TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The race card
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Orko I think the business world, including all other jobs, have gotten a lot better at hiring minorities, and women. But, in the very top of the organizational structures, it is still comprised of white males.

Well even if this is true you have to think about something. Most immigrant of colour have arrived in the last 20 or so years right? Well let me tell you that many of the jobs at the very top take 30-40 years to get to if you get there at all. Perhaps when long-term immigrants of colour are established enough to get to that level in a company they will start making partner and CEO as well?

Not to mention that the people at the top of many companies are often the original founders. Lets take 2 examples. Apple was founded by steve jobs and a bunch of other white guy geeks back in the 70s (when there werent many people of different races in north america). Guess who is at the very top today? Same goes for microsoft. Perhaps companies are being started this very day by minorities that will one day be the next microsoft or apple?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 What if white people set up jobs specifically to help white people? Oh i can see it now!!

id be ok with that, to be honest. if thats what the job description calls for, then so be it.

but could you give an example?

because there are lots of instances where it would be benificial for a minority to help other minorities, like a job helping new immigrants adjust to Canada.

Say if there were a position, which called for a white person to help white immigrants adjust, i would have no problem with it. As long as there is reasonable logic in setting qualifications.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Well even if this is true you have to think about something. Most immigrant of colour have arrived in the last 20 or so years right? Well let me tell you that many of the jobs at the very top take 30-40 years to get to if you get there at all. Perhaps when long-term immigrants of colour are established enough to get to that level in a company they will start making partner and CEO as well? Not to mention that the people at the top of many companies are often the original founders. Lets take 2 examples. Apple was founded by steve jobs and a bunch of other white guy geeks back in the 70s (when there werent many people of different races in north america). Guess who is at the very top today? Same goes for microsoft. Perhaps companies are being started this very day by minorities that will one day be the next microsoft or apple?

very good point about the age thing, and the founders. But my company was founded over 100 years ago. but i definatly see your points.

funny but being a white guy who has travelled a lot and has a vast knowledge of our country and it's immigration system, i think id be much more qualified for the job you just described than many minorities.

However, where is there a job specifically for white people? NONE, thats where. But the same goes for minorities. All people should be judged on merit and not by skin colour. Otherwise we should just change the charter of rights because obviously if we continue like it is its not worth the paper its written on.

do you actually believe that the white male has more disadvantages in society than an visiable minority? or that its just a negative trend which has increased in frequency over the years?

the negative trend is that white males are increasingly becoming disadvantaged to make way for "equality".

remember that there is always a reaction to every action. If you give someone an advantage, that automatically puts someone else at a disadvantage.

Here is an interesting front page headline in the Star today. It couldn't have come at a better time in regards to this topic. At least there is some sanity left in this country.

.............................................................


Judges criticized for pro-black bias

'Drug mule' sentences inadequate, appeal court finds
Social hardship alone doesn't justify leniency, it concludes


TRACEY TYLER
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER

Three women who smuggled large quantities of cocaine into Canada are not entitled to lenient sentences simply because they are black, single mothers living in poverty, Ontario's highest court has ruled.

A sentencing court is not the place "to right perceived societal wrongs" or "`make up' for perceived social injustices by the imposition of sentences that do not reflect the seriousness of the crime," the Ontario Court of Appeal said in two major decisions yesterday.

But that's what two Ontario judges did when they applied broad generalizations about Jamaican "drug mules" to the cases of the three women, who avoided substantial prison terms and were instead handed conditional sentences confining them to house arrest, the court concluded.

It said the women deserved between 20 and 40 months behind bars � even if it meant their children would temporarily be left without mothers.

While the women, who smuggled cocaine through Pearson airport in swallowed pellets and suitcases, were unquestionably struggling with very difficult economic circumstances, which were largely beyond their control, they "had a choice to make and they made that choice knowing full well the harm that the choice could cause to the community," said Mr. Justice David Doherty, who wrote both decisions for the 3-0 court.

"The economic circumstances of the respondents made their choice more understandable than it would have been in other circumstances, but it remains an informed choice to commit a very serious crime."

"The blunt fact is that a wide variety of societal ills � including, in some cases, racial and gender bias � are part of the causal soup that leads some individuals to commit crimes," said Doherty, writing on behalf of Associate Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor and Madam Justice Eileen Gillese.

