PDA

View Full Version : Politically Correct Craziness in he UK



Chris S. (Fez)
06-17-2008, 04:25 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7457794.stm

Ridiculous ruling IMO. Call your UK equivalent of a senator!

Chris S. (Fez)
06-17-2008, 04:32 AM
Sorry, for the off-topic. Feel free to alert a moderator. A 4000 pound pay-off for "hurt feelings"...I couldn't resist sharing.

JohnMarchant
06-17-2008, 04:35 AM
Im not surprised on bit. There have been far worse cases than this one. Everyones climbing on the bandwagon, especially ethnic minorities.

And they wonder why we dont want any more of this Europe crap :):)

kopperdrake
06-17-2008, 04:36 AM
If she can cut hair then she can cut hair. If she were a bad stylist then I'd understand...I've had haircuts by bald blokes - perhaps we should get rid of them too. And whilst we're at it we'll get rid of fat stylists too as they don't "give the right image". In fact, let's just get rid of anyone who's not female, blonde, 5'8", petite build with a size C cup and has a penchant for talking endless babble about where you're going on holiday or what happened in last night's mindless episode of 'Big Bruvva'.

I believe that, despite popular myth, these ladies do in fact have hair under there and care very much what their husband and close family think of their hair. If someone from this culture is actually wanting to work somewhere where others show their hair off, then I'd think encouraging them would be an even better step - you know - breaking down barriers and all that.

Now - if you want *real* political correctedness in the UK then how about getting a government who'll take a stance on the general breakdown of society and tackle the runaway issues of government hand-outs, lack of discipline and general lack of any authorititive figurehead(s) that carries any weight.

Headscarves are the least of our worries in the UK, believe me.

JohnMarchant
06-17-2008, 04:49 AM
Whilst i agree with what you say kopperdrake, i dont think this is going to go anywhere near breaking down barriers. Everytime now someone does not get a job they think they are entitled to they go to court about it. Especially ethnic minorities, why ? because they will get legal aid. My wife is french and she cant get squat, she owns her own buiness and has to be very careful now about who and why she employs someone.

Stuff this government anyway, i will be glad to see the back of these control freaks. What a bunch of useless, gutless morons. Ireland just had a referendum and said no to the lisbon treaty, which by the EU own rules means its dead. So now they will porbably have another vote, what part of NO dont they understand, the only reason we wont get a referendum is because it will be an even louder NO than the Irish.

When did democracy die in the EU then, did we get a referendum on that. We dont and never will be part of a federalist superstate.

Sorry bit off topic rant :):)

Regards, John

rakker16mm
06-17-2008, 04:59 AM
kopperdrake,

I pretty much tend to agree with you on this, however I think the award of 4,000 for a fifteen minute interview that didn't go well may have been a little excessive. It might even be considered a government hand-out. Hmmmm.... government hand-out.... 4,000 = $7,869.... I may have to take up wearing a head scarf my self.

OTOH, I certainly have very little respect for people who base their hiring decision on something as trivial as a head scarf.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-17-2008, 04:59 AM
The ruling dismissed the discrimination charges but awarded damages due to "Injury to feelings". That is sheer lunacy IMO.

If she were hired and then fired when she showed up on the first day, the woman might have a case, but this was for a job interview. Why is this woman entitled to a position she is interviewing for?

Phil
06-17-2008, 05:06 AM
Seems OT here. General discussion would be a better place.

kopperdrake
06-17-2008, 05:42 AM
I agree with you John about the compensation culture not being great. The tough thing is how do you keep people from starting down that route of discrimination.

I have to admit it's not the best article - it states that the panel was satisfied that the lady was treated as any other was, but then doesn't say why she was turned down, but it does say that the owner didn't think the image was right for her salon so it leads you to believe that this is the only reason for the owner's decision.

Just strikes me as the owner of a trendy hair salon didn't want an employee that, by nature of their dress, carries a whole load of erceived 'baggage' and connotations. I have to admit it's a hard area to navigate - it's true if you're in the market of selling image then it's important to you - but just how far do you let that go?

Money compensation is unfortunately the most common way of keeping companies in check. I don't necessarily agree with it, but unless you change root level attitudes you need some mechanism in place.

Perhaps the money from court cases should give a smaller hand out to the actual 'victim', if the money isn't needed for real recompense (such as injury etc), and the majority should go to a related cause - in this case a local scheme for promoting integration and awareness between cultures (both ways of course!), which I'm sure there are quite a few of.

kyuzo
06-17-2008, 05:56 AM
I agree it is a rediculous ruling. The woman was told at a job interview what would be expected of her in that job. If the job wasn't right for her she could have applied for another job in another salon. Get on with life.
What's next? If I apply for a job and fail to get it because there are 'stronger candidates' can I sue because I'm upset and they've hurt my feelings? Bah.
And while the threat is already straying off topic, I want a referendum too. The corrupt, unelected 'powers that be' in Brussels don't seem to understand that no means no. They obviously need to hear it more often until they get the friggin' message.

Grrr.... rant over...

JohnMarchant
06-17-2008, 06:00 AM
I think that the fines should be bigger to discourage this sort of thing but it should be enough to cover your costs and the rest given to charity.

Yeah she probably was some trendy hair salon owner who wants people to see the hair, its a form of promotion because they all do each others hair internally. You see hair salons specifically for afro carib people, bet they wouldnt enploy a white woman.

The headscarf thing, well thats up to the individual, but htey have to be aware that some people will not employ them because of this or wearing the hijab, it does not mean that this WAS the reason you did not get the job. There seems to be this culture with minorities that its always their minority status that meant they didnt get it.

Honest both cultures are just as bad, we are culpable for not trying to integrate them and they are culpable for not making the effort to integrate.

Anyway its all crap and were all going to hell :):)

Oedo 808
06-17-2008, 06:07 AM
I think it's OTT, however it is to be expected as the panel were probably afraid of being seen in an non ethnic-friendly light, it's worth noting that many of the annoying news stories we hear of this nature stem from decisions made by white, white collar workers. Such as the banning of hot cross buns in some schools in case they offended any Muslim pupils, as far as I'm aware it wasn't a decision based on a large number of complaints (if any) and I read a statement by a Muslim group (maybe the Muslim Council of Britain) opposed to such decisions because they are obviously divisive, perhaps the true intention. ;)

Though if I were in that position, which I could be: "Man refused salon job for being a baldy git." Then 4000 would be nowhere near enough! :D

*edit*

And I too would like a vote on Europe, so I could give it a big fat NO!

manholoz
06-17-2008, 06:39 AM
I'm not in Europe, but I think that when middle eastern countries lets a non-Muslim display proudly a crucifix on your t-shirt (a headscarf equivalent, perhaps?) without being seriously harassed or worse, I'll agree to that "hurt feelings" money award.

Meanwhile, whithin reasonable limits, "when in Rome, be a roman".

I think an uncovered hair is part of the uniform of a hairdresser's job. Just like a scuba diver would have trouble wearing a turban under water.

colkai
06-17-2008, 06:57 AM
Sheesh, I've been turned down at interviews, maybe I should seek compensation for hurt to my feelings for being to old and overweight. Or maybe they picked on me 'cause I have long hair, right! that's it! I'm off to grab as much money as I can for pointless reasons simply because we live in a blame N claim society.

Say otherwise and I'll sue ya! ;) :D

Steamthrower
06-17-2008, 07:52 AM
That's so politically correct it reeks.

That's somewhat like a Muslim going into a butcher and interviewing for a job, "as long as he doesn't have to cut up pork."

It's like a Muslim going into a liquor store and asking for a job, "as long as he didn't have to sell alcohol."

It's like me going into a mosque and asking if I could work there, as long as I didn't have to pray or observe any rituals or follow any rules. I shouldn't even expect to get hired.

kopperdrake
06-17-2008, 07:59 AM
Colkai - it was probably because you had that hulking great bird of prey sat on your shoulder ;)

As a side-note - my uncle ran an afro-carribean hair-dressers in Lozells, Birmingham. If anyone knows the place you'd know it as probably the most carribean area of Brum.

For the record he's a white, Polish immigrant and as bald as a coot but he could cut a mean shaved afro hair do and won awards for them. Point being is that his customers could have shirked him but as he did a decent cut they respected that.

We just need more open-mindedness coupled with a decent balance so no one feels ostracised - on any side, a better sense of values other than the prevailing ones which seem to rely heavily on looks (I like my staff like I like my corgettes - all perfectly formed) and some good old-fashioned common sense from the powers-that-be. And yes, I'm all for 'when in Rome' - I'd like to feel I could walk down the street of any non-Christian country wearing a cross on my t-shirt (well - if I believed in it of course), but the fact that I can't should really mean we should use the same tactics in this country?

On a related tangent there's just been another story on the news where a girl is taking a public school (read private school in the US) to court as they banned her from wearing a silver bangle related to her Sikh religion. On this count I totally agree with the school - it's in their school rules and applies fairly to all applicants, whatever the religion - you may only wear a pair of stud ear-rings (to prevent holes from closing I guess) and watch (to get to lessons on time). Other than that nothing apart from the uniform, which is also strict.

It surely is a crazy mixed up world and we're all scared our own piece of culture and belief is beng erroded, whereas in reality globalisation means we really are turning into one big melting pot and we need to find a way to deal with it - only I fear human beings aren't really made for this kind of thing - we're attached to things we learn in our informative years and it takes a massive life-change to budge us from those beliefs - like war, near-death experiences and so on. The cycle of change could run naturally over multiple generations before mass-migration, so your sense of belonging and identity were never threatened to the extent they are these days unless you were pillaged or invaded. The pace of change we currently see has happened mostly in the space of one lifetime in the UK (not sure about other countries), and everyone has had to deal with it, from newcomers to existing peoples. But we really do need to deal with it - it ain't going away.

This is more a discussion over a beer type of conversation though - I'll bow out now to get some work done, and think of a lovely cold pint of Abbots...

kopperdrake
06-17-2008, 08:07 AM
That's so politically correct it reeks.

That's somewhat like a Muslim going into a butcher and interviewing for a job, "as long as he doesn't have to cut up pork."

It's like a Muslim going into a liquor store and asking for a job, "as long as he didn't have to sell alcohol."

It's like me going into a mosque and asking if I could work there, as long as I didn't have to pray or observe any rituals or follow any rules. I shouldn't even expect to get hired.

It's nothing like these at all! The applicant went to the salon to cut hair - she didn't have anything against cutting hair!

It would be like you going to a Halal butchers and being refused the job as you didn't eat Halal meat - if you really want an analogy that makes sense.

Oedo 808
06-17-2008, 08:30 AM
Agreed. It's true that there are those who are only too happy to cry "Discrimination!", but the idea that a groovy haircut is a necessity for a job as a stylist is ridiculous. In fact most of the stylists I've seen have a do that would put me off even if I had hair to be styled.

Steamthrower
06-17-2008, 08:31 AM
The barber specifically said she wanted her employees to showcase hair styles.

Oedo 808
06-17-2008, 08:45 AM
Ok, so I suppose that you could say there are enough stylists jobs out there to look for one where it isn't a requirement. But if hairstyling happened to be my area of expertise then I'm not sure I wouldn't have done the same as this woman.

If everyone decided they wanted sporting a funky hairdo as a requirement then I'd be out of a profession, I think that people might see the argument if the Association of Hairdressers (or whatever) made it a requirement that all employees must have hair and have it visible and styled.

Maybe you are of the opinion that it would be ok to do that, in which case we'll have to agree to disagree otherwise this could go around and around like a dog chasing it's tail. But if you think that would be unfair then I can't see why this case should be a exception just because there are other positions out there without that requirement.

prospector
06-17-2008, 12:25 PM
I think the point is, if I'm hiring for a position and because I am looking for a certain 'look' of the public perception for the company, I should be able to hire those that fit that 'look' given all else is equal.

I may want to hire all blonds, that don't weigh over 130, and wear the uniform of a red 'teddy' while working with LW, and that would be the 'look' I want for my company.
Why should a person that's fat, brown hair, and wants to wear sweat clothes, be 'entitled' to that position???
And why would they have the power to sue?

It's my company.
I can hire whoever I want.

PS..and what the **** would be wrong with asking one of them to get me coffee and doughnuts??????

parm
06-17-2008, 01:04 PM
The barber specifically said she wanted her employees to showcase hair styles.

Was that made clear in the advertised job requirement? Or was it a hurried excuse, tactlessly delivered; once the applicant was in the employers sight.

There's obviously a teeny bit more to this, than presented in the article.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-17-2008, 02:19 PM
Was that made clear in the advertised job requirement? Or was it a hurried excuse, tactlessly delivered; once the applicant was in the employers sight.

There's obviously a teeny bit more to this, than presented in the article.

It was a mistake to say anything beyond "Thank you for your time, we will contact you concerning the post after we finish interviewing all OTHER applicants".

If the prospective employee was rejected because of the color of her skin then the lawsuit would have some validity. But why should an employer not be able to enforce a dress code? Fast food chains and corporate offices across the world can fire you for not wearing proper uniform. How is this different? It is politically correct nonsense.

The Bush administration sacrificed freedoms to protect freedoms. Hell is paved with good intentions and as far as I am concerned this ruling is another burning brick.

Sometimes a dress code is not only what you wear but what you don't wear. But the UK courts have now set an inane precedent IMO. The next lawsuit might be a Muslim woman demanding damages from a skin magazine for not being included in the spread when she shows up at the shoot in a full-body burqha...

parm
06-17-2008, 03:12 PM
It was a mistake to say anything beyond "Thank you for your time, we will contact you concerning the post after we finish interviewing all OTHER applicants".

Yes it was.


But the UK courts have now set an inane precedent IMO.


With all due respect to you. You can hold whatever opinion you like. But. You were not at the hearing, and are not in possession of the full facts of the case. Your opinion is based merely on an article; which panders to a popular and paranoid misconception.

As a matter of fact. I can see very little difference. Between the tone of that article and the following statement:


The next lawsuit might be a Muslim woman demanding damages from a skin magazine for not being included in the spread when she shows up at the shoot in a full-body burqha...

Red_Oddity
06-17-2008, 03:20 PM
To quote Billy Connolly 'Poltical correctness is the language of cowards!'

And yes, it is getting way out of hand, we have our fair share of politcal correct drivel here in Holland aswell (hell, we've probably got the most limp wristed spineless sorry excuse for a human being as a prime minister, it's almost like i live in political correct ville.)

As for the EU, **** it, so far it has cost Joe average nothing but money, nobody wants the EU and the politicians know damn well we don't want it, hence we never get to decide over important matters through referenda as a people...It sometimes make me wonder who came up with the idea after WW2...

Andyjaggy
06-17-2008, 03:30 PM
Okay I'm suing the last person that didn't hire me. They hurt my feelings. They shouldn't be allowed to hire whoever they want and who they think fits with the company and position. Jeez what jerks.

JohnMarchant
06-17-2008, 03:32 PM
Red _oddity, actually the uk and france if i remember correctly, but then it was about coal and steel, but it stemmed from that. The EEC was a good idea, an economic community not a bloody federalist superstate.

There are 2 reasons the UK is wanted in Europe, our money and our military, if we lost one of those they couldnt give a damn. Europe would love to get control of ours and france's military to do with it what they want. Sure great they didnt pay for it but they get to play with it.

My wife is French and we had an apartment in Brussels when she worked for the EU for 4 years , some of the stories of waste and greed you hear about that goes on in the berleymont building would make you want to kill them all.

Its full of failed polititians in thier own country who are moved to Brussels, you only have to look at the twat running trade in Europe to get my meaning.

Sorry long rant guys but the EU is one thing that makes my blood boil, hell i would rather be a state of America than in the EU.

Regards, John

Steamthrower
06-17-2008, 03:32 PM
I'm suing the guy that sighed when I told him I didn't own Maya.

