View Full Version : 'Anti-Discrimination' Laws

Tuesday, December 11th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Prohibition of discrimination, and equal treatment in the Finnish employment contracts law:

The employer shall not exercise any unjustified discrimination against employees on the basis of age, health, disability, national or ethnic origin, nationality, sexual orientation, language, religion, opinion, belief, family ties, trade union activity, political activity or any other comparable circumstance.
The employer must otherwise, too, treat employees equally unless there is an acceptable cause for derogation deriving from the duties and position of the employees.
The employer must observe the prohibition of discrimination laid down in paragraph 1 also when recruiting employees.

I don't like such laws because they violate private property rights. If I own a business I want to hire whomever I want or fire whomever I want. A business owner who acts irrationally (hires a man instead of a more qualified woman for example) suffers a financial loss which ensures that such a behavior remains rare.

On the other hand, it could make sense to refuse to let Gypsies inside a shop because the probability that they are thieves is so high that this precautionary measure would lead to an economic gain for the shopowner and the society. Perhaps I should write a Law & Economics paper about this. :D

Sunday, March 2nd, 2008, 12:00 AM
Should we be permitted to discriminate based on race, sex, income, religion, background, etc?
Should we be allowed to choose based on the above who businesses hire and who buys a home?
Can discrimination really be proven?
Is the right to discriminate supported by the First Amendment?
Does denying the right to discriminate violate freedom of association?
Is it constitutional to repeal affirmative action?
What do you think about reverse discrimination?

Please explain whatever else you wish to on the subject of discrimination :)

Sunday, March 2nd, 2008, 12:24 AM
I haven't entirely thought out my answer on this yet, but something that always annoyed me was how at my Catholic school they were unable to turn people away based on their religion. It's seriously a big wtf to me considering first, it's a private institution, not being funded by the state whatsoever, secondly, it's Catholic school, ya know, for Catholics? Next they will making them drop the word Catholic because it's too selective.

Sunday, March 2nd, 2008, 12:31 AM
Should we be permitted to discriminate based on race, sex, income, religion, background, etc?

Of course we should be allowed to discriminate. Positive discrimination - against Whites & White men - is in fact tolerated.

Should we be allowed to choose based on the above who businesses hire and who buys a home?
Yes. Minority owned businesses in fact do discriminate or they practice a preference for their own. And allowing restricitve convenants would stabilize communities & schools instead of the current cycle of decline & the constant movement of Whites to suburbs further away from city centers in a feeble attempt to escape integration & diversity.

Can discrimination really be proven? Discrimiation against White & men is easy to proof because of quotas, official or de facto, put in place to incourage "diversity". But this is considered "positive discrimination" to make amends for pass discrimination against women & minorities, discounting the fact most minorities were born or immigrated to this country after anti-discrimination laws were passed.

Discrimination by Whites is easy to proof according to federal & state statues & tort law. Basically a White person & a White male in particular is guilty until proven innocent. If a White doesn't hire the Latino or rent to the Negro it must be because of discrimination.

Is the right to discriminate supported by the First Amendment?
Does denying the right to discriminate violate freedom of association? The right to freedom of association implies there is the right to disassociate. Anti-Discrimination laws are in violation of the First Amendment. Also the right to judge or make laws on discrimination in housing is a power the Constitution does not grant to the federal government. Not that this matters, because activist judges in the federal judicial system have taken it these powers for themselves & have allowed Congress to legislate in areas that the Constitution does not permit.

Is it constitutional to repeal affirmative action
Yes. Affirmative action was created by statue & executive order, it shouldn't take a constitutional amendment to get rid of it.

What do you think about reverse discrimination?
Reverse discrimination is a fact of life. It is tolerated by the political elites. But frankly I would prefer that Whites & White men be allowed to practice the same kind of racial & gender solidarity - without legal repercusions - that minorities & women are allowed to practice. The experience of the last 40-years shows anti-discrimination laws were never meant to protect Whites or White men from discrimination but to promote minorities & feminists at the expense of Whites & White men. Whites & White males would be better off without anti-discrimination laws which have always been used against us, not for us.

