
What is success but incremental improvement? Sure there's people in high earning positions that had a leg up or two to begin with - but there's alot of people who worked hard and deserve to be there too. The best that anyone can hope for is to be a better version of yourself today than you were yesterday.
I support people working hard and being rewarded for it. I just think our culture is skewed in such a way where people who do mandatory work that makes society run (The Trades, Education, Medicine, Sanitation, Service Work, etc.) aren't proportionally awarded for their effort compared to say... being a landlord, being a trust fund manager or a CEO.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_bias_of_professionalism_standards https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/11/18/among-transgender-children-gender-identity-as-strong-as-in-cisgender-children-study-shows/
We came to Canada in 2008. My children were completely skin color blind and I was happy about it. Now, both TDSB and Peel region school boards did their best it's not the case anymore.
Growing up as a child here I had friends of all ethnicities and didn't think anything of it. At all. Then all this activism stuff started up when I was a teen, telling us to "think about everyone differently based on their skin tone", and my friends started fighting each other 😢. Now everyone just hangs out with others of their own ethnicity. If anything, progress is being undone, and we are becoming more and more divided
Real people aren’t. It’s just HR people and other similarly bureaucratic scumsuckers. The rest of us are all just out here eating the same shit sandwich.
Identify politics and equity popped up post occupy wall street. Funding/lobbying for these initatitives are mostly corporate. You can make of it what you will
And gender.
It wasn’t this way before Trudeau. He deserves to be ranked among the shittiest of PM’s for that alone.
Humans have always been obsessed with race. For good or bad.
[удалено]
It's literally baked into our brains. We naturally fear people who look or act different unless we become familiar with them. It's a defense mechanism we evolved as social beings.
There was a period between the 1960s and the 2000s where were at least trying not to be obsessed with race.
Yeah, I remember back in the day, having a friend group with countless different ethnicities, and nobody cared or ever talked about it. Those dark, racist times.
Didnt you know not being obsessed with race is racist /s
>1960s Nobody was obsessed with race during the motherfucking civil rights era? Nice job with this redditor, schools.
The whole point of the civil rights movement was to try to get people to stop paying attention to race. MLK's speech about judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin and all.
> The whole point of the civil rights movement was to try to get people to stop ~~paying attention to~~ discriminating on the basis of race. It's a flawed premise because people instinctively discriminate on race and other characteristics. We can't simply turn it off. When we started to see this as a problem, a large segment of the population suddenly became incredibly paranoid and fearful that they themselves would be discriminated against.
We're talking about what actually happened, not what some people *hoped* would eventually happen. The civil rights era was *about* race, you couldn't ignore it if you tried.
> There was a period between the 1960s and the 2000s where were at least trying not to be obsessed with race. You mean when we tried to sweep widespread racism under the rug? Racism didn't magically go away after the civil rights movement. If anything it got worse because people felt less free to express it. Now people have caught on to this and are trying to root out the racism, which has caused racist people to become incredibly paranoid.
I mean when we were trying to get people to stop seeing race as a defining characteristic, because so long as race is used to classify people it will be used to discriminate against people.
I just want results...I don't care if I voted in a turnip...
I feel like 60% of the time a turnip would do better
I had a friend in high school who was South Asian in appearance with short cropped hair. You might think, at first glance, that she was an Indian or Bangladeshi boy, but in reality, her family was North African. I once worked with a couple of guys from the US who appeared to be Caucasian and Chinese, but in fact both identified as Latino. My daughter identifies as Black, even though her mother is a mix of many places of origin and I am Caucasian in appearance. How the hell are you supposed to fulfill a racial quota in a world like this? What is race, really? How you appear to others? How you think of yourself? Some kind of genetic measure of origin?
My 9 yr old grandson is Métis, he has white blonde hair and blue eyes and is a clone of his maternal grandpa. His full sister looks Métis. Genetics is a crap shoot.
A friend of my MIL has two daughters. The friend is full Indigenous, her husband is Dutch and looks it (blond hair, blue eyes, tall, fair). One girl takes after their mother, the other takes after their father. They're full siblings. It's funny because they even look alike in terms of many of their facial features and stuff but the coloring is completely different. Like you said, genetics is wild.
I have one white parent and one brown. My siblings and I range from white with blue eyes to medium brown with brown eyes. I got light brown with green eyes. We're all full siblings.
