Proposed Canadian law: Ban "discrimination" based on income, occupation, education...

[yllus]

While I recognize that every federal party in Canada (and in any other nation) has a couple of elected representatives who are absolute nutters, in this country it seems that they mostly congregate in the NDP. I imagine a Liberal-NDP coalition in the next election will result in record voting numbers as people like myself urge others to do whatever it takes to bar from NDP from office.

Adrian MacNair: My social condition is feeling disadvantaged again

Owing to the fact that Libby Davies has been busy trying to explain how she mixed up two rather important dates regarding Israeli independence, it’s no wonder that many people missed her last two bills introduced in the House of Commons. These bills would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to prohibit “discrimination” against a person based on their social condition.

What the heck is a “social condition?” Libby explains:

This bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of social condition. In doing so it would protect from discrimination people who are experiencing social or economic disadvantage, such as adequate housing, homelessness, source of income, occupation, level of education, poverty, or any similar circumstance.

As the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation and many other organizations have pointed out, a person’s standing in society is often determined by his or her occupation, income, education level or family background.

Enough. Let’s get one thing straight. There is no such thing as “disadvantage” in socioeconomic terms. One does not become “advantaged” by applying oneself to a higher education, thus attracting a wider array of opportunities and a chance at a higher income. “Advantage” is something linked to one’s own level of motivation.

...

The issue I have with this legislation is that it seems to validate the idea that poverty is a condition, like a congenital birth defect, and removes the personal responsibility of the individual to work to rectify their own self-made circumstances.

“I can’t change. I have a disability. It’s my social condition.”

No it isn’t. Go to school. Get a job. Apply for training. Seek out career services and advice. Talk to counsellors. Many of these things are free in Canada, often based on that “social condition” you have.

 

[halik]

Ferrari is discriminating me based on income.

 

[Jaskalas]

Ban "discrimination" based on income

Does that mean no more taxes for rich people?

 

[Elias824]

Ferrari is discriminating me based on income.

I think the govt owes you money now, im sure you can pickup a nice check at the local welfare office.

 

[GoPackGo]

So if I apply for a loan and don't get it because I am poor...then I am being discriminated against and so its a violation of my human rights....is that how I read this?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Or you can just apply for a job with higher education requirements than you have and sue for discrimination when you don't get it.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Awesome. Let's see how this experiment works. Essentially, everyone is the same and you can not differentiate between people. Soon you won't be able to declare your feelings to your wife/husband because someone will feel left out.

That hot blonde rejected my sexual advances because I don't have a lot of money. That discrimintating b!tch.

 

[werepossum]

Obviously some in Canada feel left out of the larger group of nations - those who are economically going straight into the crapper. This legislation would go a long way toward closing Canada's screw-up gap.

 

[MotF Bane]

How do politicians this stupid even breathe?

 

[QuantumPion]

Relevant column is relevant:

Should people have the right to discriminate by race, sex, religion and other attributes? In a free society, I say yes. Let’s look at it. When I was selecting a marriage partner, I systematically discriminated against white women, Asian women and women of other ethnicities that I found less preferable. The Nation of Islam discriminates against white members. The Aryan Brotherhood discriminates against having black members. The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members. The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks. The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members.

You say, Williams, that’s different. It’s not like public transportation, restaurants and hotel service in which Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act "prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment." While there are many places that serve the public, it doesn’t change the fact that they are privately owned, and who is admitted, under what conditions, should be up to the owner.

If places of public accommodation were free to racially discriminate, how much racial discrimination would there be? In answering that question, we should acknowledge that just because a person is free to do something, it doesn’t follow that he will find it in his interest to do so. An interesting example is found in an article by Dr. Jennifer Roback titled "The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars," in Journal of Economic History (1986). During the late 1800s, private streetcar companies in Augusta, Houston, Jacksonville, Mobile, Montgomery and Memphis were not segregated, but by the early 1900s, they were. Why? City ordinances forced them to segregate black and white passengers. Numerous Jim Crow laws ruled the day throughout the South mandating segregation in public accommodations.

When one sees a law on the books, he should suspect that the law is there because not everyone would voluntarily comply with the law’s specifications. Extra-legal measures, that included violence, backed up Jim Crow laws. When white solidarity is confronted by the specter of higher profits by serving blacks, it’s likely that profits will win. Thus, Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights represented government countering government-backed Jim Crow laws.

One does not have to be a racist to recognize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit racial or any other kind of discrimination by private parties. Moreover, the true test of one’s commitment to freedom of association doesn’t come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems appropriate. It comes when he permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]