Soldier of Wodann
Sunday, March 2nd, 2008, 01:55 AM
The right to discriminate or not is not fundamentally touched by legal document, because we all do it in one way or another. Also, there is absolutely no way to prosecute someone for discrimination as long as you are not overt about it/an idiot, so it really doesn't matter if there is a 'right' to it (which there isn't, because as I've said before, rights do not exist). We should be allowed, and to some degree we are.

Sunday, March 2nd, 2008, 03:19 AM
Is it constitutional to repeal affirmative action?

That's the easiest one, while there is some question as to whether 'affirmative action' is allowed by the Constitution, it is certainly not mandated by it.

Is the right to discriminate supported by the First Amendment?
Does denying the right to discriminate violate freedom of association?

In the opinion of myself and many others, the answer is yes. The excuse for anti-discrimination laws comes from the 'commerce clause' in the constitution, which gives the federal government power "To regulate commerce among the several states". The courts today have interpreted to mean "regulate anything&everything", the 'logic' behind the anti-discrimination laws was that interstate travel by blacks was hampered by allowing motels, restaurants, etc to have racially selective admissions.

there is absolutely no way to prosecute someone for discrimination as long as you are not overt about it/an idiot

In many cases, a lack of 'enough' employees of a certain race has been considered enough evidence to prove discrimmination.

I haven't entirely thought out my answer on this yet, but something that always annoyed me was how at my Catholic school they were unable to turn people away based on their religion. It's seriously a big wtf to me considering first, it's a private institution, not being funded by the state whatsoever, secondly, it's Catholic school, ya know, for Catholics? Next they will making them drop the word Catholic because it's too selective.

They can, but I think this means they can't get any form of assistance from the state, but if yours didn't anyways, I'm not sure what their reasoning was. The church I attended when I was younger had a K-12 school that they ran, admission to the school required you to be a member of that religion, and you needed recommendation letters from a Sunday School teacher and another church member. The church also ran a college which had the same requirements, though students who attended the school were prevented from receiving any federal assistance, even access to federal student loans, which are normally available to all students, including those who attend private religious schools with non-discriminatory admissions policies. Catholic schools used to be more selective-when my mother was in school, they required her to attend mass, and kept track of attendance, if she wasn't there on Sunday she got in trouble at the school.

Sunday, March 2nd, 2008, 03:57 AM
I think folks should have the right to discriminate against anyone, for whatever reason. Simple as that.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, March 2nd, 2008, 04:52 AM
In the USA, you have the right to discriminate. But you cannot do it in business or public situations. I discriminate against blacks and Jews. I have the right to do this. What I don't have the right to do is to discriminate against them in terms of housing, employment, or public facilities such as parks, schools, or businesses open to the "public" such as restaurants and bars. Interestingly enough, whites are discriminated against in schools, especially in higher education, due to "anti-discriminatory laws". Outside the USA and involving other countries or citizens of other countries, there are no rules. If there were, Israeli foreign aid would be cut off in a heartbeat as it violates the concept of separation of church and state. So, following the law, I don't like Israelis, but I don't have to like Israelis.

Thursday, March 6th, 2008, 04:55 AM
I think that, basically, people should be able to impose whatever rules they want in a business that -they- pay taxes and other expenses for. I should be able to hire who I want. If I create a business that is unfriendly towards Blacks or inaccesable to the handicapped, that's money out of my pocket. In this way, capitalism is a much better leveler than hamfisted laws.

Case 1: A couple opened a restaurant in my city and it became a regular haunt for my friends and I. They didn't have a lot of extra capital on hand and were breaking even. About six months after the grand opening, an inspector turned up and told the couple that their counter(built into the floor) was two inches too close to the door and violated an ordnance about wheelchair accessability. This was the final nail in the coffin for their business.

Case 2: I visit Japan from time to time. As you may know, some business owners put "Japanese only" signs in the window of their business. Expatriate bloggers like "Arudou Debito" who have deluded themselves into thinking they have become Japanese rail on and on about these signs, but in reality they aren't terribly prevalent. I actually think they're a good idea. I want to know where I'm welcome. Would I really want to eat food prepared by someone who hated me because I'm a European-American, for instance?

(And I can sympathize with the Japanese. If I were a Japanese man looking to relive the old world by staying at a traditional inn and visiting a hot springs, would I really want to see a bunch of Russian sailors or American tourists running around?)