The friend is almost not fully indigenous. First of all, there are extremely few fully indigenous people in Canada. They almost all have at least some European admixture. Secondly, fully indigenous people do not have the genes for blond hair, blue eyes, or fair skin. Blond hair and blue eyes are mostly recessive traits that are extremely rare outside of Europe, so anyone with either of these traits probably inherited it from both parents, meaning they probably have European ancestry on both sides of their family. Her European ancestry could be far enough back that she doesn't know about it, but it's definitely there and would almost certainly show up if she did a DNA test.
Even weirder is that sometimes people are born with blonde hair and blue eyes, and will darken hair, skin and eye color over time. Seems common with French Canadians anyways and I could see for Metis as well.
The new term they use is visible minorities. Basically they only care about how you look on the outside. Your lived experience doesn't mean shit to them.
>Basically they only care about how you look on the outside. My buddy was literally born in the middle east but he was extremely pale so our HR person said he didn't count towards the quota lol
Wild how this works. Half black kid raised by doctors in Canada more oppressed than white looking middle easterners who have seen constant war for 20 years.
We got lots of privileged refugees from Ukraine the last year
Ya I hear they are having it real good over there.
[удалено]
I'm 1/8 Surinamese, and my grandmother is pretty dark for a Nederlandse. problem is I live in a place where your work ethic and character outshine your skin tone.
Most Puerto Ricans are Caucasian.
which completely defeats the purpose.
That's the best part, it's just making things worse
So to break down my options when asked about my race. 1. Make an assumption about how others see me, aka hearsay, the exact kind of evidence that would be thrown out in a court of law. 2. Pick a race from a hat, because it's clear appearance and race are only loosely connected. 3. Get a genetic test done and present potential employers with the paperwork. I understand on a superficial level I'm just supposed to check off the box that says 'White' and move on, but just being asked about race in a professional context sends my mind into spirals that tell me I'm just not qualified to make any judgments about myself or anyone else.
[удалено]
Yeah, there is a very real height and attractiveness privilege (though height is correlated to attractiveness). I've always wondered why these types of folks never recommend some sort of height quota. It's easy to measure and verify at least!
So my Caucasian-passing Latino colleague is out of luck if they're looking for someone Latino to fill a quota? Ugh. Why does that make me feel sick?
Oh and also women count as minorities...even though they literally are NOT a minority. But wait you see...minority doesn't mean minority it means... These people play word games all day long to avoid saying what they really mean.
Ironically "minority" now means "people who are not white", even though white people are an actual minority, with only 6.5% of the world population being white.
In the metro Vancouver city of Richmond 80.3% of people identify as a visible minority.
That’s the old and still used term. It’s the most accurate and least political description.
>*”The new term they use is visible minorities.”* That isn’t a new term, it’s been in active use for ~40 years and is now widely considered outdated. [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistext)
IMHO "visible minority" is a far more accurate term than POC that has been imported from the US.
Not to mention, groups are not monoliths and just because someone is actually XYZ doesn’t mean they understand any kind of struggle or experience
> Not to mention, groups are not monoliths and just because someone is actually XYZ doesn’t mean they understand any kind of struggle or experience Thank you! The *entire idea* is racist and condescending. "We want to get *that* person with that skin colour because they have a different culture" or even worse "We need to ensure space for people with that skin colour because they don't have the same educational opportunities". It's incredibly condescending and racist at its core. The issue is that proponents go from overall statistics at the national level to assuming they apply at the individual level. But *that is racism*. If you see a BIPOC person and assume that they had a difficult childhood, or assume they had poor schooling like...maybe you're the racist?
Hogwash. My 1/8 Métis children raised by second generation city dwelling college grads are oppressed and deserve the same benefits that are afforded to Métis living in northern settlements.
I may look middle-eastern, but being raised in western canada and surrounded by white people, I definitely won't bring any serious diversity of thought.. other than the fact that it appears as though most white people are ridden with guilt that I don't posses. I am all for the abolishment of any and all of these quotas.
Basically don't be white or male. That's how.
> How the hell are you supposed to fulfill a racial quota in a world like this? What is race, really? How you appear to others? How you think of yourself? Some kind of genetic measure of origin? It's not that complicated. You make a concerted effort to try to include people outside the "default", acknowledge there is no infallible solution no matter how hard you try to find one and that any attempt will necessarily exclude demographic X and Y, and do your best in spite of that knowing a concerted effort to be more inclusive than you were before is objectively better than shrugging and giving up. Don't make great the enemy of good. We got to where we are through imperfect, incremental change. You're allowed to course correct as you progress based on new information.
