The Legislation of Discrimination

I have recently been applying for a number of jobs, with various levels of government and other institutions. A number of these jobs, and particularly those of the federal nature, have declared themselves to be equal-opportunity employers, and have cheerily invited me to self-identify as a woman, an aboriginal, a visible minority, or a person with a disability. I am confused as to why I am being asked this, since the Canadian Human Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, or for pardoned convictions. Part I, Section 7.b) states:

It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly, in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/H-6/bo-ga:l_I//en#anchorbo-ga:l_I)

Therefore me answering that question can have no bearing on my candidacy for the job. And yet, the only conclusion that I can draw from repeatedly being asked these questions, is that it must make a difference, which sounds an awful lot to me like discrimination.

Digging deeper into Canadian Law, one will come across the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 deals with equality, and 15[1] states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp402-e.htm#subsection152)

Here again, it would seem that discrimination is explicitly prohibited. But if one were to read further, they would come across 15[2]:

Subsection [15(1)] does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

So there it is. Discrimination is illegal, unless it is to the benefit of groups that have previously been disadvantaged because of race, etc. Affirmative action has been around in the United States since the 1960s, and Canada has had the Employment Equity Act since 1986.

I appreciate that racism and sexism continues to be a problem, and not one that can be dealt with by pretending they don’t exist. I understand that qualified people have been denied many opportunities, whether they be jobs or spots in universities or other such ventures, simply because of the colour of their skin. It appals me that the Canadian government is forced to introduce legislation requiring equal pay for equal work between men and women, and that in 2009 we are still discussing the issue. However, Employment Equity and self-identifying are not the ways to go about rectifying the situation.

Canada is a multicultural nation, and this diversity should be celebrated. Natives, French, English, Europeans, and more recently immigrants from a growing number of countries have come over and flourished. We all benefit from such diversity, as does humanity as a whole. From a young age in diverse educational environments, Canadian children learn about tolerance and inclusiveness, and how to live in a multicultural environment. (This isn’t even a conscious consideration when you’re five, and I consider a lack of a diverse environment another detraction against Catholic schools as I discussed two weeks ago: http://blogjournalists.blogspot.com/2009/03/question-of-religious-education-funding.html.)

If there are problems with certain groups or people in some parts of the country not reaching their full potential, then we must as a country and as a community come together to help give these people the tools to excel. Lowering standards and earmarking spots does not help anybody. Truly qualified minorities are seen in a lesser light if the implication is that they only succeeded because of preferable status. Underqualified minorities may secure a position but they are missing out on the possibilities that knowledge and education can present to them, and they may also not have to work as hard to get to where they are, which is a detriment to society, and a potential danger to coworkers working in dangerous environments. Such programs are also distinctly unfair to those passed-over, as it is unfair to assume that they all had the best possible opportunities, and treating people differently on any basis is inherently wrong and un-Canadian.

There is some suggestion that affirmative action programs are in place to redress past wrongs. Because Kluckers burned crosses in the Twenties, third-generation Canadians of Chinese decent are being granted special consideration in the job market. Perhaps I’m being facetious, but this is not the way to go about correcting past wrongs. Better and more beneficial ways to increase diversity in schools and the workplace would be to advertise and actively recruit qualified people in disadvantaged areas, or provide these people with the skills/education/engagement necessary to incorporate themselves into the workforce.

I am not claiming that I have not yet found a job because I am a white male. I am certain this is not the case, and I have full faith in my ability to secure a job (I instead blame the economy). I am not begrudging anybody who has worked hard and benefited from this program. I am simply putting forward the case that in 21st Century Canada, such tactics are not only discriminatory, but are counter-intuitive to what we should be trying to achieve as a civilization.

Russ MacDonald

The Merging of the World: Using Connectivity to Understand and Promote Diversity

Over time humanity has always striven after connectivity and through this connectivity; unity, but all too often this goal becomes perverted. In connecting with others we sense an incompatibility which causes us to shy away from those sharing a different opinion. It can even lead to violence, war and destruction. When was the last time you heard of a war between two countries because they agreed about something?

