Should taxes fund positive discrimination?

[Eric]

"Positive discrimination" Sounds a little oxy-moronic. And also, in a society which is, or claims to be, non-discriminatory, a tad redundant. If there were obvious systemic imbalances, ok; or maybe a one-time start up grant for an organization which would then raise its own funds, maybe. But, it ain't my money, so .....

[g jones]

The answer should be No. Just thinking latterly about all spending which is by definition money taken from one place and prioritised in another. Everything is some form of positive discrimination. Elderly, women, children.

It is an irreducible question. What the question is asking is should we divide people by age, yes. By disability absoluetly. By gender, occasionall. By race, very rarely (translation services for courts?).

[garinda]

Having council funded events, such as those seen in the news letter in the first post, which are advertised as being exclusively for 'B.M.E. ladies only' is utterly, 100% wrong.

Morally wrong, and since we have race discrimination laws in this country, lawfully wrong.

Even culturally it doesn't make sense.

At those events there'd be a welcome for a young bride recently arrived from Pakistan, a Chinese British born lesbian, a evangelical Nigerian woman.

But a retired lollipop lady, who happened to be white, would be turned away, because the events are for 'Black & Mixed Ethnic ladies only'.

It's wrong. Period.

Besides it doesn't work, because it causes, and perpetuates a divisive society.

I agree with what Eric hinted at. If there was a group of people, who were disadvantaged because they weren't equal before the law, there could be an argument that there was a need for minority groups to be funded by the state, in order to fight for equality.

Since we have anti-discrimination laws in place in the U.K. to prevent prejudice based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity. There is no conceivable argument that tax payers' money should be spent funding any organisation that openly discriminates against any other group.

Everyone should be treated equally and fairly.

That is the only way we'll have a society where there's cohesion, rather than division.

Integration.

Not separation.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Neil

I am very in touch with my feminine side, I cry at sad films and all that stuff

I'll lend you a dress and some nail polish then....shall I ???

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by g jones

The answer should be No. Just thinking latterly about all spending which is by definition money taken from one place and prioritised in another. Everything is some form of positive discrimination. Elderly, women, children.

It is an irreducible question. What the question is asking is should we divide people by age, yes. By disability absoluetly. By gender, occasionall. By race, very rarely (translation services for courts?).

There are a lot of people making a lot of money working as translators in this country, not only for court purposes, but in any walk of life, in other countries the individual pays for this service themselves, why does the state provide it in this country

[Margaret Pilkington]

Simple Jaysay, because we are mugs..........do we really think that providing translators is the way to get different communities to integrate into society?
No, it does just the opposite....it allows the ethnic cultures to remain separatist, because they have no need to learn the language.....and therefore they do not integrate.

Many translated documents are not read anyway by those for whom they were intended.......they cannot read.....and in some instances the dialects of their villages are different from what is published in the document.
Millions of pounds of NHS money is wasted every year on printing literature which is very little used.

It is all just 'window dressing' to pretend we are including the different ethnicities.
These cultures don't really want to be included. They want to retain their own little enclaves in the towns and cities of our country.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

Having council funded events, such as those seen in the news letter in the first post, which are advertised as being exclusively for 'B.M.E. ladies only' is utterly, 100% wrong.

Morally wrong, and since we have race discrimination laws in this country, lawfully wrong.

Even culturally it doesn't make sense.

At those events there'd be a welcome for a young bride recently arrived from Pakistan, a Chinese British born lesbian, a evangelical Nigerian woman.

But a retired lollipop lady, who happened to be white, would be turned away, because the events are for 'Black & Mixed Ethnic ladies only'.

It's wrong. Period.

Besides it doesn't work, because it causes, and perpetuates a divisive society.

I agree with what Eric hinted at. If there was a group of people, who were disadvantaged because they weren't equal before the law, there could be an argument that there was a need for minority groups to be funded by the state, in order to fight for equality.

Since we have anti-discrimination laws in place in the U.K. to prevent prejudice based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity. There is no conceivable argument that tax payers' money should be spent funding any organisation that openly discriminates against any other group.

Everyone should be treated equally and fairly.

That is the only way we'll have a society where there's cohesion, rather than division.

Integration.

Not separation.

The trouble with this country is, that for many years we have been expected to jump through hoops to accommodate the needs of people moving to these shores, at the expense of things which affect the fabric of our society, things like renaming Christmas so not to offend other religions, the trouble being that usually these other religions weren't complaining it was the do gooders second guessing what these people "MIGHT" be thinking. We have been continually told we are a multicultural society, yet it was the indigenous population who were expected to change to accommodate others. If people from this country move abroad are other nations expected to change to accommodate our needs not a snowball in hells chance, so why does it happen here

[accyman]

hell i dont think we should even put other languaqges on literature or sign posts.

how many generations have to pass before this is no longer needed its not as though they arnt taught english in school.

i could understand the first lot needing some assitance but surely now theres 3rd possibly 4th generations here they can help their newly immigrated family with translating literature.

Do we bend over backwards to help immigrants until the back breaks ?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by accyman

Do we bend over backwards to help immigrants until the back breaks ?

Thay was a rhetorical question wasn't it?

I think everyone knows the answer to that one.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by jaysay

so why does it happen here

The answer to that is probably the easiest one of the lot,VOTES

[accyman]

Originally Posted by lancsdave

The answer to that is probably the easiest one of the lot,VOTES

jack straw used to take every opportunity he could to be seen to be helping the so called minority group in blackburn and it wasnt until the end of his time there that he started bleeting on about how the burkah was wrong.As soon as he was in europe he soon spoke up with a few opinions that wouldnt have got him votes in blackburn.

so yes i can see how a lot of help is dished out to ensure votes come next election

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by lancsdave

The answer to that is probably the easiest one of the lot,VOTES

I don't actually think it is Dave I think it does deeper than that

[Eric]

Originally Posted by g jones

The answer should be No. Just thinking latterly about all spending which is by definition money taken from one place and prioritised in another. Everything is some form of positive discrimination. Elderly, women, children.

It is an irreducible question. What the question is asking is should we divide people by age, yes. By disability absoluetly. By gender, occasionall. By race, very rarely (translation services for courts?).

This is pure jargon, right ... you seem to be ignoring the question, distancing yourself behind complexity so that even "The answer should be No" is ambiguous. Sometimes it's easier for politicians to discuss language, creating a sort of metadialogue (or, often, metamonologue) which pushes into the background the thing being discussed.

[Margaret Pilkington]

It is 'splinter in the bum time'...giving an answer without giving an answer.....is that obfuscation?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Eric

This is pure jargon, right ... you seem to be ignoring the question, distancing yourself behind complexity so that even "The answer should be No" is ambiguous. Sometimes it's easier for politicians to discuss language, creating a sort of metadialogue (or, often, metamonologue) which pushes into the background the thing being discussed.

...and though the post made reference to public spending on the 'elderly, women, and children', Graham totally misses the point.

Those three groups are universal.

Except for 'women'. Which applies to just over half of the population.

We were ALL children.

Hopefully, we'll ALL be old.

We will NOT all be 'black, or minority ethnic'.

That's why it is WRONG these organisations should receive funding from the tax payer, to carry on their discriminatory practices. As they openly state they are doing.

Any M.P. worth his salt, on finding out a local, publicly funded organisation is guilty of such blatant discrimination and prejudice, wouldn't be umming and ahing, and bothering about puerile semantics. They'd be finding out just who the bloody hell is responsible for this, and if the organisation continues promoting discrimination, withdraw all public funding, and make sure they're closed down.

Yet again, another example of the public clearly being able to see something is very wrong.

Whilst our politicans can't.