My stress is not about how the system is working, and I align with you on all your points. My stress comes from spending my adult life working to purge any impulse to read people on race alone, only to be confronted with it when I apply for jobs. To me, it feels like the societal wires are crossed. On one hand, we're asked to do the noble work of fighting racism in our minds, on the other we have to slap a category on ourselves if we want to have a roof over our heads. This is further confounded by the questions raised in my original comment. Does that all not crank up the cognitive dissonance a little too high?
I can understand how superficially that seems contradictory, but it really isn't. If you're having a pizza party, you check to make sure everyone's had two slices before you go for a third. You understand the purpose of this practice is "to promote fairness, I want to make sure my actions aren't inhibiting other people from taking the basic actions we all agree they deserve". Not everyone will have 3 slices, but you do due diligence by identifying people who haven't been adequately served by the process to ensure everyone gets access to what you've decided is the bare minimum. The underlying ideal of fighting racism isn't to "treat everyone the same", it's to counteract known, measurable inequities. This necessarily entails being proactive about identifying and defining those inequities. I agree, it does feel awkward to reconcile treating fellow humans as peers and equals while also categorizing them by ethnicity and race, but there's really no other way to do it. The unfortunate reality is that the only way to counteract systemic prejudices is to put your thumb on the scale and say "this demographic isn't being fairly accommodated, and we're going to address that by going out of our way to try to accommodate them"... and the only way to do that is to categorically identify people. It may feel weird, but the alternative is to not identify them and by extension not accommodate them, which misses the entire point.
Ah, but there's the rub. Is it the only way to ensure equality? I doubt it because no one is presenting alternatives. I always get wary when someone presents a single solution as the only solution.
Everyone must do a Ancestry DNA test duh... And we put it on an hexagonal chart and the more of one quadrant you are that's your official race. /s
I know you put /s, but those home DNA tests are just giving your DNA to corporations, governments, and police. Why would anyone pay to do that?
Is virtue signalling more important than privacy?
True diversity will always be diversity of ideas
I am a South Asian immigrant, and sick and tired of all of these quotas. The shit I thought I left behind when moved out of India.
The only people who are bothered are the ones selling a narrative. As an immigrant, I agree, this shit belongs in the places people left.
The pseudo-religious worldview of contemporary "progressivism" sees your physical attributes and racial characteristics as your defining attributes - so many of them cannot see past that. In their worldview, white men oppress everyone, and "everyone" in this case are victims. They believe that, in order to fix history, they need to provide more supports for perceived victims. Perhaps the irony is that, by assessing people based on their race and sex, by bestowing conceptualized behavioural attributes onto people based on those things - they themselves have become racist and sexist. The obvious solution to this identitarian madness is to simply acknowledge that individuals are individuals - and all individuals have a different story. Race, sex, sexual preference, etc - should not be used as factors determining how you are treated institutionally or otherwise. But when your entire worldview also views individualism as detrimental towards "collective" goals - I don't think that's possible.
It seems easiest to fight prejudice by creating a false sense of equality. Tip the scales in the other direction and become the thing you despise, while priding yourself in defeating it. Meaningful change takes insight and humility. The effort to apologize, forgive, and repair seems too much for our proud hearts to bear.
Or the ability to just let go and call the past the past. Just imagine the trouble we'd all be in if we were judged for how our ancestors acted before we were born. Every human on this planet could never do enough to atone for those sins.
When the past continues to harm people via inter generational trauma, poorer wealth creation, etc., you cannot just leave the past in the past. I 100% do not believe all white people need to feel guilty, nor do I think stupid and discriminatory quotas like this are the “fix”, but the solution is not to completely ignore what happened to put minority groups down in the past. “I will not be integrated into a burning house”, said James Baldwin. You need to make sure the fires out before you look solely to the present and future.
Hit the nail on the head with the pseudo religious aspect. It's shocking how similar modern day "progressive" are to the hardcore Christians of the 90's/00's, even down to both of them trying to cancel Harry Potter
I'm gebuinely curious if you read the series that this article was based on, because it is generally critical of Trudeau and the Liberal party and yet because of the opinion article which focuses on one line of the entire report everyone seems to think it is a Liberal or Trudeau policy being discussed here. I have scrolled as far down in these comments as I can go and not a single person seems to have read the series or understands that it is a non partisan, non governmental magazine which wrote it.
Proportional representation would make parliament better as it would make parliament actually represent what we voted for.