He's ignorant, biased, prejudiced against Lightwave, and a jerk in general.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-17-2008, 03:37 PM
Yes it was.



With all due respect to you. You can hold whatever opinion you like. But. You were not at the hearing, and are not in possession of the full facts of the case. Your opinion is based merely on an article; :


Hey Parm. Let's just assume my opinion is based soley on this isolated article.

The court came to the conclusion that "We were satisfied by the respondent's evidence that the claimant was not treated less favourably than the respondent would have treated a woman who, whether Muslim or not, for a reason other than religious belief wears a hair covering at all times when at work."

Yet the panel STILL awarded the Muslim woman damages? Why?

parm
06-17-2008, 03:46 PM
Yet the panel STILL awarded the Muslim woman damages? Why?

Well. I don't know.

But you, and apparently others, actually believe it was for 'hurt feelings'. Personally, all things considered and measured against personal experience. I think that highly unlikely.

The time honoured saying: 'Don't believe everything you read' is worth bearing in mind. At least read carefully.

Cageman
06-17-2008, 03:55 PM
Hehe... that was funny!

As someone else said, there seems to more to this than meets the eye... BUT, based on what I read in the article, I have to say that the sue is ridicilous. At tops, the owner should've got a warning and forced to give an excuse. I also get the feeling that, in the article, it seems that it's word against word: no telling who is lying. Or did the muslim woman record the interview?

Chris S. (Fez)
06-17-2008, 04:02 PM
Well. I don't know.

But you, and apparently others, actually believe it was for 'hurt feelings'. Personally, all things considered and measured against personal experience. I think that highly unlikely.

The time honoured saying: 'Don't believe everything you read' is worth bearing in mind. At least read carefully.


Ah. So we can amiably agree, at least based on the paltry evidence in the article, that the ruling IS ridiculous: "She was awarded 4,000 damages for "injury to feelings".

Again, I urge UK citizens to contact their representatives and discover for themselves the facts and reasoning behind the ruling. The BBC blurb clearly is lacking.

parm
06-17-2008, 04:14 PM
Hehe... ... BUT, based on what I read in the article, I have to say that the sue is ridicilous.

That's just the problem, isn't it? And shows the power of journalism. Most people think as you do. But even within this article was hint of something deeper, Which wasn't expanded upon:


An employment tribunal panel dismissed the 19-year-old's claim but upheld her complaint of indirect discrimination.

The salon owner was not acting entirely above board. The articles' author, chose to focus it on a deep seated and popular prejudice.

parm
06-17-2008, 04:22 PM
Ah. So we can amiably agree, at least based on the paltry evidence in the article, that the ruling IS ridiculous: "She was awarded 4,000 damages for "injury to feelings".

Uh no. I don't agree. The article also says:


An employment tribunal panel dismissed the 19-year-old's claim but upheld her complaint of indirect discrimination.

I can't see a reason personally to dispute the boards finding: That the salon owners behavior; was not Above board. That is for the salon owner to do. It remains to be seen, whether or not she does.

Cageman
06-17-2008, 04:39 PM
Well, even if she (the owner) said that she can't hire her because of the scarf, that isn't really an insult. Occasionally showcasing hairstyles with the own hair (while working) may very well be what the owner wanted and actually said she wanted.

If I was looking for a blonde girl, but a brunette showed up, I would certanly tell her that I'm currently looking for a blonde... I would never expect the brunette to run to court, but maybe that's what I SHOULD expect?

Chris S. (Fez)
06-17-2008, 04:50 PM
I can't see a reason personally to dispute the boards finding: That the salon owners behavior; was not Above board. That is for the salon owner to do. It remains to be seen, whether or not she does.

Why should you dispute the board's findings? Because IMO they are being evasive about the real reasons behind their ruling. Because in the text of their ruling they unambiguously dismiss charges of religious biase...before resorting to the abstract charge of "injury to feelings."

I am sorry, more evidence might justify the board's decision. But based on the facts before us, I think the ruling is ridiculous.

parm
06-17-2008, 05:02 PM
look, it gets even worse. Following one of the linked articles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7324813.stm):


But Ms Desrosiers, 32, said she explained to Ms Noah in March 2007 that she was unsuitable for the position as she lived too far away.

Well, the salon is in Kings Cross, the applicant lives in Acton. Only 16 stops on the Piccadilly Line, maximum 35 to 40 minutes. Ridiculous. I've traveled further than that in London for... just about everything.


But Ms Desrosiers added: "If her lifestyle is modest, why is she applying to a salon that I would say is immodest?

Really? Applying for a job as hairdresser. Who does she think she's kidding?


Earlier Ms Noah said wearing a headscarf was essential to her religion, and that she previously worked in a hairdressing salon for two years.

So she has experience in another establishment. That had no hangup about her appearance. And clearly had no reason to expect different from any other salon. Until the day of the interview, that is.

parm
06-17-2008, 05:07 PM
But based on the facts before us, I think the ruling is ridiculous.

There are very few facts before you. They were presented to the board. You said it yourself:


The BBC blurb clearly is lacking.

parm
06-17-2008, 05:13 PM
Why should you dispute the board's findings?

No reason. Except, a few posts ago. You did urge all UK citizens; "to contact their representatives and discover for themselves the facts and reasoning behind the ruling."

Did you forget?

Cageman
06-17-2008, 05:21 PM
Or,

The owner simply didn't like the girl and made poor excuses to why she didn't hire her. Why does rasism or hatred of religion always have to be the reason?

Skill is one thing, fitting into the social structure of the workplace is a totaly different thing (and has little to do with religion) I know plenty of people who had less skill than others but got the job simply because they were really nice and easy guys/girls. I couldn't care less wether or not they believe in god or satan.

Matt
06-17-2008, 05:34 PM
I was expecting the usual political correctness gone mad story when I clicked the link, but actually, I think this is a case where it's right.

Yes I can understand the salon owers point - if you're in the hair business, hiding your hair may give the wrong impression in a trendy salon, but this lady could be the best hairdresser in the world and wearing a headscarf or not in this case is irrelevant to the job.

The one story where I felt it _was_ justified and _not_ racism was the Muslim school teacher who moaned about not being able to wear full Muslim dress at a _non-Muslim_ school.

Not being able to see the teachers face was pretty ridiculous, and quite frankly would have opened her up to taunts from the kids.

Matt
06-17-2008, 05:36 PM
Didn't get away with it here either:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4005931.stm

Or here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7409072.stm

parm
06-17-2008, 05:36 PM
Or,

The owner simply didn't like the girl and made poor excuses to why she didn't hire her. Why does rasism or hatred of religion always have to be the reason?

Quite. But it does seem that the owner didn't like the girl, before she'd even clapped eyes on her. (The poor excuse over the phone about distance). Which begs the question: Why?. Was it the sound of her name?

But you're right. And the tribunal did the best they could, in the circumstances. And granted that she was not given the job, for unfair reasons.

Matt
06-17-2008, 05:44 PM
This WAS ridiculous, especially when you hear her statement on the whole affair, she clearly comes across as a lovely, genuine person, yet there were calls to lock her up, death threats and all sorts, it was the Muslim faith showing once again it has no tolerance when it feels it's under attack, which in this case it so obviously was not.

But if I'm totally honest, I'm getting sick to the back teeth of hearing about Muslims and the Islamic faith, I just couldn't care less about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7126316.stm

Chris S. (Fez)
06-17-2008, 05:46 PM
No reason. Except, a few posts ago. You did urge all UK citizens; "to contact their representatives and discover for themselves the facts and reasoning behind the ruling."

Did you forget?

Ha. A rather shameful attempt at a strawman. I was merely repeating your question for emphasis before responding to your post.

As for your other post "There are very few facts before you": Exactly! I urged people in my FIRST POST on the subject to contact a representative. The facts don't add up and you, as a concerned UK citizen, should hopefully feel compelled to find out why.

That another establishment was content to hire her is immaterial IMO. As long as this employer was not discriminating based on race/religion, which the court clearly ruled, then why shouldn't she be able to decide that a woman wearing a garment that evokes "modesty" is not suitable for the atmosphere of HER immodest establishment?

If a potential employee showed up to an interview wearing a dead skunk for religious reasons and I don't hire him because I feel it will adversely affect the atmosphere of my business, why then should I expect to pay damages for his "injured feelings"? Why is he entitled to a purely prospective position? Like my previous Burqha example, my aim in citing such a ridiculous scenario is to expose how ridiculous the ruling is (AGAIN, judging from the few facts before us).

Cageman
06-17-2008, 05:49 PM
Yes I can understand the salon owers point - if you're in the hair business, hiding your hair may give the wrong impression in a trendy salon, but this lady could be the best hairdresser in the world and wearing a headscarf or not in this case is irrelevant to the job.

Sure!

But during the interview you may notice certain things with the person that you really don't like... instead of telling the truth (which you believe would cause the person to feel bad) you try to find a "nice" way of telling the person that he/she won't get hired, but sometimes you are actually making the person feel even worse, and that person may jump to conclusions you never would have thought of...

I'm not saying you are wrong, but do we REALLY know that the owner is a racist?

I read the article you linked to... the simple solution to that problem is: Ban ALL religions, or allow them ALL. It's binary; 0 or 1, nothing else.

Matt
06-17-2008, 06:07 PM
But didn't he say she didn't get the job because of her headscarf and not because she came across badly in the interview?

If he didn't give her the job because he didn't like her attitude then he's well within his rights, but if that's the case, you don't give the excuse "because you wear a headscarf", that's just asking for it in this day and age.

Wind back 20 years this wouldn't even be news, I agree with what you're getting at though, the world seems too easily offended these days, everyone's out to sue everyone for the most minor things, health and safety / political correctness and all that do-gooder mentality is having an adverse affect IMO.

Classic example - not been able to clip your child around the ear for fear of having them taking away by social services! And they wonder why kids these days have no respect for authority and go around stabbing each other.

Back in my day you were scared of your parents, teachers and the Police, it didn't do me any harm, and it taught me respect.

But I'm getting off topic here! (And I could rant forever about how our country (UK) is quite frankly going down the pan!)

:D

kopperdrake
06-17-2008, 06:55 PM
But I'm getting off topic here! (And I could rant forever about how our country (UK) is quite frankly going down the pan!)

:D

We definitely need a beer night to rant about this...I've had umpteen conversations with various strangers who share this view...it's good to rant :thumbsup:

parm
06-18-2008, 12:52 AM
Ha. A rather shameful attempt at a strawman.



If a potential employee showed up to an interview wearing a dead skunk for religious reasons and I don't hire him because I feel it will adversely affect the atmosphere of my business....

LOL.

Yes, of course. I completely see it now. :D

coremi
06-18-2008, 01:33 AM
I think that lady paid 4000 pounds for her own stupidity. You never let go or kick out someone for this reasons, and second, you don't have to explain youreself at all for why someone didn't pass the interview. It can be for personal reasons. Ex: I don't want to work with muslims so i'll never hire muslims, i don't have to explain myself to anybody. If it is a state service that's completly different, but if it is private, and i don't like your car color i will not hire you, case closed.
But if you are stupid enough to tell the person that it is not hired because her nose it's not straight, the eyes are too blue, her religion is not good, than you have to pay for the insult.

coremi
06-18-2008, 01:42 AM
About minorities, i thing we have a huge problem accepting everyone ideea's. This is not freedom. The only freedom you can find is by obeying to the general rules and laws. For there are no minorities in face of the law, they have the right to exercizes only as cultures, keep their language, tradition religion etc... but i consider it is not fair to allow them to behave different and break the law or break the common sense with their religion or tradition, it is unacceptable.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-18-2008, 03:04 AM
Good morning Parm.

You seem to reflexively support the ruling even while admitting that the facts of the case are fuzzy ("There are very few facts...") and the ruling baffling ("Well. I don't know."). Why?


The panel ruled in no uncertain terms that the employer was NOT biased against any religion but against an article of clothing a potential employee would have perpetually worn in her place of business...IF she had hired her. The woman was not FIRED she was NOT HIRED.

Why is this woman entitled? Why should an employer not have the freedom to "NOT HIRE" someone who's dress is arguably not appropriate for their place of business?

If the facts of the case are accurate, fuzzy though they are, I feel the UK is sacrificing freedom for political correctedness. Again, that to me is just as worrisome as the U.S. sacrificing freedom for safety.

Respect your fellow man but stand up for your freedoms! A UK court that caves to political correctness and awards damages for "injured feelings" might just as easily imprison a blogger for 2 YEARS for posting unpopular/politically-incorrect opinions: http://europenews.dk/en/node/10851

colkai
06-18-2008, 03:31 AM
As an employer, I would choose to employ who I wanted, full stop.
If that meant excluding anyone on purely personal reasons, tough, I pay the wage, it's my business, i do not have to answer to anyone why I shouldn't employ them.
Simply having done something in the past doesn't mean an automatic right to do something now. What's that - a "free pass" to any job because otherwise they run screaming discrimination. Say she got the job, what next, sue for more pay because she feels her feelings are hurt at work as people are not treating her "correctly" because of her religion? Where does it end?

When all is said and done, how many here have been refused a job where you felt not just suitable, but likely the best candidate there? Anyone who has come away from said interviews will have a sense of injustice and hurt feelings.

To pay out for discrimination is one thing, but "hurt feelings", as stated by the board as the reason, well that opens up a huge can of worms.

Seriously, as a guy approaching 50, I could go for a job, not get it, state my feelings were hurt and I was so obviously discriminated against due to my age that I should seek recompense.

Truth is, PC is insane now, kinda like the woman in the shipyard who had a normal job who demanded the same danger money as the guy up the scaffold welding ships.

It is totally out of hand, the lot of it, what next, claiming against the cafe you work at as a chef because you cut yourself and they failed to inform you working with knives may be dangerous and provide "adequate protection"?

Frankly, I'm also fed up to the back teeth of everyone whining about their religion, there is far more discrimination on a daily basis against disabled people but hey, doesn't grab the media does it?
Lack of access, lack of facilities, lack of help, all happen daily but you betcha, one incident where some whiner goes on about it being about religion and BOOM - it's a big deal, I swear, it drives me nuts!

kyuzo
06-18-2008, 03:41 AM
As someone earlier mentioned, I think this is a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
The excessive politically correctness we have had forced on us means that we can no longer give an honest answer to someone we don't want to hire. So we can either say nothing at all, or give some general, feeble lie otherwise we get sued. That's hardly progressive morality is it?
And perhaps the reason the salon didn't offer the job to this person is not a clear cut issue, but hey it's her salon. She can hire who ever she wants.

And I remember, going back not too many years, being a 'discriminating person' was a GOOD THING. I hate how words and meanings get twisted and abused...

rakker16mm
06-18-2008, 03:43 AM
If a potential employee showed up to an interview wearing a dead skunk for religious reasons and I don't hire him because I feel it will adversely affect the atmosphere of my business, why then should I expect to pay damages for his "injured feelings"? Why is he entitled to a purely prospective position? Like my previous Burqha example, my aim in citing such a ridiculous scenario is to expose how ridiculous the ruling is (AGAIN, judging from the few facts before us).

When people start wearing dead skunks on their for religious reasons this argument will have some merit. Until then I have to agree with you that this is a ridiculous scenario. Of course I also agree that the ruling seems ridiculous .

parm
06-18-2008, 04:08 AM
Good morning Chris!

I don't claim that the ruling was either correct or incorrect.

I do however challenge your assumptions on the case. I think you've too quickly, jumped to conclusions; That support your pov on an issue that you feel strongly about.

The reason I assert this is that: out of the few available facts, you've ignored the ones that don't support your picture. And you repeatedly misrepresent the outcome of the inquiry.