Tuesday, April 8th, 2008, 08:57 PM
Bring Back Discrimination! (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer21.html)

by Butler Shaffer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer-arch.html)

Hardly a week goes by without a news report of such senseless acts as a kindergarten boy being charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate on the cheek; or a grade schooler disciplined for violating an anti-drug policy by offering a friend an over-the-counter cough drop; or young boys threatened by the state with "assault with a weapon" prosecution for using their fingers as make-believe guns to play cops-and-robbers. The latest contribution came from the criminal conviction of a teenager for shooting a "spitball" at a classmate, hitting him in the eye.

Practices of this sort are usually defended, by school officials, as part of a "zero tolerance" policy for violence, or drug use, or sexual harassment. Unfortunately, what "zero tolerance" often comes down to in practice is an admission that "I am unable to think clearly and to make distinctions between an uninvited kiss and a violent assault, between a cough drop and a tablet of LSD, between boys pointing their gun-like fingers at one another and a full-blown knife fight." "Zero tolerance," in other words, becomes synonymous with "zero critical analysis."

When I was a youngster, the attempted criminalization of such conduct would likely have been met with questions about the competency of school officials to supervise the learning of children. It would have been understood that the process of growing up involves experimentation and testing of the boundaries of appropriate social conduct. It was also accepted that learning how to establish suitable relationships with others came about through trial and error, and the feeling out of the expectations of one’s peers, more so than having one’s conduct constantly micromanaged by supervising adults. Only if conduct morphed over into the realm of viciousness was it thought appropriate to consider the transgression in criminal terms.

The "spitballer" was given a six-day jail sentence – even though prosecutors reportedly sought an eight-year prison term; while the "cough-drop kid," the finger-pointing "gunman," and the "kindergarten kisser" may have to spend the rest of their lives acknowledging, to colleges or employers, their respective "offenses" of "drug-dealing," "attempted assault," and "sexual harassment." How does one satirize absurdity?

The underlying cause of such nonsense is not to be found in either wickedness or a penchant for being overly-protective. I suspect that the school administrators who engage in such Draconian measures truly mean to do well by the children entrusted to their care. The problem, instead, can be traced to one of the underlying shortcomings of our culture – one for which, coincidentally, government schools have been the primary culprits – the ongoing war against discrimination. We must remember that most of the school officials who cannot distinguish between a pointed finger and a .38 caliber revolver are, themselves, products of government school training.

There was a time when it was considered the highest compliment to tell another that he or she had a "discriminating" mind. Today, such is an accusation. One who learned to distinguish truth from fashion; to critically analyze a given set of events on the basis of intellectually sound criteria; to have both an empirical and rational basis for his or her opinions; to be able to separate fact from fallacy; to have one’s mind well grounded in such fields of study as the sciences, history, economics, the classics, psychology, and the humanities; and, above all else, to have both a sense of humility about what we know and a recognition of the human need for transcendent experiences, that person was worthy of being called a "discriminating" individual.

Not only are such qualities not developed in schools and colleges today, they are actively opposed. One who dares to suggest that the works of Shakespeare are superior to the folktales of some primitive tribe is likely to be charged with cultural chauvinism. To dissent from American foreign policy practices in the Middle East is to invite an accusation of "anti-Semitism" (even though truly discriminating minds would note that Arabs are also Semites). To challenge the legitimacy of welfare programs, "affirmative action," or any of a variety of other government policies, is to run the risk of being labeled a "racist" or peddler of "hate." Such absurdities helped to make up the world of "political correctness," a phrase that boils down to the failure of its practitioners to engage in discriminating thought.

At this point, some may respond that I am only setting up a straw man to knock over; that racial, ethnic, and religious bigotry exist in our world, making discrimination a problem to be overcome. I disagree. The person who uses race as a determining factor in deciding who to hire or otherwise associate with is not, in most instances, discriminating, but failing to discriminate!

"Discrimination" is closely tied to another misunderstood practice: "prejudice." Whenever we act, we do so on the basis of our prior experiences. We "prejudge," based upon the past events in our lives, what will occur in the future. Let us suppose that, while walking down a dark street one evening, I am mugged by a man wearing a purple hat. In the future, I might very well be fearful of men in purple hats, believing that there was some connection between hat color and my victimization. This is a common response of small children who, having once been frightened by a barking dog, might thereafter fear all dogs.

