Zach LarkinsVISIBLE MINORITIES
Before we get into today's rant, let me apologize for yesterday's article on International Womens Day. I have no idea why it showed up three times and I can't backtrack to eliminate two of them. Sorry about that, folks. Okay, so here we go with the latest.
Okay, just how politically correct do we have to be? The UN the other day told us to stop using the term ‘visible minorities' as they feel it is racist. In a report on Ottawa's efforts to eliminate racial discrimination in Canada, the world body's anti-racism watchdog said the words might contravene an international treaty aimed at combatting racism. I've got to ask if they have this treaty in effect, why can't they suggest another name for us to use? 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." Okay, so what do we call them? Are they not visible? Are they not minorities? "The committee is concerned that the use of the term may not be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the Convention," the report says. 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 how do you comply with this half-witted thinking?
It is interesting to note that the committee's 16 members are mainly academics or former diplomats from around the world, but none is from Canada. This reminds me of the busybodies from foreign lands who stick their noses into our seal hunt. What gives them the right to dictate to us? The committee seems to be rather hypocritical, too. How else do you explain the fact that they passed up concerns raised in earlier years about the plight of First Nations peoples in Canada to latch on to the government's use of the words "visible minorities" in numerous official documents? Are they not visible? Are they not a minority?
The federal Employment Equity Act defines "visible minorities" as "persons, other than Aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour." To the committee, highlighting a certain group does not appear to be consistent with Article One of the Convention, which says racial discrimination occurs when equitable treatment is upset by "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin." Committee member Patrick Thornberry, a British international law professor, says, "The use of the term seemed to somehow indicate that 'whiteness' was the standard, all others differing from that being visible." Duh! Detroit has a population that is 80% black. That makes it the norm and a white face would be a visible minority. It's not that hard to figure out. If you travel to say India or the mid-East, the white face would be the visible minority. Can we expect yet another apology from our PM saying he and Canada are sorry the majority of people who live here are white?
This misguided committee also recommends Canada provide welfare to illegal immigrants and failed refugee applicants. The committee says Canada should pass laws ensuring they are "provided with access to social security, health care and education. "Regarding Canada's efforts to combat terrorism," it says it is "concerned about the heightened risks of racial profiling." Racial profiling. Sorry, it is not the blonde haired, blue eyed Swedes who are flying airplanes into office towers. Try as you might, racial profiling is here to stay and is a very useful method of detecting terrorists.
Can you believe the nerve of these guys? Illegals and failed applicants. The failed applicants already get welfare, free medical, and free legal help when they show up at our doorstep. I only hope they are cut off when their application falls through. Why should my tax dollar support them any longer? As for the illegals, they know they are breaking the law, and for this we are to reward them by giving them welfare? That'll keep them out, won't it? We'll be more of a global laughing stock than we already are.
But elimination of all forms of identification would raises the question of how can minorities be helped or protected if there is no definition of who they are? Martin Collacott, a former Canadian ambassador to several Asian and Middle Eastern countries and now a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think-tank, says, "I don't think the committee members could have realized that Canada's use of the term 'visible minorities' is aimed at ensuring positive discrimination. It is a form of discrimination, of course, but of reverse discrimination. I think it's clear the UN assumes that it aims to discriminate against people."
This committee needs a wake up call.
Sources: Steven Edwards Canada Told CanWest News
Okay, just how politically correct do we have to be? The UN the other day told us to stop using the term ‘visible minorities' as they feel it is racist. In a report on Ottawa's efforts to eliminate racial discrimination in Canada, the world body's anti-racism watchdog said the words might contravene an international treaty aimed at combatting racism. I've got to ask if they have this treaty in effect, why can't they suggest another name for us to use? 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." Okay, so what do we call them? Are they not visible? Are they not minorities? "The committee is concerned that the use of the term may not be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the Convention," the report says. 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 how do you comply with this half-witted thinking?
It is interesting to note that the committee's 16 members are mainly academics or former diplomats from around the world, but none is from Canada. This reminds me of the busybodies from foreign lands who stick their noses into our seal hunt. What gives them the right to dictate to us? The committee seems to be rather hypocritical, too. How else do you explain the fact that they passed up concerns raised in earlier years about the plight of First Nations peoples in Canada to latch on to the government's use of the words "visible minorities" in numerous official documents? Are they not visible? Are they not a minority?
The federal Employment Equity Act defines "visible minorities" as "persons, other than Aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour." To the committee, highlighting a certain group does not appear to be consistent with Article One of the Convention, which says racial discrimination occurs when equitable treatment is upset by "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin." Committee member Patrick Thornberry, a British international law professor, says, "The use of the term seemed to somehow indicate that 'whiteness' was the standard, all others differing from that being visible." Duh! Detroit has a population that is 80% black. That makes it the norm and a white face would be a visible minority. It's not that hard to figure out. If you travel to say India or the mid-East, the white face would be the visible minority. Can we expect yet another apology from our PM saying he and Canada are sorry the majority of people who live here are white?
This misguided committee also recommends Canada provide welfare to illegal immigrants and failed refugee applicants. The committee says Canada should pass laws ensuring they are "provided with access to social security, health care and education. "Regarding Canada's efforts to combat terrorism," it says it is "concerned about the heightened risks of racial profiling." Racial profiling. Sorry, it is not the blonde haired, blue eyed Swedes who are flying airplanes into office towers. Try as you might, racial profiling is here to stay and is a very useful method of detecting terrorists.
Can you believe the nerve of these guys? Illegals and failed applicants. The failed applicants already get welfare, free medical, and free legal help when they show up at our doorstep. I only hope they are cut off when their application falls through. Why should my tax dollar support them any longer? As for the illegals, they know they are breaking the law, and for this we are to reward them by giving them welfare? That'll keep them out, won't it? We'll be more of a global laughing stock than we already are.
But elimination of all forms of identification would raises the question of how can minorities be helped or protected if there is no definition of who they are? Martin Collacott, a former Canadian ambassador to several Asian and Middle Eastern countries and now a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think-tank, says, "I don't think the committee members could have realized that Canada's use of the term 'visible minorities' is aimed at ensuring positive discrimination. It is a form of discrimination, of course, but of reverse discrimination. I think it's clear the UN assumes that it aims to discriminate against people."
This committee needs a wake up call.
Sources: Steven Edwards Canada Told CanWest News
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern