“(It) is not just the inherent injustice of unwanted immigration combined with enforced “equality” for immigrants and those deemed to be “disadvantaged”, but also the overwhelming culture of entitlement created by these policies, and the greed, inefficiency, and juvenile power-tripping it can result in.” – Jeff Goodall
In the Toronto Sun today is an article by Peter Worthington headed “Quit the pandering” regarding the federal government’s review of its long-standing “affirmative action” hiring policies.
And no, he is not expressing the hope that the feds will quit pandering to the “underprivileged” and “minorities”. On the contrary, he wants the government to quit pandering to us white males who have been thrust to the bottom of the employment ladder by politically correct “equity” gerrymandering.
As Worthington puts it:
“The equity act is directed at four groups that need (and get) favourable treatment to compete fairly: Aboriginals, visible minorities, people with disabilities, and women. All things being equal, these groups have an advantage when applying for government jobs, or at companies that deal with government and go along with the policy.
“By ordering a review of the policy (announced by federal ministers Stockwell Day and Jason Kenny), the government is saying — or hoping — that there’s not the need today that there once was, for special help to these groups.” (Emphasis added –JG).
Firstly, Worthington misses the point when he refers to “government jobs” and “companies that deal with government and go along with the policy”.
Racist hiring practices were established by the federal government years ago. Federally-regulated industries, such as banking, are required to follow government guidelines on equal opportunity, and suppliers of goods and services to the different levels of government have to meet “equal opportunity” policies as a condition of doing business. There is no element of choice whatsoever.
As far as I am concerned, aboriginals who leave their reservations to come in to the city can take the crap with the rest of us. Not only is copious amounts of tax dollars poured into “First Nations” bands and reservations, but government programmes pour further substantial amounts into business loan programmes for aboriginal entrepreneurs, on- or off-reserve. Plus, aboriginals in the cities have access to subsidised housing, social assistance, and all the other perks that go with living in a cradle-to-grave welfare society.
The boundless wealth squandered on aboriginals, no matter where they reside or what they do, has achieved nothing except create a vast, money-sucking “industry” accompanied by civil disobediance, blockades, and land seizures carried out in defiance of the law.
As for “visible minorities”, I feel quite confident in saying that had Canadians been polled (let alone listened to) on opening the Third-World floodgates back in the mid-sixties, there would be few if any visible minorities in Canada today.
While canvassing for charities in recent years, I have come across entire new sub-divisions which are, for all practical purposes, not part of Canada; they are colonies, operating in their own languages according to their own culture. The Chinese strive to reach what they call “critical mass”, at which point they can live, work and play in Chinese, without having to bother with the English language at all.
Some “colonies” consist of seemingly poorly-educated transplants who have difficulty comprehending standard English, yet who live in homes worth the best part of half a million dollars; a puzzling reality which would not exist except as the result of preferential hiring practices carried out by governments and others.
People with disabilities are a somewhat different case, but the need to accommodate them must be applied in a realistic manner. In twenty-five years of working for Toronto and serving as a union officer, I have seen persons with guide-dogs alongside, working at computers where even the most advanced enhancement software still has them gluing their eyes to the screen.
While many disabilities can be accommodated successfully, that is not always the case. And as a further complication, the disabled are often resented by the managers they are thrust upon by an over-zealous “human resources” industry, and this can lead to endless strife and problems for all involved.
Rather than giving the disabled higher pay for jobs they cannot adequately perform, with all the resultant difficulties and frustrations, I think it would be far better to have programmes to provide the disabled with additional compensatory pay for performing the jobs that they can do.
The idea of sheltered workshops may seem insulting and demeaning to some, but surely there is no shame in people doing their best within the limits of their capabilities. In any event, I consider the present practices to be a disaster.
As for women, we are way beyond any resemblance of common sense with them. I have only met one woman from whom I would gladly take direction, and it may have been a sign of her uncommon abilities and self-respect that she quit her senior job with Metropolitan Toronto when the North York hordes came downtown to swamp the newly-created City of Toronto.
That invasion was led in part by Wanda Liczyk, for whom I found myself enjoying early retirement for whistle-blowing long before she was nailed to the wall by the considerably more competent Madam Justice Denise Bellamy’s judicial inquiry into the multi-million dollar computer-leasing scandal.
When I started working for Metro Toronto in 1976, the Clerk Grade II classification was male-dominated, as were most jobs back then. Some 15 years later, it was decided that as the Clerk II classification was by then female-dominated it was therefore by definition underpaid, and we all received a nice increase together with some back-pay.
Nothing at all had changed from my perspective, but all of a sudden the politics kicked in, and we all got a raise. Thank you ladies!
Women hired or promoted beyond their ability have caused immense damage to government efficiency. I paid with my job for trying to draw attention to the abuse and incompetence that finance dept. staff were being subjected to, plus the squandered opportunities hampering the development of the newly-amalgamated City government under Liczyk’s regime.
Another example is Eleanor Clitheroe, in court recently to try to have her Toronto Hydro pension raised to $33,000 + per month from the paltry $25,000+ she was receiving. She had been dismissed in 2002 following a major controversy over executive salaries. Competent or not, the sense of entitlement she had acquired was utterly breathtaking.
And for every Liczyk and Clitheroe, there are thousands of women who perform barely adequately at best, and who take up jobs sorely needed by men with families to feed.
What Peter Worthington misses, in my opinion, is not just the inherent injustice of unwanted immigration combined with enforced “equality” for immigrants and those deemed to be “disadvantaged”, but also the overwhelming culture of entitlement created by these policies, and the greed, inefficiency, and juvenile power-tripping it can result in.
Our schools encourage destructive behaviour in their students, and the break-up of families, by the all-rights-and-no-responsibilities culture they teach their students. Television shows seem geared to denigrate white people and turn them into pitiable fools and laughing-stocks.
White people in general, and white males in particular, are portrayed as people of no value, who deserve the derision and unfair treatment they are subjected to.
This is not happening by chance. If it were, then once in a while things would go our way. But, they never do.
I feel that by supporting racist hiring practices, Peter Worthington is encouraging this devaluation of white people and their culture.
See original here.
See also “Feds to review racism in hiring policies” here.