First: The owner had initially rejected the applicant, before even meeting her, (over the phone). For a stated reason that I know, from personal experience is invalid.

Secondly: The owner was found to have, indirectly discriminated against the applicant. They accepted that it was not overt discrimination. But because, covering of the head is a religious requirement for the applicant. Discrimination was there, all be it, indirect.

Nothing I read in the article raises any red flags for me.


Why should an employer not have the freedom to "NOT HIRE" someone who's dress is arguably not appropriate for their place of business?

They do.

But it has to be on arguable grounds. ie. The mode of dress, should not compromise the employees ability to carry out their duties. Or contravene basic health, safety or hygene requirements. The reasons have to be fair. Presumably, the Salon owner could not prove that; hiring a person who wore a head scarf would damage their business. Who knows. Could even have improved her business by attracting a broader clientele.

-EsHrA-
06-18-2008, 04:16 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kSa2j6UoU78

mlon

Chris S. (Fez)
06-18-2008, 06:16 AM
The reason I assert this is that: out of the few available facts, you've ignored the ones that don't support your picture. And you repeatedly misrepresent the outcome of the inquiry.

First: The owner had initially rejected the applicant, before even meeting her, (over the phone). For a stated reason that I know, from personal experience is invalid.

Secondly: The owner was found to have, indirectly discriminated against the applicant. They accepted that it was not overt discrimination. But because, covering of the head is a religious requirement for the applicant. Discrimination was there, all be it, indirect.



Hey Parm.

It was certainly not my intention to misrepresent the outcome of the inquiry. I am merely quoting text from the article and the ruling, which I think we can both agree is wanting in terms of clarity and decisiveness. In the words of Doctor Who, it is way too "Wibbly-Wobbly" for my taste. Which is why I called for UK citizens to research the case.

Concerning the phone call: IMO that is immaterial given the court's conclusion that there was no biase. Maybe the woman hates Muslims. Who knows for sure? The point is that the court cleared her.

Accordingly, it is madness to me that the court ruled there was absolutely no religious bias on the part of the employer and yet still demanded she pay damages. It seems to me she is paying because the veil is a religious article and thus it is politically incorrect for an employer to insist an employee not wear one at work.

In a geninely free secular society a religious article should never receive special legal status. It should be considered the same as any other garment. In awarding damages for "indirect discrimination" the court is, indeed, indirectly awarding the veil and Muslims special status.

Having said that, if a veiled Muslim woman is a talented, personable hairdresser one would hope an employer would be kind enough to hire her and allow for her veil. But IMO it is madness for a private employer to be held legally and financially liable for NOT accomodating a Muslim.

Anyways, I hope the full facts of the case come to light.

Matt
06-18-2008, 06:57 AM
Why should an employer not have the freedom to "NOT HIRE" someone who's dress is arguably not appropriate for their place of business?

Actually, when you put it that way it makes more of a valid argument, if you turned up for a business interview in old jeans and t-shirt you probably wouldn't get the job either, but you don't see that happening because people know to dress appropriately for the job they are going for.

Using religion as an excuse to dress however you want is a grey area, but you should be aware of the risks you take when you do, and not expect special treatment.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-18-2008, 07:07 AM
Using religion as an excuse to dress however you want is a grey area, but you should be aware of the risks you take when you do, and not expect special treatment.

Yes! You managed to condense into one sentence what I couldn't clarify in who-knows-how-many monstrous posts.

Elmar Moelzer
06-18-2008, 07:26 AM
This is a grey area and it is a problem.
Personally I think it is every employers right to dismiss a candidate for whatever reasons ( even if this might be a disadvantage to me or people I like).
It is just the way it is.
Just a few examples that I see as being a problem but in the end up to the employer:
I know there are a lot of people in our industry that like body art (there is lots of discussions about this on CGtalk too, e.g.).
Now, if they are fired from a job (or do not get it in the first place) for wearing their tattoos or piercings visibly, is that fair?
Personally I do not think that this is fair, but I do think that it is up to the employer to make that decision, as it is up to the employee to whether they want to represent their culture (and body art, e.g. is at least a sub-culture).
Some might say that this is not related to religion, but I want to counter this as religions are nothing but personal believes in something abstract and various habbits that go with that.
My ex was a hair- dresser btw and she was not allowed to wear her very long and quite nice hair open at work (as this was not considered a "hairstyle" by the employer). She also had two visible facial piercings, which she was in the end fired for, btw. Now I do not think that this was fair, but I do still believe that it is up to the employer to make this decision (the hair saloon she worked at was targeted at the upper class, etc).
In case anyone cares, she later found a much better job elsewhere, where her appearance was not considered a problem.

If you work at a bank, you have to (most likely) wear a suit. If you work as a policeman you have to wear a uniform and if you work at a hair- saloon, you most likely will have to represent the image of the hair- saloon somehow as well.
I think a decision like this opens a whole can of worms. Say a film- studio has a position for an actress. The producer favors a brunette for the role and a blonde applies. Does the blonde have the right to sue because she feels discriminated? What if an african american woman applies for the same role and she is dismissed because her skin- color does not fit the role? Where do we draw the line?
Again, I am not saying it is fair, but I do understand that these things do happen and I do understand why and I therefore do not think that this verdict was fair.
CU
Elmar

prospector
06-18-2008, 07:58 AM
claiming against the cafe you work at as a chef because you cut yourself and they failed to inform you working with knives may be dangerous and provide "adequate protection"?
That's why we have 'DO NOT USE TOASTER IN SHOWER' lables
Everyone has to be warned
So yea, if I cut myself with a knife, and there was no lable telling me I could cut myself with that knife, I would go after the salesperson, the store, the shipper, the mfg, the designer, the smelting plant, and the mining company.
SOMEONE will pay for my stupidity :D:D:D:devil:

PS...And I would also sue store or resturaunt for not supplying me with safty chainmail gloves so that I could NOT cut myself.
And mental anguish for forever being afraid of even LOOKING at a knife for the rest of my life......

colkai
06-18-2008, 08:10 AM
That's why we have 'DO NOT USE TOASTER IN SHOWER' lables
Everyone has to be warned

Heh,
Like the packet of nuts I got from Holland and Barrett which said, yup, you've guessed it...

"may contain peanuts"

I frickin' hope it did too otherwise I'd of paid for an empty packet.

Oh, it also had the inevitable "packed in an area where nuts are processed" Arggghhh :cursin:

Elmar Moelzer
06-18-2008, 08:32 AM
Hehehe, I liked the case where a guy sued a manufacturer of a trailer. He left the stearing wheel and went back to make himself something to eat... Well, I do not have to say what happened. He won the case, btw, because the manufacturer did not put a warning up that said "do not abandon stearing wheel while driving" or something like that...
Never understood that case...
Cu
Elmar

JohnMarchant
06-18-2008, 08:32 AM
Hey guys this thread still going. Well an employer should be able to hire someone based on whatever criteria they like. There are people in the world that a racist or sexist, there always will be. I bet in the US there are people who will not vote for Barak Obama purely on racial grounds, it happens, now unless they actually come out and say thats the reason there is not alot you can do about it.

In the UK, religion, especially muslim and minorities in general are a bit of a hot potato and many MP's do not want to get involved in this area because if you so much as mention it you are tarred a racist, if you dont agree with them your a racist, its a no win situation, thats why we cant even have a sensible debate about it.

My personal opinion is i would treat them the same was as i would be treated if i went to a muslim country, if muslims in the UK are not happy then go back home or emigrate the same for anyone else from whatever faith.

We have this multi culturalism thing going on here, where all the powers that be tell us how its good for the UK, well that theory got blown along time ago, studies were done by oxford uni and found that with world wide travel now and that we are all closer together it makes no difference to the UK or any other country whether it is multi cultural and indeed in some aspects may be a bad thing.

I remember in the late 60's and early 70,s, in a place called Southall in London, pakistani's started moving in slowly at first then as the whites started moving out more and more moved in, the value of the houses went down, now you look at the area, its a tip compared to how it used to be. Having said that another thing you noticed as well was very few hijab's, burka's and not to many headscarfs. This rise covering up has only come about in the last 10 to 15 years and the more it is on the rise the more alientated we will be from each other.

Regards, John

prospector
06-18-2008, 08:54 AM
"do not abandon stearing wheel while driving"

Sometimes ya just wonder how some DNA got passed on :D:D:D

Lightwolf
06-18-2008, 09:08 AM
Red _oddity, actually the uk and france if i remember correctly, but then it was about coal and steel, but it stemmed from that. The EEC was a good idea, an economic community not a bloody federalist superstate.
Serves me right for coming late to the thread, now I need to start in the middle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community
No UK there, mainly France and Germany actually.
As for the EC, the UK joined in 1973.


There are 2 reasons the UK is wanted in Europe, our money and our military, if we lost one of those they couldnt give a damn.
Not quite. The UK got a massive discount in membership fees when joining and is the only member country to still have that discount. In fact, the UK threatened to leave the EU when asked to actually pay the proper amount (one or two years ago).

The military really doesn't play much of a role in the EU anyhow...

Cheers,
Mike

JohnMarchant
06-18-2008, 09:51 AM
Well lightwolf allow me to respond. The original concept for the coal and steel was a joint uk,france and german idea, it was neccesity at the time. I know when we joined, its the only time a french president was doing us a favour if we had only realised it, by opposing our membership originally, that was DeGaulle.

I agree we did get a discount and still do because if we did not we would be paying more per head than just about anyone else in europe. We get next to nothing from the common agricultural policy which consumes nearly 50 per cent of the EU budget, and we still cant for the 13th year get the accountants to sign off on the EU budget accounts, the average minister in europe gets paid more than the leader of their respective country.

People ask why places like spain are always pro europe, well look at the facts, spain has nearly been rebuilt at EU expense, they lobby very effectivly at the EU parliment unlike the UK which does not. In the 80's and 90's if you travelled around spain, every new road, building etc was part financed by the EU. In the UK i can never recal having ever seen a road (but i could be wrong) being finaced by the EU.

How can you say the military has nothing to do with it. Nicolas Sarcozy only a couple of days ago stated that they wanted a european army, he wants France to rejoin as a full member of NATO. I spent 25 years in the military, you could not get more than 3 european countries to agree on any policy, look at the joint agreements we had in the past. NFR 90 (Nato Frigate), Horizon Destroyer, all dead and countless others.

If urope wants to be able to be a world player it has to have global power projection, you have to be able to back up rhetoric, a thing europe is good at, with action or the threat of action if needbe. Whos going to do that, Germany,Spain,Italy,Greece,Ireland,Poland, somehow i dont think so. The best form of world wide power projection is an aircraft carrier parked at the 12 mile limit to you country, backed up by unseen underwater forces capable of striking at multiple targets at once. There are only 2 countries in europe, dispite the efforts of our labour party that could do that, France and the UK, and oh how the EU wish it could control that little package.

The EU is a toothless talking shop, like henry kissenger said, if i want to talk to europe who do i talk to.

Also my wife who is French and i lived in Brussels for 4 years, she work for the EU in the berlaymont building, she stories that she used to come out with of the waste and corruption makes your eyes water.

Regards, John

JohnMarchant
06-18-2008, 09:56 AM
Yes im so anti EU its untrue, but then again so are alot of other people in Europe if only they were ever given a voice. Europe does and never will understand NO, but the more they do this the more dissafected countries will be with the whole idea. Its needs massive reform or its dead, personally i prefer the latter

:):):)

Lightwolf
06-18-2008, 10:15 AM
Well lightwolf allow me to respond. The original concept for the coal and steel was a joint uk,france and german idea, it was neccesity at the time.
Funny, when we covered the subject of the founding, the UK was never mentioned (and this is in an english history class by the way, GCE ;) ).
This is actually the first time I hear about the UK being involved in the concept, especially since they never joined. Do you have any sources, I'M intrigued now...


I agree we did get a discount and still do because if we did not we would be paying more per head than just about anyone else in europe.
Well, then don't complain about no being well off ;)
If you look at the balances though the UK looses less than 0.5 % of it's annual budget to the EU, so that really isn't anything to complain about.


People ask why places like spain are always pro europe, well look at the facts, spain has nearly been rebuilt at EU expense, they lobby very effectivly at the EU parliment unlike the UK which does not. In the 80's and 90's if you travelled around spain, every new road, building etc was part financed by the EU. In the UK i can never recal having ever seen a road (but i could be wrong) being finaced by the EU.
And looking around here in London I agree that the place needs to be renovated. Sheesh, the state of the sidewalks or buildings, never mind the amount of litter on the streets here ;)
Seriously though, the point is that EU member states invest in each other depending on the needs. Germany used to pay loads of money and has only in the past decade got a bit back to cover for the re-unification costs. Ireland is paying now as is Spain.


How can you say the military has nothing to do with it.

Historically? Very, very little if anything at all. This changed in 1999 though.


Nicolas Sarcozy only a couple of days ago stated that they wanted a european army, he wants France to rejoin as a full member of NATO. I spent 25 years in the military, you could not get more than 3 european countries to agree on any policy, look at the joint agreements we had in the past. NFR 90 (Nato Frigate), Horizon Destroyer, all dead and countless others.

What does the NATO have to do with the EU?


There are only 2 countries in europe, dispite the efforts of our labour party that could do that, France and the UK, and oh how the EU wish it could control that little package.

Ah, i see what you're getting at. We have completely different viewpoints. For me the EU is the guarantee for peace in the region. And looking back we've had the longest amount of time of peace in Europe for a long time (exclusing the Balcan War here) mainly due to the EU.


Also my wife who is French and i lived in Brussels for 4 years, she work for the EU in the berlaymont building, she stories that she used to come out with of the waste and corruption makes your eyes water.

The EU doesn't have enough of a budget to waste and corrupt to make my eyes water... national governments and multi-nationals however do ;)

Cheers,
Mike

KillMe
06-18-2008, 10:39 AM
to be hoens ti think it a bit rediculas - as the employer stated part of the job is showcasing alternative hairstyles - so yeah someone who covers up there hair of course will be discriminated against

like a fat ugly short woman applying for a job as a model and then caliming discrimination because she didn't get the job

the world is all screwed up and its becuase people all think they should get what they want - the world doesn't work that way - you dont always get the jobs you want even when you meet the requirements of the position - what makes people think that jsut becasue they happen to be an ethnic minority means they should get the jobs they apply for even when they dont meet the requirements?

JohnMarchant
06-18-2008, 11:22 AM
Well lightwolf , i think we will agree to disagree. I dont care how much money it wastes, its the principle not the amount that matters. What is genocide 1 person, 100 people a thousand, maybe a million it all semantics. We elect our leaders and yes most of them are worse but thats our fault we elected them, we did not elect those in Europe.

The fundamental thing in the UK is we have an inherant distrust of the EU and to be honest our distrust is in large part been justified, look at greece, fiddling the books to get into the Euro. There are countless examples of this, mostly from my wife who saw it first hand. I know we have it with our own national governments but thats up to each country to sort out nationally

NATO has alot to do with europe do you honestly believe that the EU has maintained the peace in Europe for 60 years, yeah sure :):). It has alot to do with it because Europe would like to have and has attempted to have its own version for years, its never worked yet and probably never will.

Regards, John

JohnMarchant
06-18-2008, 01:46 PM
Oh as a side note, completely off topic, the Czech republic has binned the lisbon treaty. Well done Czech republic, maybe denmark next. When will the EU admit its over and dump it. :):)

Oh happy days :):)

prospector
06-18-2008, 02:16 PM
When will the EU admit its over and dump it.
I say the same about the UN :)

JohnMarchant
06-18-2008, 02:33 PM
Yeah prospector your probably right they should all give up with their control freakery. I bet Mugabe is looking ate the EU and wondering who they are to lecture me on voting :):), and for once only i would agree with him :):)

Chris S. (Fez)
06-18-2008, 04:18 PM
Update to the story. The Daily Mail interviewed the Employer: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/textbased/femail/article-1027300/How-I-nearly-lost-business-refusing-hire-Muslim-hair-stylist-wouldnt-hair.html

This interview clinches it for me. This is the most ridiculous ruling in recent history (in western courts at least. A Pakistani court just handed out a death sentence for "blasphemy": http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXrOa0RyBCJ10tIeHB-F6LKwa1jwD91CDUK80 )


Some pertinent cut-n-pastes:

'She is simply someone I met for a job interview, who, for a host of reasons, was not right for the job. I cannot see how she deserves 4,000.