"If those ills are given prominence in assessing personal culpability, an individual's responsibility for his or her own actions will be lost."

While lawyers for the women argued conditional sentences would "promote respect" for the law and counter the legitimate belief that blacks have been treated unfairly and unnecessarily harshly by the criminal justice system, the court took a dim view of that position.

"This argument assumes that the black community looks at the criminal justice system exclusively from the perspective of the offender," Doherty said. "The black community, like the rest of Canada, knows only too well the harm caused by cocaine."

Although the sentences handed to two women, Marsha Alisjie Hamilton and Donna Rosemarie Mason, were inadequate, little would be accomplished by sending them to jail now that they have spent nearly 17 months under house arrest, the court said. It reluctantly agreed to let them serve their remaining sentence in the community. Hamilton received 20 months and Mason two years less a day.

But the 20-month conditional sentence handed to the third woman, Tracy-Ann Spencer, was "manifestly" unfit and should have been 40 months' imprisonment, the court said, crediting her with 20 months for time served at home and ordering her to spend another 20 months in jail.

The court was highly critical of Mr. Justice Casey Hill for turning the sentencing hearing for Hamilton and Mason into a virtual one-man inquiry, digging up "a veritable blizzard of raw statistical information" on everything from the overrepresentation of blacks in the prison system to Canada's compliance with international drug treaty obligations.

Hamilton, who travelled to Jamaica with her 1-year-old son in November, 2000, swallowed 93 pellets containing 349 grams of up to 79-per-cent pure cocaine. Mason, who returned from Jamaican holiday on March 14, 2001, swallowed 83 pellets of up to 91-per-cent pure cocaine, weighing 489 grams. Both women pleaded guilty in the Superior Court of Justice.

Partway through the sentencing hearing, the proceedings took "a dramatic turn" when Hill, through his secretary, sent lawyers about 700 pages of material gathered from his own research. He said in nearly nine years as a judge in Brampton, he'd noticed an unusually large number of single black mothers appearing before him charged with drug smuggling and it led him to wonder whether they were being preyed upon and unfairly bearing the brunt of tough drug sentencing laws.

Hill concluded they were vulnerable and desperate targets, conscripted by the drug distribution hierarchy and paid relatively small amounts of money, which they used to feed their families and pay the rent. Their children would essentially become orphaned if the women went to jail, he added in his judgment on Feb. 20, 2003.

A month later, Madam Justice Nancy Mossip relied heavily on Hill's findings in sentencing Spencer, a nursing student who had pleaded not guilty to smuggling 733 grams of 82-per-cent pure cocaine in a suitcase.

By assuming the "multi-faceted role of advocate, witness and judge" and appearing to drive the inquiry, Hill, a former Ontario prosecutor, stepped outside the role of judge and his efforts "put the appearance of impartiality at risk" � even if he did conduct the hearing with "scrupulous fairness" by allowing lawyers for all parties to have input, Doherty said.

While Hill's judgment was "thoughtful and detailed," it was not based on evidence in the case, Doherty said, noting there was no information about why the women committed the crimes, apart from a single line in Hamilton's pre-sentence report that "financial hardship" was behind her action.

The decision ignored principles of sentencing and binding judgments from the Court of Appeal, which has repeatedly said conditional sentences are rarely warranted for cases of serious drug importation, Doherty said.

Jim Leising, a senior justice department lawyer, said he was extremely pleased with the decision. He argued the earlier rulings would encourage the very exploitation Hill was worried about, because drug kings would assume there were no penal consequences to using black women as couriers

I really hate the affirmative action, my dad used to work at a large truck factory and they had to hire certain amounts of minorities, women etc. and if one of the minorities couldn't/wouldn't do thier job right they had a hell of a time getting rid of them

unlike my dad who could just be canned whenever they had a layoff!

I also lived in Stockholm, Sweden a few years ago and most Swedes really hate immagrants and I can see why! they are a real drain on thier social system, I also went to a party where a swedish girl was attacked by some immagrant guys because she wasn't wearing a viel or some shit


*sigh*

Anyways I figure instead of just letting them leave thier countries in droves why not just help them improve thier own countries?

