Thursday, March 08, 2007

Political Correctness Gone Mad

According to the UN, Canada's use of the term 'visible minorities' is racist! (Post)

A few excerpts regarding the report by the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:

Canada's use of the term "visible minorities" to identify people it considers susceptible to racial discrimination came under fire at the United Nations yesterday --for being racist.

Members of the Geneva-based Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination also questioned other terms used by the federal government, among them "ethnocultural communities."


It adds that Canada should "reflect further on the implications of the use of the term," but offers no suggestions about what words would be acceptable.


So, if a company needs to increase the number of "visible minorities" (please don't tell the UN) in their workforce, how would they do it? It seems that the "White men need not apply" sign is the only route left. The suggestions are non-binding, but it does demonstrate how far left into 'wacko-world' the UN is heading.


Another highlight includes "a call for Canada to provide welfare to illegal immigrants and failed refugee applicants."

On undocumented immigrants and people who have been declined refugee status, the committee says Canada should pass laws ensuring they are "provided with access to social security, health care and education."

Good grief!!!


Regarding Canada's efforts to combat terrorism, it says it is "concerned about the heightened risks of racial profiling," and adds that Canada should amend its Anti-Terrorism Act "to include an explicit anti-discrimination clause.

Well, there's another crusade for Dion.

Could someone please explain to me again why we belong to the UN?


* * * *

Friday Update: Blog Quebecois (Obviously, I'm not the only UN Denier.)

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Could someone please explain to me again why we belong to the UN?"

Simple. Because if we don't, not only would they call us racist, but also bullies and jerks and meanieheads and what-not.

That and sometimes we get polls and reports being nice to us now and then, so we cling onto those when THOSE stories come out.

Sara said...

no minority should be written on a resume. We should get the job by our skill level not our appearance

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sara, tell that to Stephane Dion and all Liberal riding associations.

Richard said...

I agree with Sara. It's time for the big corps to face the fact that their 'diversity' committees, are actually just vehicles for reverse-discrimination.

Sandy (Crux-of-the-Matter) said...

Joanne,
I couldn't decide whether to write about this today or the G&M interview with Ms. Christine Stewart's (former EM from 97-99). I chose the latter. But, this is crazy. Just think of all the "diversity" committees in every public institution. What about the RCMP? It is well known to actually name the minorities it will consider. White men need not apply. I agree with Sara, just judge a person as they sit in front of you and what is on the resume. Now, in terms of PC -- how will you know if you are being diversified? If you can't label anyone anything? As you say, PC gone mad!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

how will you know if you are being diversified? If you can't label anyone anything?

Sandy, exactly. It's like saying that we need to put out a public campaign to help people with mental illness - but we can't call it that; that would be discriminatory and hurt their self-esteem. So we will just put ads out asking people who are not perfectly adjusted and happy-all-the-time to please call the number below; if you are sure you wouldn't feel singled out; and all other necessary disclaimers.

Sheesh!

Sara said...

you can't favor one group without discriminating against another. It is like the stock market if a stock goes down the money doesn't just disapear someone benefits from anothers loss.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Disclaimer: If anyone has taken offense to my comment at 09:16:00 AM EST, I apologize.

In fact, I apologize in advance and retroactively for any politically-incorrect comment I may ever make or have made. I do not mean to offend anyone; anytime. Ever.

Well, Red Tory doesn't count.

PGP said...

Don't try to figure it out.
The world that these useless meddling busybodies inhabit has nothing to do with reality.

Sara said...

yah RT won't like me today either lol

Sara said...

Don't try to figure it out.
The world that these useless meddling busybodies inhabit has nothing to do with reality.

funny pgp people say that about me and the childcare stuff

Joanne (True Blue) said...

yah RT won't like me today either lol

Always fun to get him going...

Brian in Calgary said...

Always fun to get him going...

And people do need a bit of recreation.

shlemazl said...

Well, the "visible minorities" stuff is kinda ridiculous just not in the way the UN meant it.

coastal voices said...

Perhaps if the UN focused more on the TREATMENT of visible minorities rather than what we are called there would be progress made. Instead there is nothing more interesting to talk about but the fact that the UN has no teeth when it comes to denouncing Canada. There are plenty of instances of racism, segregation, profiling (gender and ethnicity), and a host of other infractions against the treaty. Then again, Canada's history with treaties isn't exactly a polished one, is it?

UN Observer said...

I'm curious.. Have you actually read the UN report? It seems like you are quoting from an article in the National Post, not the Report itself, as you state.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I am quoting from the Post, which cites the report.

Why? Do you have some additional information, or some insight beyond that supplied by the Post? I would be interested in hearing your POV.

UN Observer said...

Well after reading the report, and the minutes of the sessions that took place, I definitely came away with a different impression than that given in the media. It appears that comments re: the term visible minorities were given in the context of Canada's failure to keep data on visible minorities specific to race. For example, lumping Africans, Asians, Muslims etc in one category of "visible minority" does not show any disparities that may exist between groups. So, hypothetically speaking, if you were to have a government funded immigrant services or employment equity program targetted at helping visible minorities, and the South Asian community were to say that the program was not helping them, there would be no way to tell because government data collection doesn't track them this way. Another example would be if there were complaints of discrimination coming from one particular racial group (ie. Blacks or African Canadians). There would be no way to monitor problems in one community because we don't keep data based on race.

Over and above that, the report prasied Canada for alot of initiatives and also made alot of other meaningful recommendations. I think the National Post article was very slanted and quite frankly read more like an editorial than a news report.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well, yours is certainly an interesting way of looking at it. Would you happen to have a link to the report itself?

This quote from the Post seems to back up their interpretation:

Speaking at the grilling of Canada last month, committee member Patrick Thornberry went further.

"The use of the term seemed to somehow indicate that 'whiteness' was the standard, all others differing from that being visible," said the British international law professor, according to UN note takers.


However, if what you say is true, then the Post needs to be taken to task on this. Thanks.

UN Observer said...

They definitely did want Canada to consider the "deeper meaning" behind the term visible minority in terms of it referencing everyone other than whites. But the comments were definitely made in the context of a larger message regarding the need to stop lumping all visible minorities together in one category. For a country that prides itself on diversity, our government tends to lump everyone into one of three categories when it comes to some important areas of data collection (ie. employment equity); White, Aboriginal, Visible Minority. Regardless of how you feel about the racial politics behind the issue, every taxpayer shares a common interest in ensuring that government funds are spent efficiently. I would rather see smaller, targeted, and cost effective equity programs, rather that having every program puport to be a cure-all for all visible minorities.

CERD (Scroll down to Canada)
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/cerds70.htm

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks very much. I'll have to check into that. What you are saying makes a lot of sense.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

UN Observer, I checked out the report. Thanks very much.

However, I really don't see any nuance such as you suggest. If you feel strongly about it, may I suggest contacting the Canwest reporter, Steven Edwards?

Perhaps he could shed some light on things. Thanks for your comments.