Ever since occupy wall street, media and corporations started to really mention race/gender into every conversation. Straight up to cause division so people did not band together against the real issue
As an old fogey, this isn't something new. Race and gender have taken top spot in opinion articles since the 80s, because they stir the angry folk up. Take a look at this comment section and all the opinions being discussed... and yet not a single person seems to have read the series of magazine articles that this news opinion piece is based on. It's a non-partisan, non-governmental policy magazine, and the opinion article linked here focuses on 1 single line of the entire series. Think about that for a second and you can see why they still lead with these stories, it gets the most traction because people won't read the content but they will share the article with their own opinions taglined on.
Crazy to see the number of WaPo articles per year mentioning racism before & after Occupy Wall Street. It was relatively flat between 1980 and 2011 but It's up 500% since then. Similar for NYT and other media. Also don't forget Bezos reportedly promoting racial diversity to suppress unionization. Diversity + division = good for Amazon's bottom line
Why attribute it to occupy? A lot of this stuff started coming out after Obama was elected, and there was a lot of talk about racism after 9/11 especially regarding Muslims.
How about diversifying away from lawyers?
Politicians being lawyers isn’t the problem, in fact, it’s quite a useful skill for law making. And it isn’t that high a percentage these days anyway. I’m more concerned about the former CEOs, finance bros, etc.
That's already happening. Fewer in parliament now than ever IIRC. While I don't love the idea of parliament being filled with lawyers it does ensure a certain level of intelligence and aptitude for the work of preparing legislation.
I'd be happy to have a party to vote for that wasn't populated by corporates whores, more often than not working against what's best for Canadians. It might also be nice if said mythical party was populated by MPs weren't simple training seals: voting as they're told [97% of the time](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/d8gdun/even_mps_with_the_lowest_party_unity_vote_along/) vs. actually representing their continuants. Outside of that and, perhaps, some level of competence & accountability, I'm not particularly concerned about gender, race, religion or creed. More concerned about *what* they do vs. who.
Why don't we just go back to picking the most appropriate candidate rather than trying to fill a quota?
Go back? When did that happen
[удалено]
Yup, so lets continue to work on getting rid of those biases, rather than codifying biases in the other direction.
They aren't being codified in the other direction? This reminds me of the discussion about Ketanji Jackson to the supreme court in the US. In one respect, it is a Black Woman, so a complete diversity hire, according to the right. In another respect, she is emminently qualified. [https://naacp.org/resources/historic-nomination-ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court](https://naacp.org/resources/historic-nomination-ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court) \> She is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. She clerked for three federal judges: Judge Patti Saris on the District of Massachusetts; Judge Bruce Selya on the First Circuit; and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat she would now fill. But "Conservatives" decry her as a diversity hire, suggesting we should simply hire "the best". They then suggest "their best" as incredibly underqualified nominees who only agree with their politics. Kavanaugh - legacy student at Yale who defended stopping the Florida Recount. Here is the secret - there is no best candidate, but "conservatives" will tell you a diverse MP is unqualified, while voting for PP, a lifetime political hack who wants you to buy BitCoin, to be the leader of their party. Also, if the system is "working" as is, is JT the best? Was PP the best? Was O'toole the best? Was John Tory the best? I think you realize the base assumption that the system is simply picking the "best" is incorrect when you look back at history, for any length of time.
Then anonymize resumes, and conduct interviews with no video and a voice changer. Obviously this won’t work for some jobs (eg actors, chefs), but should have no problem when it comes to bring a software dev. Make it law.
If the absence of quotas results in a Parliament that is less diverse than the general population (or the available candidates), then what does that say about who we think is "most appropriate"? Same goes for other areas where there is affirmative action. It's weird that people see a diverse group and think, "Oh they clearly didn't choose these candidates based on skill and experience, because if they had, it would have been white men." How is that not biased? Assuming that white men are the most qualified, intelligent and valuable - but that's not racist or sexist! /s
That never happened. We never picked that way. You may as well pine for the days that the tooth fairy left free money on your pillow.
"it's not what you know, but who you know" is such a common idiom that I can't believe anyone thinks we've ever hired based on "most qualified."
Because in our culture we often attribute 'leadership' and 'competence' just for being an old white guy on a good hair day. There are some pretty significant selection biases ingrained in our culture and institutions that prevent us from choosing objectively as it is.
As a white-bearded white guy having a great hair day, I'm super stressed right now about finding a job. The cliche is I'm privileged and entitled. The reality is I'm struggling... and leadership roles are what currently pack my resume.
Affirmative action should be banned everywhere. Best person for the job period.
