talking about discrimination is discriminatory?
From cbc.ca:
Term 'visible minorities' may be discriminatory, UN body warns Canada
OH PUhLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!
Could we get anymore semantic?! Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face. This supposed UN “watchdog” is clearly excaberating the issue by addressing trivial semantic issues, which divert peoples’ attentions from the more divisive “real” issues of racism (e.g. hate propaganda and violence against other peoples). The desired effect - I’m sure - is one of appeasement (i.e. if we’re not thinking about the REAL issue, we won’t be as appalled by it). The desired effect is completely lost when the veneer is so transparent, ugly, and seemingly duplicitous.
From cbc.ca:
“The convention is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which says distinction based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is discriminatory.
It calls on Canada to "reflect further" on the use of the term visible minorities.”
(my emphasis)
Original context from http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm:
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Part 1
Article 1
Uh, I’m calling you out on this unqualified statement, OHCHR. Distinction in and of itself does not equal discrimination. To make a statement like “I am Caucasian and you are Asian” or “I am male and you are female” is to observe a factual distinction that is not negative or discriminatory; simply a statement of observation. If an extension of (negative) bias or prejudice is then based on these differentiating facts, then indeed that bias or prejudice can be deemed discriminatory, but to categorically equate distinction to discrimination is A Priori at best, a harsh and unfair Fallacy at worst.
Now I understand that item #1 - in the original context - is somewhat more qualified in definition than cbc.ca’s truncated version (great journalistic integrity, CBC!), but HOLY FUCK, does item #2 not directly contradict item #1?!?! Isn’t “non-citizen” just a cleverly disguised politi-word to describe someone of different “national or ethnic origin"?!?! How on earth can we possibly doublethink ourselves into believing that we protect all humans from discrimination with this Convention, when the second rule clearly states that for the purposes of enforcing compliance of universal Human Rights, non-citizens need not apply!!! What?! How is that “universal”?! It’s totally divisive and nationalistic, and reeks of Cold War - era mentality. And yet the OCHCR feel that it is perfectly within their right - perhaps even their obligation (dare I say, even Manifest Destiny) - to “watchdog” (i.e. criticise) Canada’s efforts against racism and other forms of discrimination. That’s a lot of the pot calling the kettle black when they cannot even clean up their own back yard (Europe is rife with rising racial tensions and freedom-of-rights issues due to bad legal policies; look at recent news in France and Turkey for perfect examples).
Frankly, I’m downright insulted by The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, both for pandering to the trivial, and for believing that anyone should buy into it. Sadly, some obtuse bigots probably will do just that.
Term 'visible minorities' may be discriminatory, UN body warns Canada
OH PUhLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!
Could we get anymore semantic?! Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face. This supposed UN “watchdog” is clearly excaberating the issue by addressing trivial semantic issues, which divert peoples’ attentions from the more divisive “real” issues of racism (e.g. hate propaganda and violence against other peoples). The desired effect - I’m sure - is one of appeasement (i.e. if we’re not thinking about the REAL issue, we won’t be as appalled by it). The desired effect is completely lost when the veneer is so transparent, ugly, and seemingly duplicitous.
From cbc.ca:
“The convention is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which says distinction based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is discriminatory.
It calls on Canada to "reflect further" on the use of the term visible minorities.”
(my emphasis)
Original context from http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm:
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Part 1
Article 1
- In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
- This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens." (my emphasis)
Uh, I’m calling you out on this unqualified statement, OHCHR. Distinction in and of itself does not equal discrimination. To make a statement like “I am Caucasian and you are Asian” or “I am male and you are female” is to observe a factual distinction that is not negative or discriminatory; simply a statement of observation. If an extension of (negative) bias or prejudice is then based on these differentiating facts, then indeed that bias or prejudice can be deemed discriminatory, but to categorically equate distinction to discrimination is A Priori at best, a harsh and unfair Fallacy at worst.
Now I understand that item #1 - in the original context - is somewhat more qualified in definition than cbc.ca’s truncated version (great journalistic integrity, CBC!), but HOLY FUCK, does item #2 not directly contradict item #1?!?! Isn’t “non-citizen” just a cleverly disguised politi-word to describe someone of different “national or ethnic origin"?!?! How on earth can we possibly doublethink ourselves into believing that we protect all humans from discrimination with this Convention, when the second rule clearly states that for the purposes of enforcing compliance of universal Human Rights, non-citizens need not apply!!! What?! How is that “universal”?! It’s totally divisive and nationalistic, and reeks of Cold War - era mentality. And yet the OCHCR feel that it is perfectly within their right - perhaps even their obligation (dare I say, even Manifest Destiny) - to “watchdog” (i.e. criticise) Canada’s efforts against racism and other forms of discrimination. That’s a lot of the pot calling the kettle black when they cannot even clean up their own back yard (Europe is rife with rising racial tensions and freedom-of-rights issues due to bad legal policies; look at recent news in France and Turkey for perfect examples).
Frankly, I’m downright insulted by The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, both for pandering to the trivial, and for believing that anyone should buy into it. Sadly, some obtuse bigots probably will do just that.