'As for the notion that I've injured her feelings - well, people's feelings get injured every day. I dread to think the sorts of things that people will try to claim injured feelings for now that this precedent has been set.'

-----
At the tribunal, Bushra was asked if Sarah had made derogatory remarks about her headscarf.


She replied: 'She did not. She just asked me if I wore it all the time, or whether I'd take it off.'
-----
'Her CV didn't stand out because I was looking for someone who lived locally - something I'd specified in the advert so that I could call them in as and when required - and she lived several miles away in Acton,' says Sarah.


'One day she rang up to see if I'd got her CV and begged me for an interview. I told her I had concerns about where she lived, but she sounded so desperate that I agreed she could come in for a chat.'


A few days later, Bushra duly arrived at the salon.


'I have to say I didn't take to her,' says Sarah. 'She waltzed into the salon and hung up her coat as though she already had the job.


'Naturally, I noticed her headscarf. But I presumed that, as she's a hairdresser, she'd take if off when she was working. In 16 years, I've never known any stylist cover their hair with a headscarf. And this particular headscarf came all the way down to her eyebrows and covered her entire hairline.'


Sarah broached the subject with Bushra, who said she would not be removing the garment.


After ten minutes, with the interview complete, Sarah said she would come back to Bushra about the vacancy.


'As she left, Bushra turned to me and said that she'd been turned down for jobs before,' says Sarah. 'And I admit I thought: "Well, what do you expect?"


'It was not a religious matter. If she'd come in wearing a baseball cap and saying she wouldn't take it off for work, then she wouldn't have got the job either.'
-----
'I was virtually being accused of racism, which is ridiculous. I've cut the hair of people from all walks of life, including transsexuals, and you can hardly run an alternative salon if you are prejudiced.'

Medi8or
06-18-2008, 06:19 PM
She hung up her coat before the interview? :eek: Oh, the nerve of the woman..

But seriously, get over it. There are laws against discrimination, and there are laws against indirect discrimination. The employer had to pay for indirect discrimination by having a rule that disadvantages people of certain religious beliefs.
Complaining when laws are followed is somewhat useless. If you don't like the laws, work to have them changed.

prospector
06-18-2008, 07:09 PM
The employer had to pay for indirect discrimination by having a rule that disadvantages people of certain religious beliefs.

Well, that's just silly.

Even tho I worship the devil, the Vatican HAS to hire me to give sermons, and can't discriminate because of some stupid judges ruling?

If that were true then I know where there is LOTS of gold could be mine in a lawsuit.....

Chris S. (Fez)
06-18-2008, 07:15 PM
Complaining when laws are followed is somewhat useless. If you don't like the laws, work to have them changed.


Why do you think I posted this nonsense in the first place? To alert enlightened folks how ridiculous and dangerous it is to award special status to an article of clothing just because it has religious significance.

As for the woman's "nerve". I think her sense of entitlement shows she has "nerve" to spare.

Why did she sue this salon and not the 25(!) others that rejected her? Could it be because this particular employer felt it was completely appropriate to inquire how a potential employee would dress while working in HER place of business?

Chris S. (Fez)
06-18-2008, 07:23 PM
Even tho I worship the devil, the Vatican HAS to hire me to give sermons, and can't discriminate because of some stupid judges ruling?
.....

What's this worshipping stuff? I know for a fact that many of the lefty Lightwavers consider you Satan himself :D.

prospector
06-18-2008, 07:24 PM
I know for a fact that many of the lefty Lightwavers consider you Satan himself

WOO HOO !!!:D

All the more reason the Vatican has to give me a job.

CMT
06-18-2008, 08:16 PM
Just caught wind of this thread...

There's tons of companies which require a dress code. Why is this one different? At my old job, if I walked in to work with shorts on, that's strike one. Some baseball teams have a no facial hair rule, other employers require uniforms you must wear. This is going on everywhere.

The owner requires the stylist to display the hairstyles they do. It's a matter of marketing. Is the owner supposed to hire her anyway knowing that she's might be taking a loss due to lesser marketing?

If you're not right for the job, then you're not right for it.

Oedo 808
06-18-2008, 08:48 PM
Regarding the extraneous facts about the case, I expected to find that my sympathies would be with the salon owner after reading that interview, even though not so far as to have changed my opinion on the ruling. As it happens she doesn't have my sympathies at all. The pure simple fact is that you can't ban someone from working in a salon because they wear a turban, hijab or have no hair.

When you are out and about have a look into the local salons and see the tragic disasters that adorn the stylists working there. Take for example:

'Even back then, I realised how important your own hair is to the job,' says Sarah. 'I went into hairdressing a rather plain brunette, but within a few weeks I had a bright red crop.
Are you going to tell me that the majority of people who attend a salon want something akin to a bright red crop? And what if she had desired to keep her hair the way she had worn it when she first got the job, just a "rather plain brunette"? Grounds for dismissal?

Of course in a discussion like this there are bound to be plenty of "Oh but then this, and oh but then that!" examples given, but could she prove that employing someone with a headscarf would have had a negative impact on the business's stylistic integrity? Not according to the panel, a decision you already know I agree with. Oh and obviously it was ok to employ a rather plain brunette when she started out or, well, she wouldn't have started out. I'd like to have seen the reaction to a thread titled "Girl refused salon job for not wearing a bright red crop."

Of course I can understand the desire of the employer to have her employees all looking in superb form, I'm sure that is the desire of 99% of employers who employ staff that are not just involved in style and fashion, but of any that employ those who work in the public eye, but where does it stop? To a stylist what other attributes are detrimental to 'stylistic integrity'? Too fat? Too thin? Too pale? Too dark? Too black? For a certain style that could be argued.

Someone, not white and not from the West recently pointed out that I seemed to be carrying a lot of racial baggage, and it's true that I am carrying a lot of issues for many of the reasons already mentioned by others, but I think that this case is being used to vent frustrations without really holding any merit.

We cannot possibly legislate for every single occurrence and possible occurrence of discrimination in the workplace, and at times you are going to get someone who is probably in the minds of most people too fat for a given job, to the point that it could be said and argued well that they really would be detrimental to a business's stylistic integrity, but when this happens I think it should be a case in which you say "Thank you, we'll be in touch." Not "Sorry, but you're too fat." In that case you deserve to get slapped into middle of next week by a tribunal.

The fact that the panel agreed that it was not the salon owners intent to discriminate on racial grounds does not mean that religion did not come into it. My point of view is based around the requirement set out by certain beliefs, and not that she just liked to wear a headscarf, and I believe this was factored into the panel's judgement. I know that it can be tough for an employer who wants to employ a Sikh, but also is required by law to issue and ensure the use of protective headgear, a situation where they'll be damned if they do and damned if they don't, but that's not what is happening here. In general I am happy to see exceptions in dress code made for those who require it because of their faith, I don't really hold with an "I have to so why shouldn't they"?" philosophy.

Speedmonk42
06-18-2008, 10:15 PM
She hung up her coat before the interview? :eek: Oh, the nerve of the woman..

But seriously, get over it. There are laws against discrimination, and there are laws against indirect discrimination. The employer had to pay for indirect discrimination by having a rule that disadvantages people of certain religious beliefs.
Complaining when laws are followed is somewhat useless. If you don't like the laws, work to have them changed.


Considering Hooters won the lawsuit that allows them to hire women only with big boobs....

I can't really see a case here.

parm
06-18-2008, 11:37 PM
Update to the story. The Daily Mail interviewed the Employer:

Groan! Grist for the daily mail mill.

This is becoming really silly, (but in a funny way). Even you, surely have to admit; That making sweeping conclusions, after hearing only one side of an argument. Just doesn't make sense at all.

Honestly. Good luck with your campaign against 'political correctness gone mad'. I'm right with you on that. I really am.

This case however. Is definitely not an example of that. I think that you're crying wolf, somewhat on this.

It was a straightforward dispute between two parties. That went to arbitration. And was settled within a legitimate legal framework.

The fact that the salon owner is now crying foul, to every media organ that will listen. Just shows poor form. She came out of it rather well in my view. And could learn some valuable lessons. About how to interview properly for one thing, and perhaps make some positive changes in her business practice.

It's true that many organizations have dress codes. And most seem perfectly capable of accommodating some very minor adaptations.

The Muslim cashier girls at my local bank; In their company designed head coverings. Look just as smart as their non-Muslim colleagues, treat me with just as much courtesy and presumably do their jobs just a well.

Sikh police officers in the UK can wear a specially designed turban. In my view looks a lot better than traditional police helmet.

I'm sure many hairdressers are allowed to control their own long hair, using a head covering of some description. Perhaps a head scarf printed with the companies' logo or brand colours. Or perhaps she'd even expect applicants who have beautiful long hair. To be prepared to accept a spiky trendy cut, dyed red, in keeping with the salons image.

parm
06-18-2008, 11:43 PM
Well, that's just silly.

Even tho I worship the devil, the Vatican HAS to hire me to give sermons, and can't discriminate because of some stupid judges ruling?

Very funny.

You do know that's an illogical comparison don't you?

The girl was an experienced hairdresser. Applying for a job. As....A hairdresser

coremi
06-18-2008, 11:51 PM
Hehehe, I liked the case where a guy sued a manufacturer of a trailer. He left the stearing wheel and went back to make himself something to eat... Well, I do not have to say what happened. He won the case, btw, because the manufacturer did not put a warning up that said "do not abandon stearing wheel while driving" or something like that...
Never understood that case...
Cu
Elmar

as i remeber, the cruise control was advertise as similar to self driving, and the street made a curve :)

*Pete*
06-19-2008, 01:25 AM
complicated matter.

for one, wearing a headscarf should not quarantee you either a job or a reward for wearing it if you, by any reason wont get the job...it would become a sort of opposite discrimination.

Other thing is, in some muslim nations such as for example you are not allowed to wear a headscarf at schools, universities, legal institutions, goverment offices and so on...in Turkey, a muslim nation, its not allowed.

there are many shades of gray to this, but what to learn from it is to never ask about headscarf, language problems, possible pregnancy, sexual preferences and so on..just assume it secretly and base your decision on that when employing someone.

discrimination is bad, and has to be punished..however, this case seems to be more lack of chemistry between the employer and this woman than of the headscarf.

Oedo 808
06-19-2008, 01:39 AM
Other thing is, in some muslim nations such as for example you are not allowed to wear a headscarf at schools, universities, legal institutions, goverment offices and so on...in Turkey, a muslim nation, its not allowed.

That law is under threat:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7441227.stm

colkai
06-19-2008, 01:44 AM
discrimination is bad, and has to be punished..however, this case seems to be more lack of chemistry between the employer and this woman than of the headscarf.

Just so, just so.
It isn't that she hung her coat up, it's the way she did it for example.
We have all met people that show disdain, arrogance and self-righteousness within seconds by their actions and body language. There is a reason we hate some folks on first sight after all, (some folks it takes a little longer to hate ;) ).

So we know she had already been informed that she didn't really fit the bill, but pushed anyway, so she, if anything, should of been expecting not to get the job. Who knows, maybe she did and that was the reason in the first place? :devil:

toonafish
06-19-2008, 01:59 AM
don't believe everything you read.

This sounds like a story where they left out a bit or two to make the whole thing more "interesting".

I've noticed this happening more and more. A while ago there was this camera crew in Amsterdam that was cought red handed while they were ordering the crowd to not help a woman in a burka that dropped her grocery bag in the middle of a busy shopping street.

They were presenting the television item as a test to see if people would help Muslim women in burka's, and most of the people were very friendly and did help her picking up her stuff. But that obviously was not the outcome they were looking for, so they ordered the crowd to ignore the women and keep on walking.

Fortunately enough a freelance journalist that was passing by smelled something fishy was going on and shot the whole thing with his camera.

JohnMarchant
06-19-2008, 02:20 AM
Hey guys i dont really think all this matters. To be honest this is what it is a muslim thing. If this woman had been from any other minority community probably nothing would have been reported about it. But she is a muslim and they to be honest are not really flavour of the month at the moment.

Its ours and their fault, the muslim council of Great Britain mainly believes its our fault for not trying to integrate them. With whats been happening in the last few years with terrorism and the so called war on terror its hardly surprising.

We have many ethnic minorities in the UK not just muslims, they have all to a greater or lesser degree integrated into society, all that is except some muslims. There was a case in Yorkshire not so long ago of a woman who came here 37 years ago and still cannot speak or understand a word of English, talk about isolation and not integrating.

Muslims, mainly pakistanis have been in this country in numbers for over 50 years so thier is no excuse for non integration.

After the July bombings the police upped their stop and search procedures, and guess what it mostly targeted muslims,then the muslim council of Great Britain got all bent out of shape about this claiming it was racist and anti muslim. Well who do we think they should have been monitoring and stopping, maybe 87 year old anglo saxon grannies from sussex.

The muslim community was and still is in denial about what happened, the same as the black community about gun crime, the facts speak for themselves or shootings involve black teenagers and youngsters than anyone else, these are hard, cold facts so perhaps it would be a good idea to have a sensible debate about it and not cry racism everytime someone from a non ethnic minority , namely white anglo saxons talks about it.

Free speech in the UK and indeed many other countries seems to extend only so far, there are just some things you are not allowed to talk about.

Like ive said previously, if you dont like they way a country is run you should leave or emigrate but dont expect that the rest of the country is going to change just to suit you and what you like. This applies to everyone from no matter what background,religon or color, including white anglo saxons.

JohnMarchant
06-19-2008, 02:24 AM
And if people belive that my opinions make me a racist, then so be it. I do not think i am and i have a few friends that are muslims and i know they dont think i am but ive no doubt that some people do.

I personally believe we are all racist to a greater or lesser degree, it really depends on who judges you.

Regards, John

parm
06-19-2008, 02:45 AM
Just so, just so.
It isn't that she hung her coat up, it's the way she did it for example.
We have all met people that show disdain, arrogance and self-righteousness within seconds by their actions and body language. There is a reason we hate some folks on first sight after all, (some folks it takes a little longer to hate ;) ).

So we know she had already been informed that she didn't really fit the bill, but pushed anyway, so she, if anything, should of been expecting not to get the job. Who knows, maybe she did and that was the reason in the first place? :devil:

Be that as it may.

But try to be objective. Who has behaved more correctly in this matter? And is therefore the more credible.

The girl has firstly shown a certain eagerness and determination to work. Many employers would immediately see that in a positive light.

She felt that she had been treated unfairly at the interview. So what course of action should she take? Just suck it up? It's her right to choose not to.

She didn't go down a partisan, high publicity route. I'm sure if she had contacted a politically active Islamic organization. They would have been only to happy, arranging a noisy demonstration outside the salon. She could easily have enlisted the support, of any number of left wing politicians or political groups. To fight her corner.

Not a bit of it. She put her complaint to an industrial tribunal. Seeking to settle her grievance independently. A private matter. Between herself and the salon owner.

The salon owner. On the other hand has behaved despicably. There are so many inconsistencies in her stated reasons, for not employing the girl. It's impossible to know for sure, her true motives. And then whipping up a storm of publicity in the press, when she gets a slap on the wrist. If she thought the decision was wrong. An appeal through the proper channels would be the more dignified response.