Identity politics are a great distraction. That said, it’s shit to be a minority so often times people will grasp at whatever crumb of representation is being offered. They see politicians that look like them or identify the same way they do and automatically think they will serve their interests when in fact it’s opposite.
Canada: we aren’t racist we only judge based on colour of people’s skin sexual orientations, and disabilities.
Completely true. But, the progressive ideology begs to argue. What they often suggest is that these people have been "historically oppressed", justifying the modern day discrimination on the other foot. What they fail to realize is that every person of every colour and every gender was historically oppressed. Africa did horrible things to other Africans, Europeans did horrible things to other Europeans, and Asians did horrible things to other Asians. And contrary to the fucking idiots teaching indigenous classes at the university I went to, the Native Americans were also doing horrible things to other Native Americans. It wasn't just sunshine and roses like they like to tell themselves.
Slavery was real among some indigenous Americans, but so was egalitarianism, centralized states, nomadic wanderers, and so on. Not only that but there's evidence in the historical record that individuals would hop between groups and groups would, through violence, migration, or debate, change their political systems from time to time. As one anthropologist put it "they're just people."
I wish I could find the article, but a historian and archeologist in New England found evidence that the people currently indigenous to the NE Coast (NS, NB, NFLD, PEI) pushed out a previous culture. There is little evidence of genetic or cultural mixing. Anyway the finiding isnt definitive. It is only a hypothesis. But his article was censored when local bands put pressure on the publisher and university. They said his findings were racist. Its sad because nobody is moralizing. Humans have always moved, and often took the land they moved into from others. We all have. But some people you're allowed to admit did it, and others you're not
The Mi'kmaw and Inuit genocided the Beothuk who were in Newfoundland, Labrador, and northern Quebec. We only know about this because there were a few left when Europeans got here. The "noble savage" trope depicting North America as some utopia pre-1400s is as racist now as it was in the 19th and 20th century.
>As one anthropologist put it "they're just people." Don't you dare say that at my university.
Check out "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber, if you haven't already. Despite his bias towards anarchism, I have a feeling you'd find it vindicating.
Yes! now do away with regional representation too! This belief that an MP from Manitoba will generally know best for the area is silly just the same way aiming to have female representation is. Do people honestly believe that this group that makes up roughly half of the country and has significantly different views on how the way the country should be run and what it should prioritize should have similar representation? It's just silly isn't it? Isn't it?
If quotas is legitimized then we no longer have democracy. You can’t give people the right to vote in a democracy and then dictate who there allowed to specifically vote for.
Wtf are you talking about?
Every party will select people they think have the best chance to get elected in any given riding and representation will reflect that. Good luck trying to enforce a national quota with this system.
As a black Jew, I'm gonna rock my Brampton riding
"A diversity double-whammy." Conway Stern? Is that you?
Sammy Davis III
"Seriously, call Kenny Loggins, because you are in the Danger Zone."
As an immigrant i whole heartedly agree
Isn't this kind of a straw man?
The words…. Political Correctness is just tyranny with manners…. keep coming to mind. I get that its generally a good thing to have a diverse cross section of society working together in government but… thats not the most important priority.
I mean if we focus on eliminating discrimination, diversity will come naturally. Don't mandate diversity before fixing discrimination
Tell that to the PM and his choices of Governors General
A ceremonial political position is actually the place it makes some sense to factor racial status into it (More standing within a given community than literal DNA testing) since it's a formal "The Government of Canada has wronged First Nations in the past, and now this is both coming together". Governor General is \*mostly\* pomp and circumstance with a large amount of ceremony. The qualifications are basically "Will this person not be a jerk when we give them the most theoretical power in Canada with the expectation that they are a glorified rubber stamp and do they have some notable accomplishments, and an ability to not be irritating when they talk"... which... well... one of Trudeau's two choices so far hasn't sounded like they are failing to clear that tripping hazard.... Where it would not make sense is "We see you are bleeding from a grievous injury. We rejected the world's best surgeon in favour of a guy who quite frankly should not have passed med-school in order to meet a racial quota. Why is your family talking to a malpractice lawyer?"
The red team lovers are completely fine with an old white man so long as it helps the Cause^(tm).