The reason our quest after unity becomes perverted is simple. In our desire to be the same, we realize somewhere along the way that we are not. Most of us are passive enough to simply back away and surround ourselves with people who share our opinion. Some of us, mostly those with a philosophical or political persuasion, will attempt to engage the other in discussion and have a lively debate, perhaps trying to convince each other to re-evaluate their assessment. There are also those that are so sure that they have the truth that they move beyond lively debate to criticism, derogation, fundamentalism and general intolerance. All of these phenomena however are, as I previously mentioned, results of a single desire; a desire for unity.

Perhaps it seems ironic that a notion such as “unity”; a notion that is so commonly seen as a virtue can also be the source of so much discord. Then again maybe this does not come as a big surprise. Other more notorious phenomena can also be linked to unity, or homogeneity. Communism, ethnic-cleansing, ethnocentrism, religious fundamentalism, colonization and even random violence all involve the employment of different methods of assimilation in order to convert, convince or force people to be the same.

Yet for some reason these methods do not work. They cause significant pain and suffering, but they never succeed in totally assimilation or eliminating the other race, belief or point of view. One only needs to look as far as the holocaust or the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia to see that even the most extreme political movements and violence is not strong enough to wipe out even one group of people or one ideology.

It is worth noting however that these movements to assimilate exist in forms we do not recognize on a daily basis. Trends are one of the obvious forms of social assimilation that we accept and buy into all the time; one that is especially evident among kids, but exists also among kids of all ages. Feeling pressure to get that new toy because everyone at school has it is a way of avoiding social exclusion that almost everyone has been a part of. As a kid I remember in the span of a week almost everyone in my class had a fancy new generation yo-yo and I thought, I don’t even like yo-yos, but I don’t want to be the only one without one. Another example is how over the past half-century women, at least in the Western world, have enjoyed liberation from patriarchal assimilation and sexism, but at the same time they are expected to conform in other ways that are more subtle. The pressures to be skinny, to look beautiful all the time and to be feminine are all forms of assimilation that millions of women buy into everyday. Even men feel pressure to fit into the mould of the socially acceptable “manly-man.”

What I am getting at here is that social pressure and social assimilation are more subtle, and therefore more powerful than major ideological movements. It seems that people are a lot more willing to buy into being the same as others when it does not happen on the rational level, but instead on the subliminal level defined by “social acceptability.”

This, however, is not a good thing. As we move towards a higher plane of connectedness, we are more and more surrounded by information and propaganda that we don’t even know exists. In this sense, I would suggest it is ever more important to have a clear picture of who we are and what exactly is important to us; something that is not always easy.

Connectivity and uniformity are, as I suggested in the opening paragraph, intertwined. The nature of information is of course to inform, but also convince. This is a good thing. The world would be a boring place without difference of opinion and lively discussion. This is precisely why it is so important to preserve the diversity of opinion we have and that starts right with our own individuality.

This, however, is the paradox of the age of connectivity. How are we supposed to convince other people that we are right and preserve diversity at the same time? If we truly had our way in this, everyone would be exactly the same with the same understanding of the world as we have. Of course we will never be successful in convincing everybody ourselves, but as I already discussed, the power of social pressure is huge and is only catalyzed by the immeasurable amount of information we have at our fingertips today.

Like I said before though, the answer to this paradox can really only be what we can ourselves do as individuals. We have to be able to respectfully disagree but at the same time try to understand others, and even when we cannot understand others, we can marvel at the intricacy and diversity of the world we live in. Those that try to change others and make them more like themselves really only cause anguish, no matter what their cause.

Perhaps this is a little post-modern, but finding unity in our differences is a possibility in my eyes. We, as individuals, are all linked by our uniqueness and as our connections to each other continue to grow, we should use this connectivity to explore instead of assimilate. In the end, we have to realize the possibility that someone else’s way might just be as good as ours.

Will Grassby