Ok Jayx1....so know you know that the racism card is being overused....how about we change the direction of this thread and try to come up with a solution for how people should handle it


How should we deal with it? Do we:

1 Get mad and talk back (I've tested this...hmmmm watch out)
2 Ignore it and walk away (never to be fixed)
3 Be empathetic and tell them they are mistaken ???????
4 or what?....what's the correct solution

That's why I think that things would have been much better if people were just more accepting of assimilation amongst races. If we were all assimilated, then we wouldn't have a need to see thing in black and white.

It's better to try and find a solution, rather than to keep pointing out the obvious.

Any suggestions or examples anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by Brindor I really hate the affirmative action, my dad used to work at a large truck factory and they had to hire certain amounts of minorities, women etc. and if one of the minorities couldn't/wouldn't do thier job right they had a hell of a time getting rid of them unlike my dad who could just be canned whenever they had a layoff! I also lived in Stockholm, Sweden a few years ago and most Swedes really hate immagrants and I can see why! they are a real drain on thier social system, I also went to a party where a swedish girl was attacked by some immagrant guys because she wasn't wearing a viel or some shit *sigh* Anyways I figure instead of just letting them leave thier countries in droves why not just help them improve thier own countries?

I agree affirmative action may not be the perfect solution, but its certainly better than what was taking place before it. People being descriminated against. I thank those of you, including Jayx1, who hire on the baisis of ability and not race, but not everybody does so, and therefore a law was passed to help those at a disadvantage.

and what about most of us immigrants who love this country and try and make a worth while life here? you are telling me, because the few are making mistakes, the many should be punnished? Try going to India, or any other 3rd world nation, and saying, "oh yeah we can fix this" good luck

get educated, dumb ass

quote:

Originally posted by Brindor Anyways I figure instead of just letting them leave thier countries in droves why not just help them improve thier own countries?

I think this is the best idea.

PLUR everybody. May we all get along and listen to some good music !

quote:

Originally posted by EvilDust I think this is the best idea.

so are you saying you are against allowing immigrants into the country?

sorry buddy, but without immigrants, who is going to do all those jobs that help to support this country? it certainly wont be the people who are born here, because there are not enough of them to support this country on its own. The margine of difference between the birth rate and death rate is very low, immigration allows the population to grow consistantly, which means healthy country. There is a reason that Canada encourages people to immigrate.

quote:

Originally posted by QryS PLUR everybody. May we all get along and listen to some good music !

Ditto!

Time to get off the negative talk and discuss something more constructive. Please.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko so are you saying you are against allowing immigrants into the country?

No, I'm not against immigration. But I do feel it's unfair that rich countries like ours and the States are stealing the minute skilled labor force of the 3rd world countries. How are these countries supposed to improve if all they're left with are beggars and the illiterate and uneducated? The country stays underdeveloped and whatever future skilled workers they have will of course also want to leave.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko sorry buddy, but without immigrants, who is going to do all those jobs that help to support this country? it certainly wont be the people who are born here, because there are not enough of them to support this country on its own.

yet we have people here that complain how their jobs are being taken away by immigrants because of the "race card".

quote:

Originally posted by Orko The margine of difference between the birth rate and death rate is very low, immigration allows the population to grow consistantly, which means healthy country. There is a reason that Canada encourages people to immigrate.

I do think that immigration is an important part of this country. But we're constantly taking away whatever possible leaders that grow out of the 3rd world countries. Anyone else feel this is OK?

quote:

[i][b] I do think that immigration is an important part of this country. But we're constantly taking away whatever possible leaders that grow out of the 3rd world countries. Anyone else feel this is OK?

i dont think thats nesseccarily true. I look it like, these people would like to achieve something, or just have a better life, why not share this great country? I agree that yes they could help, but why take away the freedom of somebody to move? If i didnt like where i was living, and wanted to move, i wouldnt want somebody to tell me "sorry you gotta stay and try and help your country".

plus a lot of people who do come over, might never have the recources to develope into full, educated, able people, had they stayed in their home land.