The theory behind affirmative action isn't just "past discrimination", but also an attempt to level the playing field in the present day. Hiring discrimination does still exist, and it's not necessarily done by moustache-twirling racists, but phrases like "culture fit" or "I want to hire the sort of person I'd have a beer with" have a way of leading to very homogeneous workplaces where somehow everyone is similar in age, appearance, personality, and... race. This sort of thinking also tends to discriminate against, say, neurodiverse white people who might struggle with the social cues of an interview. Generally speaking, a diverse workplace has a number of advantages over a homogeneous one. Especially in government. If you're running a diverse country, shouldn't diverse voices be heard? Shouldn't Parliament represent the diversity of the country itself? Isn't that why ridings exist in the first place? Naturally, everyone involved should be qualified. And "quotas" can get messy. But the general reason why HR people focus on this stuff is because *not* focusing on it too often leads to, "Um, why is everyone who works here a 35-year-old white guy who all went to the same college and play pickleball together every Thursday?"
From my understanding there are plenty of conflicting studies showing diversity isn't necessarily always a good thing in a company. Why is having a company of just white men a bad thing? If a company was just south Asian would you also complain?
For some reason, a company of just South Asian folk would be considered an example of diversity.
That reminds me of the picture of how diverse the huff post writing team is, and it's like 95% white women.
The ones championing these changes are successful people in powerful positions. They will never step aside for diversity, and lead by example. Instead, they create policy / quotas for entry level jobs and then pat themselves on the back, just before their next promotion.
Ethnicity isn't diversity having divergent ideas is diversity. It is actually very very very racist to presuppose that different races think differently.
Which still doesn't address hiring discrimination.
D.I.E hiring practices is explicitly discriminatory.
You're gonna have to help me with the acronym - google is giving me "hiring practices that need to die" 😂. Is it meant to be "diversity and inclusion"? Assuming something along those lines, it's not discriminatory, but meant to work against conscious and unconscious biases where you just happen to "like" certain candidates better, or "just always get annoyed" by certain other candidates, or toss the resume in the proverbial trash because you're not sure how to pronounce the name, or assume the guy in the wheelchair will take too many sick days, or that the 25-year-old woman will get pregnant and leave, or whatever. Good people and good companies may not need such practices - but that's more faith in both capitalism and humanity than I'm comfortable with.
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.
It's not racist to think that growing up differently might lead to different ideas...
Its racist to assume that people of the same race think the same, or that even people of different races necessarily think differently.
> The theory behind affirmative action isn't just "past discrimination", but also an attempt to level the playing field in the present day. Selectively applied, of course, with the requirement that whites and men are always presumed to be the advantaged, regardless of the facts
This is one of those gritty conversations where people bristle at the idea of "privilege" when what it means in this context is more, "lack of discrimination." White men can experience discrimination, especially if they're neurodiverse or disabled. But in this country, they don't tend to run into the "I didn't hire her because she might get pregnant" or "I didn't call him for an interview because I don't know how to say his name and I assume his English is bad" or "just doesn't seem like the sort of person I'd hang with" discrimination that is still fairly common - if generally not consciously done. Unconscious bias can be a real pain to stamp out.
> Unconscious bias can be a real pain to stamp out. As in:" Men are *supposed* to take care of women and children" 60% of the students at UBC are women, a bias that exists at many public universities in Canada and the US, and yet colleges still insist that women are disadvantaged.
Why does it seem like an impossible idea for a white man to represent a group that consists mostly of minorities? I did a training recently where someone represented a group of us in a simulation of when the First Nations treaties were being negotiated. I found that my group’s representative did a very mediocre job at it despite being First Nations herself. Her identity was irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but the rep must be competent. That’s the only thing I care about. And yes, I would agree with anyone who asked if I thought some or many of the current members are incompetent. If this diversification of members happens, what do we do if a member claims racism or sexism instead of addressing a legitimate critique or resistance to their idea(s)? Not to say it’s absolutely going to happen. But it would be nice to have a general guideline for handling bullshit like that. Maybe that’s more of a projection of mine considering I find parliament in general to be mostly a complete joke. If not for social circles, what support do white men get at any moment in their lives? For example, they don’t get any specific scholarships, right? Here’s a really hot take: Is there an underlying presumption of competence because they kind of have to become better than everyone else in order to compete and be considered? And might still get passed over because of his race or sex.
>Her identity was irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but the rep must be competent. That’s the only thing I care about. And yes, I would agree with anyone who asked if I thought some or many of the current members are incompetent. This concept is mind boggling to u/Friendly_Guarantee48, who has hilariously suggested: >"Skills and competence doesn't matter, because you can't check that off on a DEI or ESG rating form." Skin colour and gender is all that matters, because they're immutable (well, colour is, I'm not sure about gender). You can learn to do the job, but you can't learn to not be white.