But as I encounter more and more people wearing purple hats who do not assault me, I begin to modify the basis for my prejudgment (i.e., "prejudice") about purple-hatted people. In a word, I learn to discriminate, based upon factors more directly relevant to my being victimized, and may eventually come to the conclusion that purple-hattedness has nothing to do with the commission of violent acts. Focusing upon purple hats becomes a distraction to clear thinking.

Our prejudices can serve us well or ill depending upon how proficient we become at making distinctions that help to further what we seek to accomplish. If, for instance, I would like to find a restaurant that sells pizzas, my past experiences lead me to prejudge that I am more likely to find pizza in an Italian than in a Szechuan restaurant. It may be the case that, in this city, the best pizza is made at a Szechuan restaurant, but information costs being greater than the benefits I might derive from trying to locate such a place, I content myself with an Italian eatery.

When factors such as race, religion, or ethnicity enter into our decision-making, however, there seems to be an enhanced likelihood that such considerations will prove detrimental to our objectives. More often than not, prejudging others on such grounds will fail to predict for outcomes that we favor. The employer who refuses to hire a woman, or a black, to operate a punch press because of such criteria – rather than the applicant’s demonstrated skill at handling the machine – will have to forego the added profitability from having the most competent people working for him.

On the other hand, there are times when being prejudiced on the basis of race or other such factors is quite rational: I suspect that, when Spike Lee was casting for the Malcolm X film, neither Robert Redford nor Whoopi Goldberg were given the slightest consideration for the lead. Lee "discriminated" by casting Denzel Washington. Was Lee "prejudiced" in his decision? Of course: he "prejudged" that Denzel Washington would be a more believable Malcolm X – thus adding to the quality of the film – than would Robert Redford. He made a perfectly intelligent decision; he exhibited the qualities of a "discriminating" mind: he knew when race and gender were relevant factors in his decision-making.

Racial and ethnic bigots, on the other hand, fail to make such relevant distinctions. In their minds, such factors become central to all forms of decision-making. Percaled Ku Klux Klansmen and the most ardent champions of "affirmative action" programs have this in common: for each, another person’s race or ethnicity is a deciding characteristic. The quantity of melanin in one’s skin determines whether a targeted individual will be brutalized or given a preference, depending upon the nature of the group making the decision. It is not that such people discriminate, but that they do not know how to discriminate!

Nor is this problem confined to these more vulgar forms of expression. A friend of mine was a high-level executive for a major American corporation. One of their divisions was having major cost problems, and he was sent to find out what was wrong. His first act was to pull the personnel files on the top twenty or so executives in that division and discovered that each was a retired Naval officer. Upon further inquiry, he learned that the official in charge of hiring within that division was, himself, a retired Naval officer, and when he saw an applicant with such a background, that fact became the basis for his hiring decision. That there was no causal connection between being a Naval officer and a competent business executive led to employment policies that hindered corporate purposes.

The catastrophic events of 9/11 provided what has thus far proven to be a missed opportunity for clear, discriminating thinking. Rather than treating the attack as a criminal act, President Bush and other government officials reacted with unfocused anger against a vaguely defined "enemy" who, upon closer inspection, became "anyone who’s not with us" in a unilaterally declared "War on Terror." Without any evidence of Afghan involvement in the WTC attacks, the Bush Administration started bombing Afghanistan, and putting together lists of "enemies" and possible nuclear targets – whose identities were both interchangeable and subject to continuing amendment. A number of countries were identified as an "Axis of Evil," an appellation reflecting an unfamiliarity with basic geometry. Draconian police state measures were also announced that would greatly restrict individual liberties, but only for the duration of the "war" which was, of course, to go on forever!

Those who suggested that the WTC attacks might have been in response to American foreign policies and military actions were lambasted by the boobeoise who, unable to distinguish between an explanation and a justification of events, accused such critics of defending the attacks! Bill Maher – host of the TV program, Politically Incorrect – offered one of his few genuinely "politically incorrect" observations when he noted similarities between "terrorist" and Air Force bombings. For his honest comments, he was pilloried by those whose inability to discriminate gets expressed in terms of distinctions without meaning.