Oedo 808
06-19-2008, 02:57 AM
Fortunately enough a freelance journalist that was passing by smelled something fishy was going on and shot the whole thing with his camera.

Phew! That WAS fortunate. ;)

@JohnMarchant

Another example of a touchy subject is that the Pakistani community as a whole has a high proportion of under-achievers, many Pakistanis believe that this is because of the discrimination they face. What those who feel this way fail to take in to account is the relative success of the Indian community. To your average racist there is no great distinction between the two communities, so the discrimination argument doesn't work for me mainly because of that.

The Pakistani community is going to find it very difficult to come to terms with the fact that their culture plays a significant part of the problem, especially when it means they will feel they lose ground to the Indian community, it is much easier and less painful to blame racial discrimination.

Nothing that you've said above comes across as racist, at least not to me.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-19-2008, 04:28 AM
This is becoming really silly, (but in a funny way). Even you, surely have to admit; That making sweeping conclusions, after hearing only one side of an argument. Just doesn't make sense at all.

Honestly. Good luck with your campaign against 'political correctness gone mad'. I'm right with you on that. I really am.

This case however. Is definitely not an example of that. I think that you're crying wolf, somewhat on this.

Hey Parm,

I don't think I am making "sweeping conclusions" but, even if I was, all the media interviews and such are immaterial. The legal precedent is all that matters in this case. An employer has been found guilty of "indirect discrimination" and "injury[ing] feelings" for NOT HIRING a Muslim woman, superficially because of a religiously significant article of clothing.

The Muslim woman admits she was rejected from 25 other hair salons. She sued the ONE salon owner that brought up her veil assumingly because she felt that the employer did not hire her because she insisted on wearing her veil at work. My personal view is: So what? The veil is an article of clothing and should, legally at least, be treated as such. To do otherwise would be to grant Islam special status, which we both know sets a dangerous precedent in secular society. The evidence that Islamic elements are threatening the West's hard-fought freedom of expression is overwhelming. The list of recent "insult to Islam" grievances and/or court cases is endless.

Should the employer have hired her? If the girl was courteous and skilled of course it would have been great to give her a chance. But she should not be considered entitled to a position just because she is Muslim.

This case may seem like a minor matter to you and others, but again, please consider the legal ramifications not only of formally granting a religious item special status but also of citizens suddenly being able to sue for something as abstract as "injury to feelings." That is madness (my word for the week...).

parm
06-19-2008, 05:26 AM
Hey Parm,

I don't think I am making "sweeping conclusions" but, even if I was, all the media interviews and such are immaterial. The legal precedent is all that matters in this case.

Sorry Chris.

NO legal precedent has been set here. This dispute falls well within UK employment legislation, under equal opportunities (http://www.equality-online.org.uk/employment_legislation/religion-belief.html). Read it. That is the law of this land. In this country. We have laws to ensure that no one is unfairly disadvantaged in the workplace, By reason of religion, sex, age or colour.

The girl was well within her rights, to challenge her treatment during the interview.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-19-2008, 05:42 AM
Sorry Chris.

NO legal precedent has been set here. This dispute falls well within UK employment legislation, under equal opportunities (http://www.equality-online.org.uk/employment_legislation/religion-belief.html). Read it. That is the law of this land. In this country. We have laws to ensure that no one is unfairly disadvantaged in the workplace, By reason of religion, sex, age or colour.

The girl was well within her rights, to challenge her treatment during the interview.

But Parm, that's my point. Officially, she was not "unfairly advantaged" because of her religion. She was not give the job because of an article of clothing. Businesses and companies the world over have dress codes. Why should a Muslim woman be granted special status?

In any case, we are going in circles here. I feel this ruling is a threat to freedom of expression and secular society. You clearly do not agree. So let's just agree to disagree.

parm
06-19-2008, 05:50 AM
It's not actually a religious argument. It's an equal opportunities issue.

Believe it or not. It's a good idea. To have as many people in employment as possible. With as few nonsensical barriers as possible. Judge people on merit. Not on race, sex or religion.

If people were able to look beyond their own irrational prejudices. And not allow paranoia to cloud their judgment. Legislation such as this wouldn't be necessary.

parm
06-19-2008, 05:58 AM
In any case, we are going in circles here. I feel this ruling is a threat to freedom of expression and secular society. You clearly do not agree. So let's just agree to disagree.

Agreed.

But this case is not a grey area. I've read every link that you've posted. Please do the courtesy of reading the mine. Particularly the part about indirect discrimination.

And btw. Some people believe the freedom to practice a religion; is an important freedom.

JohnMarchant
06-19-2008, 05:58 AM
Oedo 808, well im glad you agree, but i bet there are alot of people out there and in here that do not.

We only can blame ourselves really, we let this happen, if people exploit it which they do on a regular basis we can only blame ourselves

Oh and parm, your wrong, it does set a legal precedence, even employment law does that. I will be cited in future cases of a similar nature, whether wrong or rightly thats a precedence.

KillMe
06-19-2008, 06:00 AM
ok how about this

should a muslim woman who wants to wear the whole covering me up thigns down to her ankles who then applies for a bikini modeling job get the job?

sure she'll wear the bikini and get her photos taken jsut wont be able to see it for the black robe?

its silly

and top it off - she had already been told she lived to far away - the attitude fromt eh very begining of the interview was offputting and she wouldn't take off an article of clothing to show her hair which was a REQUIREMENT of the job!

religion should be dicriminated against - its the biggest cause of war and death murder terrorism the world has ever known

shoudl be a requirement of law that no relgious education of any kind shoudl be permitted - no going to church or any of that stuff until the age of 15 - at taht age if the person can make a choice to beleive in something that isn't there then fine - but brainwashing kids into religion is major problem with the world

also heard somewhere that all religious symbols articles of clothing etc etc were banned from french school - seems teh french have the right idea of it

parm
06-19-2008, 06:01 AM
John, it's not a test case. It's a well established and clear regulation.

colkai
06-19-2008, 06:03 AM
She felt that she had been treated unfairly at the interview. So what course of action should she take? Just suck it up? It's her right to choose not to.

So what you're saying is, if anyone feels unfairly treated at an interview, they should seek compensation in damages?
Because yep, I've had more than my fair share of bad interviews and "suck it up" is PRECISELY what one has to do. I have been prepared to go more than the extra mile in order to try and get a job but not getting it does NOT have me wandering off for money because i've been hurt / slighted.

At most, one should specifically ask for, in writing if wanted, the reasons for not being offered a position. As I said before she did NOT have a "right" to a job, in truth, she didn't even have a right to an interview, but she was given one anyway.

It is just this, "oh, she should do what she wants" that gets me, it was a job interview for gawds sake, nothing more. Might I suggest then the next time your company turns down a pay raise, you sue them for unfair treatment because it's your "right" to be given a good pay rise and you'll be "hurt" if you don't?

Of course, out here away from la-la land, that'd get you exactly nowhere.
Indeed, over here, it would not surprise me at all to find come the next company restructure, your post was deemed no longer necessary.
I have seen that happen first hand.

parm
06-19-2008, 06:17 AM
So what you're saying is, if anyone feels unfairly treated at an interview, they should seek compensation in damages?
Because yep, I've had more than my fair share of bad interviews and "suck it up" is PRECISELY what one has to do. I have been prepared to go more than the extra mile in order to try and get a job but not getting it does NOT have me wandering off for money because i've been hurt / slighted.

Well it seems she did suck it up on 25 previous occasions. But that's neither here nor there.

On this occasion she believed that she had grounds, under the law, to claim unfair treatment. Who's to say her motive was compensation. Perhaps she just wanted fair treatment.

All I'm saying is that she was within her rights. To call out. That particular employer on her employment practices.

She did it in a dignified, private way. Through the correct channels. And I can't see any reason why she should take the flak, she's taking. On behalf of religious zealots and extremists everywhere. She's only trying to get a job.

colkai
06-19-2008, 06:47 AM
The ruling suggests, under racial discrimination, she did not have grounds, just "hurt feelings".
I just don't get why "she's only trying to get a job" would be justification?

You're supporting and advocating behaviour that is a very slippery slope.
Seems to me, if this is considered fair and wise, then best be sure, should you ever interview someone from a different religious or ethnic background, you're going to take them on or accept you may be sued because they would be "within their rights".

Once a precedent is set, it doesn't take long for it to "catch on".

Remember back when if you fell over, you got up, dusted yourself off and reminded yourself to watch where you were walking? Now? Oh easy, just sue somebody, after all it HAD to be someones fault. This is now "accepted" behaviour, jeez, how many "blame N claim" averts exist now?

No, sorry, if I don't hire someone, I don't want to be thinking that I may get sued over it, all that would encourage me to do is weed out possible "problem" candidates from the get go. As an employer, why should I risk paying out to someone I wouldn't even hire?

Chris S. (Fez)
06-19-2008, 06:52 AM
It's not actually a religious argument. It's an equal opportunities issue.


It is well established that employers are within their rights to establish and expect employees to follow dress codes. The Muslim woman had plenty of "equal opportunity" to be considered a qualified candidate for for the position: she had only to be willing to shed a scarf. But even then, just because she is a qualified candidate does not entitle her to the position.

As Matt mentioned before I agree that "using religion as an excuse to dress however you want is a grey area, but you should be aware of the risks you take when you do, and not expect special treatment."

On a personal note, you have been exceptionally composed throughout this debate Parm. I got a bit shrill in a particular post and I apologize. Obviously we both feel strongly on these issues, but I do appreciate the civil discourse.

parm
06-19-2008, 07:12 AM
Look this is my last post on this.

If no one is actually going to read the rules concerning this. I'll post them.

This from the section on employment law re: Religion or Belief:

What is unlawful?

Direct discrimination - Workers or job applicants must not be treated less favourably than other because they follow or are perceived to follow a particular religion or belief.

Indirect discrimination - An organisation must not have any policies or practices which although they are applied to all employees, have the effect of disadvantaging people of a particular religion or belief unless the practice can be justified. To justify it an employer must show there is a legitimate business need.

Harassment - Behaviour that is offensive, frightening or in an way distressing related to an individual's religion or belief. It may be comments or behaviour that is about the religion or belief of those with whom the individual associates.

The stylist was found to be in breach the rules concerning Indirect Discrimination.

Pretty straightforward.

If I were to give her the time of day. My suggestion would be. To design her own head scarf. In a style that matches and promotes her salons look. Which can be offered as an alternative headwear for Muslim employees. If they refuse. Then there is no case to answer, having made a reasonable effort, to accommodate diversity in the workplace.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-19-2008, 07:16 AM
Pretty straightforward.


It is anything but and that is why this thread continues.

parm
06-19-2008, 07:22 AM
On a personal note, you have been exceptionally composed throughout this debate Parm. I got a bit shrill in a particular post and I apologize. Obviously we both feel strongly on these issues, but I do appreciate the civil discourse.

Lol. No apology necessary. One big advantage of written debate, the shrillness didn't come across.

Cheers

-EsHrA-
06-19-2008, 07:23 AM
Indirect discrimination - Religion.

so yeh, they turned it around which is what religion does so often when they not get what they want.

that said... i bet her husband is happy with the money.


mlon

JohnMarchant
06-19-2008, 07:28 AM
No parm i agree its a regulation, but the result sets a precedence. Just because of the way it was handled.They were fined for her hurt feelings not the discrimination. So in itself its a precedent, that others may or may not site in the future should a similar case come up. "No your innocent of the discrimination charge", "However it was very distressing for them to appear in court, so you have to pay for the distress", thats where the precedent is. Im assuming a case like this never has come up. For all i know they used a similar precedent from the past if there has been a similar case.

Precedence does not just happen in court, it can happen in a tribuneral, hearing or investigation and it is not legally binding to use one even if you had one.

Regards, John

manholoz
06-19-2008, 07:47 AM
When I visit the UK I want to visit that salon. It seems to have become a landmark. And maybe wear a gigantic mexican sombrero when I do, just for laughs.

colkai
06-19-2008, 08:56 AM
They were fined for her hurt feelings not the discrimination. So in itself its a precedent, that others may or may not site in the future should a similar case come up.

...

Precedence does not just happen in court, it can happen in a tribuneral, hearing or investigation and it is not legally binding to use one even if you had one.

Regards, John

Exactly, once it has happened once, "hurt feelings" becomes a catch-all.

Indeed, wasn't there something on the UK news not long back about a criminal seeking damages because of the stress or some such of being in court and going to jail?

I know the other night, there was a bleeding heart article on how difficult it was for criminals and their families that they didn't see each other a lot due to the fact the prison was difficult to get to.

Here you had some convicted criminal crying over how it made his life difficult being in that prison, boo frikkin' hoo. The whole slant was, somehow, we were supposed to feel sorry for them poor ickle things, ex-squeeze me?
Never occurred to him perchance that he was supposed to be being PUNISHED?

How long before one of them whines human rights and sues the system for distress and hurt feelings you reckon?

Cageman
06-19-2008, 10:09 AM
Judge people on merit. Not on race, sex or religion.

Uhm...

Take a look at the following picture! (http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Punks_Not_Dead/punk_s_not_dead_movie_image.jpg)

Ok...

So, lets pretend that these two girls are very, very interrested in becomming police officers. Their personal backgrounds are excellent, they have very high grades and show unbeatable social skills and have a high morale. But they will never become police officers if they don't change their hairstyles and makeup when on duty. THAT would be the only thing they would have to change. Not said, but understood, is that they would also have to wear a uniform when working.

Take a look at the picture again...

Ok.. they CAN LOOK LIKE THAT whenever they want, EXCEPT ON DUTY.


SO...

What is the difference between my example above and what we currently are discussing here?

Well, the DIFFERENCE is that in my example above, the girls CAN CHANGE how they look when on duty (if they really want the job), while the muslim girl REFUSES/CAN'T adapt to the conditions provided. Wether or not it is related to religion has nothing to do with it. However, in this case IT IS related to religion...

The BAD thing I see with this is that SOME people jump to the conclusion that IT HAS TO BE RACISM, therefore the employer should pay.

The studios I've worked at always emphesies the IMPORTANCE of how people work with eachother, understand eachother and help eachother. TEAMPLAY is more important than actuall skill... a stubborn person who puts himself first isn't going to be hired whatever skill he has. Simple!

Cageman
06-19-2008, 10:25 AM
A mental rot that seems impossible to get rid of and destined to destroy much more during the course of history. Mixed with politics it only gets worse.

Head on the nail...

I read somewhere that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark have a very high % of non-believers, or ateists (or whatever it is called). I read somewhere that Sweden had over 90% of the population not practising any religion at all. I've tried to find out more real information about that, but don't know where to look.

Please help. :)

parm
06-20-2008, 07:59 AM
Uhm...

Take a look at the following picture! (http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Punks_Not_Dead/punk_s_not_dead_movie_image.jpg)

Ha ha :D

Possibly ideal applicants for the hairdresser job.

*Pete*
06-20-2008, 08:27 AM
I personally believe we are all racist to a greater or lesser degree, it really depends on who judges you.

Regards, John

Im Finnish..and during my early childhood, growing up in Sweden, I was the "enemy of the nation", we finns were the violent ones, the thiefs, the ones you couldnt trust and the ones who should "go home".

somewhat later, when we started to get significant numbers of darker skinned immigrants, arabs mainly...we finns became "northern brothers" to the swedes, and it was all the sudden the arabs who were all that we finns used to be just a few years earlier.

Now i am noticing that Arabs are better accepted as we have a general dislike against Africans, specially somalians.

someone once told me, that in order to unite the plane, to remove all racism, we will need to have a alien invasion (martians, or something).

it is something deeply encoded in our genes i quess, to be a group (we) you also need to distance yourself from others who are different (them).


but the reality is, we arent better than them, they arent better than us...we are all the same, and yes..they also are racist against us, becouse they are also humans.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-20-2008, 08:57 AM
Pete, you should check out the the graphic novel Watchmen.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-20-2008, 08:58 AM
Ha ha :D

Possibly ideal applicants for the hairdresser job.