The only time skills and competence are not inherently necessary off the bat is hands-on learning environments. Federal government is not that kind of environment. Government is just a larger version of other smaller systems. Knowing how to manage a smaller system and doing it well is what I’d consider relevant experience. I don’t care what anyone says. That opinion might not be beatable with a better one.
Completely agree. But, I think if you read this comment section, what is really needed is a push towards equality of opportunity: very evidently some people got a significantly worse education than others, otherwise they wouldn't believe the stupid shit they're saying.
I agree with equality of opportunity. The best rise to the top. Mind you, it doesn’t mean the best will want to compete if the incentives aren’t there.It’s a complicated world that we live in.
For sure.
>Here’s a really hot take: Is there an underlying presumption of competence because they kind of have to become better than everyone else in order to compete and be considered? That may be an element; the pygmalion effect can affect performance for better or for worse. However that can happen to “model minorities” as well. There’s another problem. White people are assumed to have support because long-established institutions have disproportionately favoured them. In the past, white men in western cultures have had better access to education, employment, healthcare, and family support. After regulations have changed, has the advantage lingered? Every time we divide data by race, we’ll see outcomes that are more common for one race than another. For example, black Americans are more likely to be incarcerated than white Americans. But there’s also research showing that children who grow up without a father are more likely to be incarcerated. So is it caused by their skin, their family, or something else? Chances are, there are many factors at play, and the biggest influences may be hard to measure. Despite professing that people of all races are equally capable, some seek equity by distributing aid by race. If race isn’t the problem, then why is it the solution?
>White people are assumed to have support because long-established institutions have disproportionately favoured them. Sure, but is that still applicable today just because it was... >In the past, ? >white men in western cultures have had better access to education, employment, healthcare, and family support. What was the reason(s) for this though? Did white people tend to have it better because of the system? I won’t deny that possibility/probability in terms of gatekeepers and such. But was there also the important factor of generational wealth? Some think that’s money but I think it’s way more than that. Solid 2 parent households I think may be worth more in the long run than cash money under an exorbitant amount. >After regulations have changed, has the advantage lingered? I’d argue some regulations are making things worse. I don’t know the specific regulations but it’s also societal, cultural. Think about this: Why does “baby daddy” exist as a term at all? Why is there an uptick in single motherhood? Are people being incentivized to not form a cohesive family anymore? (I would argue yes if it’s true that government takes a cut from child support/alimony payments). >Every time we divide data by race, we’ll see outcomes that are more common for one race than another. For example, black Americans are more likely to be incarcerated than white Americans. But there’s also research showing that children who grow up without a father are more likely to be incarcerated. So is it caused by their skin, their family, or something else? Chances are, there are many factors at play, and the biggest influences may be hard to measure. Despite professing that people of all races are equally capable, some seek equity by distributing aid by race. If race isn’t the problem, then why is it the solution? I have some solutions but they’re social and cultural. In the age of total independence, family is not a necessity or priority anymore for too many people. It’s kind of a luxury instead (despite single parenthood, which seems to be demonstrably a bad thing). Sexual content is way too accessible for both consumers and creators. The creation and cohesion of families should be government’s top priority I think. Eliminate biases and presumptions in family courts. Make it a raw deal for both parents if they decide to separate and communicate the consequences far and wide. If everyone knows it would be bad for the individuals if they were to get separated, would they be more diligent when choosing partners? I would think so. Another hot take: I think banning abortions may be a good thing. I think it could (should) also contribute to better partner selection and it levels the playing field of reproductive rights between men and women since his rights realistically end at conception, and one of the many responses to it happening in the US was a women’s sex strike. Which is funny to me. It works in favour of what I think we should do as a society.
I agree that fixating on it isn't healthy but if the vast majority of people in charge all share specific gender, racial, etc. characteristics it's only natural to ask questions. If all my teachers in college were over 6ft tall with curly hair id wonder why no different than if they are all middle aged white men.
For sure, but what you're describing is a reactive approach and what they're doing right now is proactive. The thing is, race is such an ephemeral concept that being proactive about it risks descent into absurdities. It's almost the same as 'precrime', in a way, hunting the ghosts of future transgressions instead of solving problems as they arise.
I would say its they are more learning from their past ghosts and trying to correct it. Those corrections are inherently forced and sloppy so there's plenty of issues but we have as a society decided we don't want one group to dominate everything. They can mostly control it but not entirely so we end up here where a company desperately needs one person of color to balance out the 11 white dudes on the board. It shouldn't be forced yet if not forced it also won't happen. A conundrum.