once poor always poor in those countries. here alteast you can thrive, because everybody is given the same recourses(shcool, medicine)

when we came here(me, my mom, and my sis) my mom made less than $7000 a year!!!!! Now(15 years later), we have a house, my sis has graduated from uni, and has a good job, and im on my way through uni. And i was treated for my astham, which almost killed me in India. I am very happy that i we were allowed to come and thrive.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko i dont think thats nesseccarily true. I look it like, these people would like to achieve something, or just have a better life, why not share this great country? I agree that yes they could help, but why take away the freedom of somebody to move? If i didnt like where i was living, and wanted to move, i wouldnt want somebody to tell me "sorry you gotta stay and try and help your country". plus a lot of people who do come over, might never have the recources to develope into full, educated, able people, had they stayed in their home land. once poor always poor in those countries. here alteast you can thrive, because everybody is given the same recourses(shcool, medicine) when we came here(me, my mom, and my sis) my mom made less than $7000 a year!!!!! Now(15 years later), we have a house, my sis has graduated from uni, and has a good job, and im on my way through uni. And i was treated for my astham, which almost killed me in India. I am very happy that i we were allowed to come and thrive.

Great story about your family and I do see your point how much of a haven Canada is compared to where immigrants come from.

But see, I just wish we can somehow extend that opportunity to the less fortunate people around the world and not just in our own great nation.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 It doesnt matter what job it is. Discrimination is wrong and i find that these days if there is any, it goes the other way. Just look at how the government hires for example. They sometimes even say "only minorities need apply". That chillingly reminds me of the "white only" fountains and restaurants of the 1950s in Alabama.

Scan the Ontario and Federal Government job sites and find out how many positions are "minority applicants only".

That's a terrible comparison..."white only fountains" existed because visisible minorities were seen as 2nd class citizens. Preferential and targeted hiring practices are implemented to correct past discrimination.

Does that make those hiring practices "right"? Highly debatable. But if they conjure images of 1950's Alabama for you, I'd suggest you have your own biases and issues to work out

Really? Well id rather be restricted from drinking at a fountain rather than being told that i cant persuit a career due to my race.

Whats the solution? Hire based on merit. If someone needs a hand with education, give it to them. Whether they are black, white or purple!

Heres a good example of minority only job, television broadcasting.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Really? Well id rather be restricted from drinking at a fountain rather than being told that i cant persuit a career due to my race. Whats the solution? Hire based on merit. If someone needs a hand with education, give it to them. Whether they are black, white or purple!

LOL, yeah right. Maybe if it actually was just about a drinking fountain...or a washroom...or a part of the bus...but it was their way of life...being treated in every way as 2nd class citizens. How does that compare to someone having an advantage in being hired for jobs (and only certain jobs, at that)?

If that help existed, I'd *completely* agree with the last part though.

Well then we both just agreed on a solution. Obviously ANY form of discrimination is wrong. Give people the opportunity to educate themselves and then let them compete in the working world. DONT give someone with less qualifications a job JUST because they are a minority. Send them to school just like you would anyon else. The hiring quota system is just as bad as any racism that has happened in the past otherwise.

My solution would be to scrap all laws forcing people to hire minorities, they are no longer needed. The economy we have today demands that companies hire based on merit. If you hire with anything other than merit as your standard, you cost yourself money. Essentially, racism isn't profitable in our world.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Well then we both just agreed on a solution. Obviously ANY form of discrimination is wrong. Give people the opportunity to educate themselves and then let them compete in the working world. DONT give someone with less qualifications a job JUST because they are a minority. Send them to school just like you would anyon else. The hiring quota system is just as bad as any racism that has happened in the past otherwise.

this would be great if it were possible! but unfortunatly, people do not hire just on merit. ever heard the stat that good looking people get hired more easily, or have higher paying jobs? its true. so hiring based on merit, still doesnt happen.

^^^ hiring quota systems have nothing to do with that though...

The real issue here, that Jayx1 and I agree on, is not the minorites don't need help. It's that the help they receive ought NOT penalize everyone else as a result. So, instead of band-aid solution of hiring quotas or affirmative action, why not pump that money into subsidizing education costs for people who are poor, or providing additional resources to schools with a lot of "at risk" youth who don't get the same level of education as most, etc. That way, they get the "hand up" they need to get the education and skills they require to truly be able to compete with everyone else on a more level playing field, while at the same time not being detremental to everyone else's opportunities too.

This doesn't mean existing anti-discrimination laws and policies should be scrapped...if you don't get a job because you're not "pretty", you can still seek legal recourse.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.