I take everything back. Full-body burqha's for those two!

*Pete*
06-20-2008, 04:05 PM
I take everything back. Full-body burqha's for those two!

rofl!!

and when applaying a job, the employer asks "are you planning to wear that at work?" only to go "GAAAAHH..put it back on, put it back on!!"

Elmar Moelzer
06-23-2008, 07:27 AM
Ok, lets say opposit situation:
Muslim Country and a girl from the UK.
The girl from the UK refuses to wear a headscarf. Would she have the right to sue?
CU
Elmar

CMT
06-23-2008, 08:10 AM
I hate living in a world where being religious means wanting and getting special treatment. Learn to live like regular people or STFU and go back to your cave and worship your false god.

Religion = mental disorder.

While I totally agree with you about religious people getting special treatment, I don't agree with your equation. Let's keep the religion bashing to a minimum, shall we? That's not what this thread is about.

JohnMarchant
06-23-2008, 09:02 AM
Ok, lets say opposit situation:
Muslim Country and a girl from the UK.
The girl from the UK refuses to wear a headscarf. Would she have the right to sue?
CU
Elmar

We all know the answer to this she will have to accept it or sod off somewhere else. Like i said in a previous statement, we should treat all these religeous zealots as they would treat us if we went to thier country of origin.

Lets be frank they are not coming to our countries because they love us or our climate (northern Europe), they come to make money, many want to do it dishonestly as well, like milk our benefit system, we are stupid enough to let them so who's the fool.

There was a case recently in the UK, a somali woman (how unusual) who has 6 kids, is living in a huge house, free and getting state benefits to the tune of 30,000 a year, is there any wonder that racism breeds seeing things like this. British people are living on far less than that and are entitled to nothing. This somali woman could not understand why she was resented so much, just becuase her life was hard in somalia or anywhere else does not give them the right to come here making no contribution and expecting a better standard then many of the people of the country she is in.

But of course this statement makes me a racist as well apparently.

Regards, John

JohnMarchant
06-23-2008, 09:04 AM
And its against her human rights, well if it is stuff her human rights, wheat about our human rights :):)

art
06-23-2008, 09:22 AM
Wasn't there a recent case in Saudi Arabia where some foreigners, men and women, got punished for partying togeter? They weren't even Muslims.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16978938/from/ET/



Ok, lets say opposit situation:
Muslim Country and a girl from the UK.
The girl from the UK refuses to wear a headscarf. Would she have the right to sue?
CU
Elmar

art
06-23-2008, 09:29 AM
Correction, the nationalities or religoius orientations apparently were not disclosed in the case above, but still, it makes me wonder.

Steamthrower
06-23-2008, 09:30 AM
First, last time I participated in one of these threads I was called a racist pig by the Bryan Phillips guy. So let me state that in no way do I consider myself a racist. I know Caucasians, Asians, Hispanics, Africans, and South Americans. I find it easy to interact on a face-to-face level with them. I do not consider them lesser in any way.

That said...I think it is an ingrained form of human sociology that encourages us to cluster around similar people. My closest friends and associates are white, middle-class, English-speaking persons under the age of 30. Did I particularly go out and pick these people to work with/hang out with? No, and they didn't go out and pick me to work with them. We naturally came together.

Does that make a Caucasian and an Asian non-compatible? No, but it makes them less compatible. I have a hard time understanding the way an Asian acquaintance understands lectures. He doesn't necessarily misunderstand them, he'll just take it completely differently than I will. In the same way an Asian will become offended at some ridiculously insignificant thing which I could care less about.

These small variations in behaviour make it hard for many people to interact freely with those of another race. Most blacks like to pimp out their car. I don't. Most Swiss have an uncanny mathematical ability. I don't. Most Irish like to get drunk and party at the local bar. I don't. Most Asians make good Asian food. I don't.

What this all relates to is that, even if this barber didn't want to hire the girl because she wasn't English, she can't be ostracised for not wanting to hire those of another race. It seems like this woman owned a very small barber shop. I could completely understand her reluctance to hire a Muslim. If I owned a small barbershop I would not hire a Muslim. I would be extremely picky. I would want them to be as close to myself as possible...because I would attract customers that look like myself. I wouldn't even hire fat people for Pete's sake.

I would probably hire a bunch of 6' 3" brown-haired men under the age of 30.

parm
06-23-2008, 09:31 AM
Ok, lets say opposit situation:
Muslim Country and a girl from the UK.
The girl from the UK refuses to wear a headscarf. Would she have the right to sue?
CU
Elmar

Kind of irrelevant to this.

You have to obey the laws of whatever country you're in.

CMT
06-23-2008, 09:54 AM
Wasn't there a recent case in Saudi Arabia where some foreigners, men and women, got punished for partying togeter? They weren't even Muslims.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16978938/from/ET/

Heh. Yeah. Time to remember why we love our country..... even with all the stupid lawsuits. It's better than lashes and prison time just for partying....

JohnMarchant
06-23-2008, 09:59 AM
Heh. Yeah. Time to remember why we love our country..... even with all the stupid lawsuits. It's better than lashes and prison time just for partying....

Or loosing a limb :):)

*Pete*
06-23-2008, 10:18 AM
I wouldn't even hire fat people for Pete's sake.


HEY!!:devil:
why am i always put into discussions in a negative manner..grrrr


generally speaking...I do get upset when i see somalians in the park, out of work and having an easy life, it feels unfair when i have to work to get my money..of which i pay to them in the form of taxes.

sometimes i feel that all somalians are like that, becouse its easy to distinguish..they are black, im not.
but then i read about the Austrian man who inprisoned his daughter for 28 years and had 7 children with her, i read about a group of paedophiles who been molesting hundreds of children..and then i see that white skinned junkie threaten me with a knife...i hate them, i really do..far more than i hate the somalians in the park, but how can i hate all of those people, when they are all like me and my wife, they are all white.

I spoke to a man from africa once, he had been living in Finland in the 80's..and i asked him -Do you feel that the Finns are racists?
he looks at me, almost angry, and says -the Finns are not racist, but most people i met were racist..but i cant judge all of them when i didnt meet everyone yet, and youre not racist and you are finnish, right?

You will always find what you are looking for...as in the case of the somali woman living and getting 30.000$/year, as Johnmarchant wrote about.

think..would she be in the news, if it was common for things to be like that?..i think not, you are served extremes by the media and you (we) all like to take the extreme and think it is the norm.
and either way..her getting money (and accepting it) is not something you can blame her for, blame the ones giving it to her...thats where the problem is.

Oedo 808
06-23-2008, 11:07 AM
I would probably hire a bunch of 6' 3" brown-haired men under the age of 30.
No need to ask who your hypothetical clientele would be. :hey:

Elmar Moelzer
06-23-2008, 12:53 PM
Ok, so countries that have laws that would not be in favour of the UK- girl would be racist?
Lets try yet another one (I love these games just to see what people are thinking).
Say said UK girl is applying for a job as a maid at a rich muslim family that lives in the UK. They insist on her wearing a headscarf. She refuses and does not get the job.
Would she have the right to sue?
If not, why not?
CU
Elmar

parm
06-23-2008, 01:10 PM
There was a case recently in the UK, a somali woman (how unusual) who has 6 kids, is living in a huge house, free and getting state benefits to the tune of 30,000 a year, is there any wonder that racism breeds seeing things like this. British people are living on far less than that and are entitled to nothing. This somali woman could not understand why she was resented so much, just becuase her life was hard in somalia or anywhere else does not give them the right to come here making no contribution and expecting a better standard then many of the people of the country she is in.



These huge benefits claims. Seem to be calculated according to the number of children involved. On individual cases like this one. It's not really possible to say how legitimate the claim is, without fuller details.

I tried to search the case you're citing here. Couldn't find it specifically. But did find that it is not at all uncommon. I found this rag, which seems to specialize in exposing this kind of stuff. Here's a link: scroungers (http://www.derbygripe.co.uk/scrounge.htm). Included for your reading pleasure. Ought to get steam from your ears :)

No Somalians though, sorry.

*Pete*
06-23-2008, 01:16 PM
They insist on her wearing a headscarf. She refuses and does not get the job.
Would she have the right to sue?
If not, why not?
CU
Elmar

wearing an uniform can be part of your job, think of waitress, policeofficer, ikea employee...heck, think of the mickey mouse inpersonator at Disneyland, he cant refust it either ;)

But i do get your point though.
as i mentioned earlier...it can be very difficult to see whether or not is discrimination or not.
in my opinion, if the best qualified canditate doesnt get a job in a larger company (large enough for employees not to have personal contact with leadership) becouse he/she is muslim, it is discrimination.
but for smaller companies, you have to give room for personal liking or disliking the canditate without getting sued for discrimination.

toby
06-24-2008, 12:28 AM
There was a case recently in the UK, a somali woman (how unusual) who has 6 kids, is living in a huge house, free and getting state benefits to the tune of 30,000 a year, is there any wonder that racism breeds seeing things like this. British people are living on far less than that and are entitled to nothing. This somali woman could not understand why she was resented so much, just becuase her life was hard in somalia or anywhere else does not give them the right to come here making no contribution and expecting a better standard then many of the people of the country she is in.

But of course this statement makes me a racist as well apparently.

Regards, John
Unless you're telling us that a white or english woman with 6 kids would not get the same benefits, then yea, that makes you racist. Your sarcasm "(how unusual)" was racially prejudice as well.

toby
06-24-2008, 01:09 AM
First, last time I participated in one of these threads I was called a racist pig by the Bryan Phillips guy. So let me state that in no way do I consider myself a racist. I know Caucasians, Asians, Hispanics, Africans, and South Americans. I find it easy to interact on a face-to-face level with them. I do not consider them lesser in any way.

That said...I think it is an ingrained form of human sociology that encourages us to cluster around similar people. My closest friends and associates are white, middle-class, English-speaking persons under the age of 30. Did I particularly go out and pick these people to work with/hang out with? No, and they didn't go out and pick me to work with them. We naturally came together.

Does that make a Caucasian and an Asian non-compatible? No, but it makes them less compatible. I have a hard time understanding the way an Asian acquaintance understands lectures. He doesn't necessarily misunderstand them, he'll just take it completely differently than I will. In the same way an Asian will become offended at some ridiculously insignificant thing which I could care less about.

These small variations in behaviour make it hard for many people to interact freely with those of another race. Most blacks like to pimp out their car. I don't. Most Swiss have an uncanny mathematical ability. I don't. Most Irish like to get drunk and party at the local bar. I don't. Most Asians make good Asian food. I don't.

What this all relates to is that, even if this barber didn't want to hire the girl because she wasn't English, she can't be ostracised for not wanting to hire those of another race. It seems like this woman owned a very small barber shop. I could completely understand her reluctance to hire a Muslim. If I owned a small barbershop I would not hire a Muslim. I would be extremely picky. I would want them to be as close to myself as possible...because I would attract customers that look like myself. I wouldn't even hire fat people for Pete's sake.

I would probably hire a bunch of 6' 3" brown-haired men under the age of 30.
I'm shocked, I'm sorry, but not only are you actually racist, but you're not smart enough to know it, or to know what it means.

You tell us that "I don't consider myself racist", but then you proceed to support someone else's racism, and further, you wouldn't hire someone because of their race - which is EXACTLY what racism is. Just because you don't openly despise someone because of their race doesn't mean you're not racist.

Those generalizations you made about black guys, swiss, asians, irish - those are all CULTURAL traits, not to mention very broad generaliztions. They don't have anything to do with their race.

I don't have a problem with you Steamthrower, you just need know these things. You're confusing culture with race or assuming they're the same thing.

coremi
06-24-2008, 01:17 AM
Ok, so countries that have laws that would not be in favour of the UK- girl would be racist?
Lets try yet another one (I love these games just to see what people are thinking).
Say said UK girl is applying for a job as a maid at a rich muslim family that lives in the UK. They insist on her wearing a headscarf. She refuses and does not get the job.
Would she have the right to sue?
If not, why not?
CU
Elmar

She has no right to sue, people should make the huge difference from private and state. Private, not matter how huge is the company, is ruled by company policy. If they have 25 000 workers and don't want a single muslim, it is not discrimination. If a muslim company doesn't want a single christian, there is no discrimination. State companies have to hire no matter the religion. If a person has the right to work in UK, then there is not way he can get discriminated because of religion or other values. But if the job requires specific things and that person doesn't meet them, even the state companies should not hire them.

I have a ? Do you think is normal for a public service to hire a christian belonging to some church who doesn't allow them to work saturday, while the public service is 24/7 ? So that person will never be put in a shift on saturday ? Who is more discriminated, hundreds of people working saturday or a few who are not hired because of their religion ? If some people from the saturday shift get sick and the others don't come to work because church doesn't allow them to work saturday and a huge accident happends because there was not enough men to cover all aspects, who is to blame ? The company because they new some of the people will never work saturday no matter what, but there was no discrimination, or those people because they haven't done their public duty ?

What do you think is best ? to accept and bend all laws, tradition, rules to minorities or to force them to behave as general or majority rules and laws dictate ?

coremi
06-24-2008, 01:38 AM
You tell us that "I don't consider myself racist", but then you proceed to support someone else's racism, and further, you wouldn't hire someone because of their race - which is EXACTLY what racism is. Just because you don't openly despise someone because of their race doesn't mean you're not racist.


So you think that if i don't hire someone because his race customs doen't fit with my bussiness profile i am a racist ? Think again. would you put you bussiness in danger and make your wife and kids suffer because you hired a nice muslim wich can't get along with the others workers because of his religion customs and ideeas. Think again. I will never put in any bad situation my family for this racist bull***t you're talking about. I think racism is when the muslim is good, nice, is getting along with everyone else, brings value to your company and kick him out because of his religion, that is a really bad thing to do.
i don't think that if i don't want to change my way of life, to incorporate rules and ideeas from other religions into my familie makes me a racisist, you're wrong.

coremi
06-24-2008, 02:07 AM
I'm from Romania, and we do feel racism when we travel to europe, no matter what we behave, because of gypsies. Do you think italiens that burned gypsies camps few month ago are racist ? or they simpli protect their lives, ways, families ? I don't think they are racist, but just could not accept the theft, raping, killing etc.. done by gypsies. Before Romania entered the EU BBC, CNN was showing and presenting us as racist because we didn't help minorities as gypsies integrate the society. After that all EU countries had to face gypsies, Italy lasted about 2 years, probably Spain will star burning them in the next 2. In 150 years of modern era we never did that. Gypsies WILL NEVER EVER integate in society, they WILL NEVER EVER work, THEY will STEAL, BEGG, RAPE, KILL. They were always like this, even 50 years of comunism could not change them at all. EU doesn't call us racist anymore, now they ask for police force from us with experince with gypsies problems.

toby, would you hire a gypsy ?

Oedo 808
06-24-2008, 05:33 AM
Gypsies WILL NEVER EVER integate in society, they WILL NEVER EVER work, THEY will STEAL, BEGG, RAPE, KILL.



toby, would you hire a gypsy ?

Doesn't sound to me like they have much choice when it comes to integration, sins of the father and all that. Would I hire a Gypsy? Well as I'm not my own boss or involved in recruitment it has to be hypothetical, and the answer is both yes and no. For I wouldn't hire races, colours or creeds, I would hire people, so no I wouldn't hire someone on being a Gypsy per se, but I may hire someone that happens to be a Gypsy.

Would I be concerned if I knew of someones background was that of a Gypsy? Yes, I'm sure I would, but I'd have to gauge the person as best I could and make my decision from that, trying not to be prejudicial.