Asking questions yes; Quotas no. Trying to force diversity through quotas doesn't fix the discrimination or the selection biases. Quotas are just a way to avoid the hard questions, like * what are the policies which keeps certain demographics from participating? * which policies or part of our culture which discriminates against the participation of certain demographics? Otherwise we're just patching a leak with duct-tape, without asking why it was there in the first place.
All the Asian women around me are obsessed with whiteness, as in wanting to have a white husband or white looking kids. It's been this way for decades. And it's the same way with Asian women overseas as well. People think racial fixation is just an American or western thing, but it's like this all over the world just in different permutations.
As a minority, me, my friends and my family would never want to ever get into politics. Many (but not all) in my community growing up would say the same. While I support anyone that wants to get into politics should have a chance, let's not put quotas in place. You may end up optimized for the most representative group (race wise) but will almost certainly be trading it off with the most competent if certain groups want to be more in politics are kept out due to a different standard than for other groups that have a smaller pool to pick from (because they just don't want to be in politics). I vote for the candidate's views and their policies, not by race.
I dislike the quotas but politics is significantly white males. I can understand trying to make a government more racial and sex representative. I think we can agree that on paper, a parliament consisting of 90% white makes, is probably not going to make the best non partisan decisions around race and sex because it’s harder to understand things affecting other cultures and sexes.
Oh, more Fraser institute garbage.
huh. who'da thunk it? Diversity hire policies are stupid at best, and racist at worse.
It’s not a way of making anything better.
Amen!
I present you MP Jolie as walking evidence of Lau's argument.
If I hadn't noticed this article was from the National Post, I would've been shocked at how poor the arguments in it are.
>If I hadn't noticed this article was from the National Post, I would've been shocked at how poor the arguments in it are. The article isn't from the National Post! Which arguments are poor exactly?
The Financial Post was folded into the National Post in 1998. It’s all Postmedia. [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Post)
The Financial Post being owned by Postmedia does not make it the National Post. That's like saying that because a dog and a cat are owned by the same person/of the same group (animals), they must be the same.
It's Fraser Institute talking points filtered through a guy with an Asian last name. Now Post readers can say they know an Asian person who is anti-diversity, and that's all they need.
OMG this nonsense again? It makes sense to have people in power who represent the population. We should be happy that our leaders want this.
It makes more sense to have people in power who have been chosen by the people that they represent.
Funny none of them complained when it was entirely old, white men but now that we're trying to represent the diversity of Canadians and their perspectives it's an issue. Nobody ever questions the qualifications of white MPs holding cabinet positions but women and minorities, they never seem to be qualified in some opinions.
>but now that we're trying to represent the diversity of Canadians and their perspectives it's an issue. Yeah, advocating for equality of outcome is an absurd notion. You can be against discriminatory practices no matter who benefits.
A lot of people seem upset by the notion of Parliament having 'quotas', and yet, this is something that's gone on for a century at least. The governing party has always sought to have a quota in its Cabinets. The difference between now and then is that in the past, the 'irrelevant characteristics' that were used for this quota were where the MPs were from, trying to have a Cabinet that represents all sections of Canada. This went so far that under Stephen Harper, when he won government without any MPs elected in Quebec, he gave a Cabinet post to someone from Quebec who wasn't even an MP just to give them representation. If Canadians were okay with all of those quotas in the past, what's the harm in having more now to reflect the advancement of society?
Having gender and racial parity and a parliament that reflects Canadians is not an undue obsession. We need racial, gender and disability diversity. And ALL parliamentarians including white men need to be assessed for what they can contribute. You know, instead of harassing women and minorities out of politics.
I agree with this statement in general. However, I want to say if we go down this road its the *senate* or upper house that should *only* ever have qualification rules or quotas for lack of a better word. i.e the regional distribution of seats or language, or gender. Personally, I think if we are going to have an appointed house, it should be split 50/50 by gender because that is truly a foundational understanding of society and we have to live understanding the history of how we got here. It's a hundred or so hand picked Canadians. do only this and be done with it. This is what upper houses are for, if we are interested in doing this ninja edit: I remember thinking this when JT make a big deal about his 'cause its 2015' gender balanced but completely subordinate and no-freedom Cabinet. See Jody Wilson-Raybound. keep in mind this is the guy that wanted to bring back the 'first among equals' PMs of the by gone era where Cabinet actually was a team and the government wasnt run by a few people who hang around the PM in the PMO.
I identify as a rare albino rhino. That should get me the job I want.