These are just a few examples of the consequences of abandoning the pursuit of critical thinking. Analysis and reasoning have given way to flag-waving, bumper-sticker slogans, and public opinion polls. If you are unable to assess the propriety of a given course of action, then ask other equally confused people what they think. Let us pool the ignorance!

As the study of mob behavior informs us, when self-righteous rage suppresses intelligence, an unfocused mindlessness emerges. Collective insanity has a way of escalating quite rapidly. When top government officials in Washington can casually discuss "first strike" nuclear attacks against other nations, and warn dissenters to watch what they say, you can be assured that discriminating minds are not in charge.

Perhaps intelligent thinking will begin to assert itself over the official madness that now prevails. There may be sufficient remnants of discriminating thought within the life force itself to impress upon even the most rabid of Washington warmongers that, no matter how horrific and inhumane the attacks of 9/11, they do not justify either a massive police state or a nuclear firestorm capable of obliterating all of humanity.

Arthur Koestler suggested that mankind might have been an evolutionary mistake. A killer ape with a highly developed brain might not be a recipe for species longevity. That same brain, however, provides us the means to evaluate the nature of our behavior, and to make choices that either advance or diminish our lives. But how does one make choices without discriminating among alternatives? And if we are to make life-fulfilling choices, upon what grounds shall we discriminate? Do purple hats really matter?

June 22, 2002

Butler Shaffer [bshaffer@swlaw.edu] teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law.

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 10:25 AM
I was thinking this morning about how one of the only tools at the cultural and racial preservationist's disposal is the ability to discriminate. The company I work for is overwhelmingly 'white', with only three non-white employees and two Eastern Europeans out of around 35. As far as I gather they are good workers and nice people, but I couldn't help wondering if they'd even have the job if it weren't for anti-discrimination laws. If my company were 35 white-British men and women, chances are flags would be raised by authorities on equality.

Now whilst I am openly opposed to racism, I do believe that the decision to discriminate or not should be in the hands of the individual. Discrimination does not = 'hatred', or even 'mistrust'. For me, it's a tough-love method of demonstrating one's aversion to multiculturalism. Under certain circumstances, I would choose to discriminate against a non-British/Germanic person - not because they were any less worthy of my favour, or any less likeable, but merely because I can help the plight of the British by choosing consciously.

If the public were fully in favour of multiculturalism, anti-discrimination laws would not be necessary. A real democracy does not prevent the nation's people from displaying their opinions, it allows those opinions to naturally and organically comprise the general consensus, without hinderence. It may be hostile, and at times unpleasant, but it is the people's will. Those who want multiculturalism can feel free to use positive discrimination and if the public chose this over preservation, then at least it would have been a free choice NOT forced upon the people.

Anti-discrimination laws, more than anything else, have helped governments to propogate the multicultural agenda.

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 10:32 AM
Isn't discrimination illegal already ?

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 10:56 AM
Isn't discrimination illegal already ?
Yes! I'm asking if the people here feel it is a just, reasonable law or not.

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 11:09 AM
Discrimination laws are sh*t , too many foreigners are too eager to use the race card and take advantage of it .

"According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination."

However , that doesn't count for the native ethnic in European countries ofcourse , and that's why it's sh*t.

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 12:52 PM
Discrimination laws are sh*t , too many foreigners are too eager to use the race card and take advantage of it .

"According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination."

However , that doesn't count for the native ethnic in European countries ofcourse , and that's why it's sh*t.

In the US, whites are discriminated against 'because they are the majority'. In South Africa, whites are discriminated against 'because they are the minority'. :rolleyes:

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 02:44 PM
Anti-discrimination laws are used as excuses by foreigners who don't have enough skill for the job and who want to whine and play the ethnicity or race card. Some employers hire bloody foreigners even though they aren't technically fit for the job, because they don't want to be accused of "racism". Needless to say, discrimination should be LEGAL.

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 02:55 PM
The right to decide whom to hire, whom to let inside your establishment, whom to welcome inside your own home, it should all be in the hands of the owner of that private property to decide on these things, not the government.