Talk of this and that about groups of society is moot, everything and everyone must be judged on an individual basis, it's when we try to find a pigeon hole that fits all members of a group that things start to go awry.

It isn't racist to be both aware and mindful of the flaws often associated with a given group of people, but to make out of hand judgements on every one of that group, based on nothing more than these feelings most certainly is.

Elmar Moelzer
06-24-2008, 05:55 AM
Pete, yeah thats what I meant. It is hard to distinguish between these things, isnt it?
I am not saying that the person owning the hairsaloon was doing the right thing nor the wrong thing. It is just a daily life situation. A lot of hiring decisions are probably also based on "gutt- feeling" if you know what I mean.

I am just thinking of all the people that I know that do not get a job because of their body art.
Are the employers intollerant, or is it just a "normal" thing?
Tolerance is not limited to races and religions, at least for me.
CU
Elmar

Steamthrower
06-24-2008, 06:51 AM
I'm shocked, I'm sorry, but not only are you actually racist, but you're not smart enough to know it, or to know what it means.

You tell us that "I don't consider myself racist", but then you proceed to support someone else's racism, and further, you wouldn't hire someone because of their race - which is EXACTLY what racism is. Just because you don't openly despise someone because of their race doesn't mean you're not racist.

Those generalizations you made about black guys, swiss, asians, irish - those are all CULTURAL traits, not to mention very broad generaliztions. They don't have anything to do with their race.

I believe that your definition of racism is wrong. If your definition of racism was true I don't see how it is ethically reprehensible in any way...I fail to see the "negative" aspect of not wanting to hire someone from a different race. I would not feel slighted in the least were the Indian owner of the local Subway not want to hire me. I would think...so? Why would he want to hire me? No single white has the work ethic of an Indian. Those guys are insane, the way they work. Why in the world would he consider a white person?

Yet I beg to differ from your definition. Racism is hatred, dislike, or ill treatment of another race. Racism is not letting a black lady have your seat on a bus. Racism is not getting out of the way of a Mexican in the grocery store aisle. Racism is firing all of your company's Asian workers "just because" they're Asian. And I think that's wrong.

coremi
06-24-2008, 06:53 AM
Doesn't sound to me like they have much choice when it comes to integration, sins of the father and all that. Would I hire a Gypsy? Well as I'm not my own boss or involved in recruitment it has to be hypothetical, and the answer is both yes and no. For I wouldn't hire races, colours or creeds, I would hire people, so no I wouldn't hire someone on being a Gypsy per se, but I may hire someone that happens to be a Gypsy.


There are no sins of the fathers, is their ways of life. This is how they live and die, generations after generations etc...
Comunism tried to eradicate their ways and internal laws with force, all children were forced to go to school and get education, they were forced to get jobs and work for money like everyone else, and after 50 years they are exactly the same, nothing changed. They still mary their children at the age of 10, even is against the law, and if child protection comes in to take the child under care, they start war because we don't respect their internal customs and laws. They have thier own society inside ours, and if we don't respect their ways, wich are against the law, we're racist, and when they steal or rape us, their just poor criminals who needs education and lots of tax payers money for their integration.

Lightwolf
06-24-2008, 06:54 AM
Racism is firing all of your company's Asian workers "just because" they're Asian. And I think that's wrong.
So, firing because of race is racism, but hiring because of the same reason isn't?

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
06-24-2008, 07:05 AM
Comunism tried to eradicate their ways and internal laws with force...
Which is probably the biggest mistake every made (the same in Bulgaria, where I have close relatives, as I'm part Bulgarian).
Actually, the "communist" regimes just screwed the whole countries over anyhow - not just the gipsy population. Both countries were a lot worse off after "communism" than before. And while I'd probably trust a Bulgarian more than a gipsy... it would only be marginally so.

Other countries show that they can be integrated, so in this case I see the issue as a home made problem.

Cheers,
Mike

Steamthrower
06-24-2008, 07:08 AM
So, firing because of race is racism, but hiring because of the same reason isn't?

Cheers,
Mike

No, I believe that "not hiring" just because of race is equally racist. I had two different examples in my mind, however, in each instance; a large company and a small company. There are differences, I think, especially since the larger the company the wider range of people you have in authority; and a wider range of people more likely to have weird views on life, including that "no Asians are fit to work for me" for instance.

coremi
06-24-2008, 07:08 AM
i have finish Law School or University, for me there are no minorities or groups or anything like this. We're all citizens of one country or another and we have to respect the law and that is all. Minorities have rights regarding their culture, and society should respect and encourage their cultures. But if their ways of life interfear or are against the law, the majoriti has the right to straighten things up. I do not agree to bend or change after minorities rules or wishes. If you are a muslim and choose to come and live, work in a christian country, you obbey the country rules, not start to change things around you to fit your believes, than people will start dicriminate you and they have all the right.

And by the way, i think we are the only ones that we bother with this discrimination thing, arabs for exemple don't have this problem. I remember a soccer trainer that didn't kiss the sheikh's hand and it was fired and kicked out of the country within 48 hours. I don't recall papers or people coming out the streets saying that the sheikh discriminated the trainer.

Europeans have this big issue with discrimination, and human rights bla bla. Probably we have to much time to chat instead of working :).

CMT
06-24-2008, 07:45 AM
And by the way, i think we are the only ones that we bother with this discrimination thing, arabs for exemple don't have this problem....

Women's rights?..... In most Arab countries, they are severely limited. The discrimination has become the culture there and people don't question it nearly as much. The men like it the way it is and the women don't have the rights to do anything about it.

manholoz
06-24-2008, 07:49 AM
Racism is not getting out of the way of a Mexican in the grocery store aisle.

Being a Mexican, I don't quite understand this gesture of racism. Or why would it be merited. BTW I'm not offended in any way, or crying myself over all the "gringos" that hate me ;)

That being said, I perfectly understand why there is so much bias against Mexicans in the US of A and in Canada. The Mexicans you have there are mostly very uneducated (as in hugely uneducated!) that even in Mexico are shunned upon because of their lack of manners. However, maybe because of that, they have to work abroad as their home country does not like them to much as a work force.

When I've been up north, I have really been embarassed at how my countrymen behave, how they dress, it really feels bad to see that most loudmouths and rude people and so on you mean, are your own countrymen.

As to hiring someone because of his/her race, from a tourist's point of view, I'ld prefer seeing policemen, etc in Norway look like huge Vikings than huge Indians or Chinese or whatever. And not because I have anything against Chinese or Indians. But in the pictures of Norway, vikings look better. In the Great Wall, Chinese will look best. And in the Taj Mahal, Indians look best. I know that is a naive point of view, but well, there it is.

Lightwolf
06-24-2008, 07:53 AM
Women's rights?.....
That's easy... no rights, no problems ;)

Whoever said this world is complicated? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Andyjaggy
06-24-2008, 08:25 AM
I realized the other day that I was racist. There was a group of young hispanics with their long baggy pants and hoodies, standing by their pimped out low riding car with $5,000 hubcaps. I thought to myself, man that looks like trouble.

Then I went a little bit further and saw a group of young white people with their tatterede jeans and wife beaters on, standing by their pickup truck that was jacked 15 feet into the air. I thought to myself, man that looks like trouble.

I guess I am just racist against stupid humans in general, never mind their nationality.

Steamthrower
06-24-2008, 08:26 AM
Being a Mexican, I don't quite understand this gesture of racism. Or why would it be merited. BTW I'm not offended in any way, or crying myself over all the "gringos" that hate me ;)

...

When I've been up north, I have really been embarassed at how my countrymen behave, how they dress, it really feels bad to see that most loudmouths and rude people and so on you mean, are your own countrymen

Well...thanks for being so even-handed! I see what you are saying. As a traveler myself in other countries, I am continually embarrassed by Americans I meet...they seem to be the loudest, most obnoxious, and most closely-minded of the millions of Americans. I met this old lady in Bremen or Amsterdam, I forget which. She had been through three husbands and within five minutes was telling me all the sordid details of her life I didn't want to know.

As you said, the immigrants we get are the ones who are, sadly, the least able to "make it" in Mexico. So our impression is that they are really the lowest classes, mostly illegal, mostly loud and rude, mostly unkempt, and totally not willing to socialise. But we all (or most of us) realise that's not the norm.

Lightwolf
06-24-2008, 08:32 AM
I guess I am just racist against stupid humans in general, never mind their nationality.
I believe that's what they call elitist ;) (and the older you get, the worse that feeling gets :D ).

Cheers,
Mike

Andyjaggy
06-24-2008, 08:47 AM
I believe that's what they call elitist ;) (and the older you get, the worse that feeling gets :D ).

Cheers,
Mike

I'm in trouble then I'm only 26. I'll be near intolerable by the time I reach 50. :)

Lightwolf
06-24-2008, 09:03 AM
I'm in trouble then I'm only 26. I'll be near intolerable by the time I reach 50. :)
Either that or blessed with Alzheimers :D

Cheers,
Mike

*Pete*
06-24-2008, 09:14 AM
I'm from Romania, and we do feel racism when we travel to europe

I knew nothing about Romania, untill a few years ago we got loads of Romanian professional beggers here....now all i know of Romania is darkskinned people who either pretend to be mentally handicapped and crippled while begging for money (the men) or poor, badly dressed women who say "please" while holding a cup at your face for you to put money in it.

the only beggers we used to have previously, was a few junkies who needed money for drugs...so the whole professional style of begging that is more often seen in central/southern europe is very, very new to us.

I think that the reason for why you feel racism when travelling in europe, is becouse of those who travelled before you and created the mental image of the "typical romanian".

I think of Hungarians, i think of really nice, social people...why?
becouse the Hungarians i met were all like that, deep inside i know that Romanians are just like Hungarians, after all..you live in neighboring nations...first impressions last long, sad but true.

I hope that one day (soon) you will be able to travel and get the respect as you deserve.

JohnMarchant
06-24-2008, 09:15 AM
Unless you're telling us that a white or english woman with 6 kids would not get the same benefits, then yea, that makes you racist. Your sarcasm "(how unusual)" was racially prejudice as well.


No im saying she made no contribution to this country before she came here, so where is her entitlement, i agree the white woman may have made no contribution neither, unfortunatly she from this country and so until the laws change we cant do anything about it but i would stop her as well. Facts mate, we have a huge problem with what is called Health Tourism in the UK.There are old people dying in hospital because they could not get the treatment they needed after paying taxes all their lives, yet someone can fly to the UK (from whatever country including the US) and if they suddenly discover they have terminal cancer they are treated. Its not their fault its our systems fault and i have very bitter experiance of this.

And the how unusual in brackets is a fact, that part of the community is prominatly the cause.

Thats why we maintain our border controls, which are a joke be the way. EU law states that any asylum seeker is the seek it in the first EU country it enters. Now all these people trying to get into the UK are not arriving by ferry from Turkey or Africa, they are coming from Spain, Italy, Poland etc, they should have sort asylum there, but they dont want to they want to get to the UK because they get more free money, and the human rights act says there is nothing we can do about it.

So as ive already said, if this is YOUR defination of racist then i am, so what, i dont care, i believe first and foremost that charity begins at home and whilst we have our own problems i dont see why we should sort other peoples problems out.


Regards, John

JohnMarchant
06-24-2008, 09:21 AM
Here are some definitions of racism, by my reckoning we are all racists, if we choose to believe the left wing, moss licking, tree huggeers :):)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Racism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Steamthrower
06-24-2008, 10:07 AM
If so, John, then I believe I would have to accept myself as a racist as well...as defined by some of these definitions.


assumption of inherent biological differences between different ethnic groups that purport to determine cultural or individual behaviour.

assumption that race determines psychological and cultural traits

I don't see what's wrong with this. I've got a basic knowledge of genetics and I fail to see why race doesn't physically or mentally influence a person. I also fail to see why the idea is considered negative. We are not all equal. This is not necessarily "elitist", either...I think a major portion of socioeconomic problems today comes from not realising your place in society. I'm tall, but I have to face the fact that, in general, blacks are much more athletic than I and much more able to physically excel in sports. End of story for me.

Lightwolf
06-24-2008, 10:12 AM
I don't see what's wrong with this.
It's all in the balance... if it is seens as the main decisive factor in a humans development or leads to a general superior/inferior black and white thinking, than I'd definetly call it racist.
The same goes for sexism I suppose.

Cheers,
Mike

Steamthrower
06-24-2008, 10:52 AM
The same goes for sexism I suppose.

Don't get me started. Women drivers.

*Pete*
06-24-2008, 10:55 AM
Facts mate, we have a huge problem with what is called Health Tourism in the UK.

Do you know how many English people have moved to spain as soon as they get old or sick enough to be retired?...massive amounts, and not just you English, also Scandinavians, Germans and so on move to the sunny spain to live cheaply.

the fewest of these people actually ever learn or try to learn spanish, they are often retired already and get the benefits from the respective nations while living in Spain..and still they are fully entitled all the healthcare that Spain has to offer.

I do not want to call you, or anyone racist...but you need to see both sides of the same coin before complaining about something.

Ive seen elder Norwegians complaining about immigrants who cant speak norwegian, while they themselfs cant a word in spanish despite living there for years..hypocrats.

Lightwolf
06-24-2008, 11:01 AM
Don't get me started. Women drivers.
Hah... even the worst women drivers here drive better than the best American driver. How's that for racial drivel? ;)

Seriously though, women are apprently safer drivers, which doesn't really susprise me either.

Cheers,
Mike

coremi
06-24-2008, 11:02 AM
I knew nothing about Romania, untill a few years ago we got loads of Romanian professional beggers here....now all i know of Romania is darkskinned people who either pretend to be mentally handicapped and crippled while begging for money (the men) or poor, badly dressed women who say "please" while holding a cup at your face for you to put money in it.

the only beggers we used to have previously, was a few junkies who needed money for drugs...so the whole professional style of begging that is more often seen in central/southern europe is very, very new to us.

I think that the reason for why you feel racism when travelling in europe, is becouse of those who travelled before you and created the mental image of the "typical romanian".

I think of Hungarians, i think of really nice, social people...why?
becouse the Hungarians i met were all like that, deep inside i know that Romanians are just like Hungarians, after all..you live in neighboring nations...first impressions last long, sad but true.

I hope that one day (soon) you will be able to travel and get the respect as you deserve.

It is true what you're saying in part, because romanians are not beggers, romanian gypsies are, but you make no difference, no romanian is dark skin, 75% of romanian are white skin brown hair, some blond and some dark hair. We are dark only after a hot summer :) Should i be a racist with this minority from my country because they attract such bad feelings against all romanians ? i think i should.

CMT
06-24-2008, 11:21 AM
Hah... even the worst women drivers here drive better than the best American driver. How's that for racial drivel? ;)

Are women considered a race of their own? Sometimes I'm inclined to think that... LOL :)

But I don't know.... I've seen some crazy dads out there who take out their frustration of having to drive the family mini van by driving like insane fools.

Steamthrower
06-24-2008, 11:32 AM
Hah... even the worst women drivers here drive better than the best American driver. How's that for racial drivel? ;)

Hey now! I would laugh, but it's true! :D

toby
06-24-2008, 12:48 PM
So you think that if i don't hire someone because his race customs doen't fit with my bussiness profile i am a racist ? Think again.
Yes, if you consciously judge by race, you are racist.

would you put you bussiness in danger and make your wife and kids suffer because you hired a nice muslim wich can't get along with the others workers because of his religion customs and ideeas. Think again. I will never put in any bad situation my family for this racist bull***t you're talking about. I think racism is when the muslim is good, nice, is getting along with everyone else, brings value to your company and kick him out because of his religion, that is a really bad thing to do.
i don't think that if i don't want to change my way of life, to incorporate rules and ideeas from other religions into my familie makes me a racisist, you're wrong.
Who said you have to incorporate other religions into your family? Not hiring someone who's disruptive is not racist. Assuming that someone is disruptive because of their race is racist.

I don't think the barbershop owner acted in a racist way. Hair-ist at worst.

Oedo 808
06-24-2008, 01:15 PM
@coremi

I'm sure that I wouldn't be too chuffed to find out that my new neighbours were going to be Gypsies housed by the council, all I'm saying is that it's possible that they may make great neighbours, hey, they may even share their stolen goods with you! :D "Hey cool laptop, I've got one just like it... hang on a minute!!!"

Just be careful to make sure that those who you expect to be scum, are scum before you treat them as such, every man has the right to expect that he will be judged on his own merits, not doing so is being prejudiced/racist. If you show a little more tolerance you may just be surprised.

======

I saw a car for sale near my house once and as my friend was in the market for one I told him about it and so he came and had a look. I'd only seen it in passing so I was interested to check it out also, a white Volvo estate if I remember rightly (that should have set off the alarm bells). Anyway we get up close to the car and he reads the sale notice: "Blah blah.. One lady owner."

So he takes a step back and says "One, two, three, four."

Yup, all four corners of the car had been fender-bendered! ;D

JohnMarchant
06-24-2008, 03:59 PM
Do you know how many English people have moved to spain as soon as they get old or sick enough to be retired?...massive amounts, and not just you English, also Scandinavians, Germans and so on move to the sunny spain to live cheaply.

the fewest of these people actually ever learn or try to learn spanish, they are often retired already and get the benefits from the respective nations while living in Spain..and still they are fully entitled all the healthcare that Spain has to offer.

I do not want to call you, or anyone racist...but you need to see both sides of the same coin before complaining about something.

Ive seen elder Norwegians complaining about immigrants who cant speak norwegian, while they themselfs cant a word in spanish despite living there for years..hypocrats.

They move to Spain for the climate, not the health benefits. My father who live sin spain comes back to the NHS, if you have loads of money great but not, you try and get treatment in spain without money. Its supposed to be the same but its certainly not :):)

JohnMarchant
06-24-2008, 04:03 PM
Reading through all these threads tells me one thing, that to a greater or lesser degree, according to the so called experts we are all racists.

Regards, John

Matt
06-24-2008, 04:04 PM
Seriously though, women are apprently safer drivers, which doesn't really susprise me either.

Maybe, until they try and park! Then everyone is at risk! :D

kopperdrake
06-24-2008, 04:12 PM
Why do you think I posted this nonsense in the first place? To alert enlightened folks how ridiculous and dangerous it is to award special status to an article of clothing just because it has religious significance.

As for the woman's "nerve". I think her sense of entitlement shows she has "nerve" to spare.

Why did she sue this salon and not the 25(!) others that rejected her? Could it be because this particular employer felt it was completely appropriate to inquire how a potential employee would dress while working in HER place of business?

Here's a thought Chris - worry about your own country's problem with integration and let us worry about ours - how's that?

Jeez - people.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-24-2008, 06:52 PM
Jeez - people.

Indeed. I think your hostility is misdirected and quite uncalled for considering this is in fact a discussion board (though it is probably an inappropriate venue for this particular discussion). Your post contributes nothing but discord to the topic.

This thread has drawn varied views from passionate people across the globe and well it should, for the phenomenon of religious appeasement and political correctness affects us all. IMO this case strikes such a subtle but devestating blow to personal freedoms that I felt compelled to share my concerns.

Accordingly, I am no less concerned with my own country's "problem with integration," as you put it.

Good day.

parm
06-24-2008, 10:35 PM
And the how unusual in brackets is a fact, that part of the community is prominatly the cause.

Could you show us some facts. Because most of what I'm reading around here. Amounts to nothing more than hearsay and opinion.

When I did a search re: your Somalian woman. I couldn't find anything about her. Let alone that Somalians are a particularly dependent group. On the contrary, it was mostly material on white British families, (link in post 142, page 10 of this discussion), who don't get contraception.

But seriously, looking a little closer. How much do you think it costs, to run a household of more than six children and two adults? 30 000 seems like a lot of money. And it is, if you're talking about straight cash. But when it comes to benefits, were not. The calculation will include, exemptions from such things as council tax and prescription payments. It's things like rent for council supplied accommodation and free school meals. Only a much smaller proportion is actually disposable. Personally, I can't see myself envying anyone, who finds themselve reliant on state benefits.

Just one thing to consider. Regarding your, (hypothetical?), Somalian woman.
Both she and her children. Are much more likely to become net contributors. In a society that gives them a stable foundation to work from. And ultimately an equal opportunity in the workplace.

manholoz
06-24-2008, 11:44 PM
You know, all of you make good neighbors. Sure, we all have our differences, but for the most part, this is a community of very nice people.

coremi
06-25-2008, 01:49 AM
It is normal behavior for me not to like foreigners with problems like Somali woman. If a socity has 0 problems than it can welcomes foreigners with problems. When most people from our countries has lots of problems, they don't want to see others from other country coming in with problems. Also i do not agree to pay taxes like hell so the state will spend it on foreigners. First comes the citizens of that country, if there is something left, ok, help foreigners, not the way around.
About racism, of course all of us coming from troubled country have on form or the other of racism, because fear drive most of our emotions and conceptions about life and society. I heard Norway is close to 1% criminality, wow, if they keep up for 20 years this percent, they will never understand or accept why the italiens burnt the gypsies. For them it will be like the end of the world to do such a thing. But wen travel at night with fear, your house gor broken and you most of value things you had and worked hard for, you should see racism and intolerance raising in your mind.

toby
06-25-2008, 02:01 AM
If so, John, then I believe I would have to accept myself as a racist as well...as defined by some of these definitions.

I don't see what's wrong with this. I've got a basic knowledge of genetics and I fail to see why race doesn't physically or mentally influence a person. I also fail to see why the idea is considered negative. We are not all equal. This is not necessarily "elitist", either...I think a major portion of socioeconomic problems today comes from not realising your place in society. I'm tall, but I have to face the fact that, in general, blacks are much more athletic than I and much more able to physically excel in sports. End of story for me.
Good thing for Larry Bird and the Beastie Boys that they didn't think that way. If you really believe that crap I feel sorry for you. If you can't compete with someone from a different race, it's because of your lack of confidence. If you worked as hard as the 'blacks' you *would* be competitive with them. Your lack of motivaton has absolutely nothing to do with your race.

If Colin Powell or Barak Obama had "known their place", that being out of politics, because so few african americans were doing it ( which is apparently the determining factor for you and that huge brush you paint with ), why would it have been to their benefit? Or to that of the people they represent? Do you think Colin Powell is saying "damn, I should've tried out for basketball"? Not to mention Tiger Woods. If anyone is guilty of not 'knowing their place' it's certainly him. Do you really think he should've stayed out of golf?

And would you really think racism was so harmless, if you really needed a job, found a few that you were clearly qualified for, but were turned down for all of them just because the owners didn't like white people?

I hope these examples help you understand just how stupid racism is, and bad for all parties involved.

Lightwolf
06-25-2008, 03:18 AM
Are women considered a race of their own? Sometimes I'm inclined to think that... LOL :)

Well, surely a minority. Like kids ;)

Cheers,
Mike

faulknermano
06-25-2008, 03:36 AM
by my reckoning we are all racists

of course we are, in varying degrees.

i personally think that from a point of view of *law* you need to qualify what constitutes racism.

on the other hand, speaking as an ordinary man living amongst other people, these preoccupations with strict definitions of concepts can be mercifully be laid aside for the moment because in normal interactions the things that are wrong in people are not always about 'race' or 'religion' (if at all). our common complaints are simply attitude, or manners, or personalities shared by every one else.

and the times when i *instinctively* (due to experience) avoid suspicious people, which skin color may prove to be a qualifying marker, it's because of learned habits, experiences. it's instinct, good or bad, and no amount of discussion is going to change that. i'd love to be proven wrong, of course. and i'd equally hate to be proven right.

overall, i think it's a mistake, speaking as a layman, not as a sociologist or lawyer, that terms like 'racist' or say 'religious' are so easily chalked up against a person and unfairly categorises them without really understanding anything. we judge other people by a variety of things (even by our own personal history). but to label these complexities with such general adjectives and then presume to have a clear understanding of the situation is deluding oneself to be the enlightened person that he isn't.

Steamthrower
06-25-2008, 07:30 AM
If you can't compete with someone from a different race, it's because of your lack of confidence. If you worked as hard as the 'blacks' you *would* be competitive with them. Your lack of motivaton has absolutely nothing to do with your race.

I'm not talking about ambition, or motivation, here. I'm talking physical. Blacks are physically more athletic than I, and most whites, are. No matter how hard I try, no matter how many hours I work out, and no matter how hard I push myself, I will never be able to run a basketball like Michael Jordan or hit a golf ball like Tiger Woods.

I think that the problem is saying everyone is equal. Everyone is NOT equal. There will always be persons that are not as athletic as others, not as intelligent, not as artistic, not as mathematical, and it's not always like an RPG where everyone has a dozen trait points to distribute...some people will have 8, some people will have 14.

Just because the Declaration of Independence says it doesn't make it true. Should we treat all as equals? Yes, to a certain extent. Is someone without great physical or mental talents a lesser person? No, not at all.

I have tried to be honest with myself and place myself within society...honestly. When you do this you can see where others are in relation to you, and it has helped me tremendously in treating others fairly. I am fairly young...so I should treat men, especially ones much older than I, with respect and understand that even though I might disagree with them, they've got a lot more years on them than I do. I am in an upper middle class strata...so when I see someone with less money/harder circumstances, I've got to tread carefully and not even hint or bring light to their status, and help them if possible. I am a male, so I've got to treat females like they are females, NOT like they are males...they have completely different needs and feelings.

Anyway. I believe I digress from the topic. My apologies. :D

*Pete*
06-25-2008, 07:42 AM
They move to Spain for the climate, not the health benefits.

is that an excuse for not learning the language or the culture of the nation that you live in?...my point is, there is not at all too much difference as you think, be you escaping a civil war or rainy weather, you still use all the benefits you are given.

the woman with 5 kids you mentioned would have to be insane to refuse to take the money given to her, to refuse to live in a large apartment...would you refuse?, no??..then why upset?

you are upset becouse she gets something that you dont get, and that she gets it without working for the privilegium first?
you have exactly the same rights as she has..and if not, its still not her fault, its the fault of the people who give her all those luxuries....your anger is misdirected.

and, typically second generation immigrants (and first gen, if very young) end up becoming well integrated into the society, so her five kids will more than likely find jobs and pay taxes once they are old enough.


as you noticed, the general idea is that we are all racists, we are...but some of us counter discriminating thoughts with thinking logically and blaming those whose fault it is....i have seen lots of somalians in the parks, all day doing nothing, speaking somalian language and being far from integrated..i cant say i like it, but i know better than to hate them all since i have several good friends who are somalians and speak far better norwegian than i do..second generation turns out well usually.
and so does first generation if more effort would be taken to spread the immigrants so that they would live deep in native (english) areas instead of immigrant ghettos where they always find people from their former nations...in order to fully integrate, you will need to live in the society that you are supposed to integrate with, friends, neighbours, collegues..all, or most of them, should be english.

CMT
06-25-2008, 08:11 AM
I'm not talking about ambition, or motivation, here. I'm talking physical. Blacks are physically more athletic than I, and most whites, are. No matter how hard I try, no matter how many hours I work out, and no matter how hard I push myself, I will never be able to run a basketball like Michael Jordan or hit a golf ball like Tiger Woods.

Actually Tiger Woods is Caucasian-black-Indian-Asian. He calls himself a "Cablinasian". But I think you're right to a degree. Here's (http://www.blackathlete.com/artman2/publish/Track_amp_Field_36/Why_Black_Athletes_Dominate_Sports_and_Why_We_re_A _188.shtml) a very interesting article about those types of differences.


I think that the problem is saying everyone is equal. Everyone is NOT equal. There will always be persons that are not as athletic as others, not as intelligent, not as artistic, not as mathematical, and it's not always like an RPG where everyone has a dozen trait points to distribute...some people will have 8, some people will have 14.

I have to agree. Not everyone has an equal chance of getting heart disease. Some will have a genetic tendency for it based on heredity just as some have a genetic tendency for athletics. There's also been studies showing that African Americans have a greater tendency for Diabetes.

We all have equal rights under law, but our bodies are not all equally built. Now how much does race play a part in that? I don't know for certain, but it's not hard for me to believe that it does to a slight degree. Am I a racist for believing that? Depends on your definition and parameters of racism, I guess. But I would think of that view as being more Evolutionist than racist. Different permutations of a design.

Does that make anyone superior to another as a human being? Of course not. One built for sprinting may not be built for long distance running.

*Pete*
06-25-2008, 08:59 AM
I have to agree. Not everyone has an equal chance of getting heart disease. Some will have a genetic tendency for it based on heredity just as some have a genetic tendency for athletics. There's also been studies showing that African Americans have a greater tendency for Diabetes.


Oh yes, intresting theme :)
We are all alike and different the same time..
to list a few of differences.

Africans (north) = superb long distance runners, great stamina, nearly immune to skincancer, scars dont heal as well as with white skin.
Africans (South/west) = strong bodies, great boxers and short distance runners, same as abowe, immune to skincancer and similiar problems with scars.

Asians = more chance to get bad vision (short sighted), bad resistance to alcohol, natural medicine such as herbs and similiar give very strong effect on asians.

Scandinavians = despite bad reputation they can resist a lot of alcohol, the most immune in the world towards sicknesses as AIDS/HIV but for the same reason natural medicine is quite ineffective.

American indians = cant grow beard, bigger and broader feet than europeans.

so, yes, absolutely..we are different, but also the same...if you mix an african and an european, you will get a dark skinned baby with most likely brown eyes, becouse genetically seen dark skin gives better protection to the body than white, and why we have blue/green/grey eyes is becouse we do not have enough melanin (color) in our eyes, so nature gives us brown eyes if given the chance.


I am 25% Sami (northern natives), 75% finnish..but 3 generations back i have slavic blood (belarus or russian)...i suspect, no..im sure, that most of you are just as mixed as i am, if not more.

parm
06-25-2008, 10:08 AM
We all have equal rights under law,

And isn't that just the crucial point. Everyone should get a fair chance to try. And not be excluded because of assumptions.

Just because a selector may believe, black sprinters are always the best. Does not mean, white athletes should be excluded from trials.

The article you linked above, is interesting. But is a very flawed analysis. Plausible, because there are number of facts there. That do appear to support the authors theory. A couple of important factors are left unconsidered. At least one was hinted at, but taken to a rather spurious, (at least debatable), conclusion.

Rather than pursue this new turn in the debate. I think it's important to keep a sense of perspective here. And understand that most of us do not. And can not. Compete at the level, where being half a second slower than the fastest in the world. Earns you the accolade of being a lousy sprinter. If it were so, 90% of us would be permanently out of work. And for the vast majority of ordinary jobs, that people find themselves applying for. There is no justification at all for exclusion, due to race, sex or religion.

Steamthrower
06-25-2008, 10:25 AM
There is no justification at all for exclusion, due to race, sex or religion.

I see what you're saying, Parm, but then again, I think it's hard to deny that certain roles are definitely more fit for certain race, sexes, and religions. Why are most all construction workers men? Why is there literally something like 19 times the amount of female nurses than male nurses? Because men are better at construction and women are better at caretaking? It's what it seems to me.

Lightwolf
06-25-2008, 10:36 AM
Because men are better at construction and women are better at caretaking? It's what it seems to me.
Or because historically they have been attributed as such without any real reason?

Over here, after WWII some previously male dominated occupations have no turned to be female dominated, just because of the lack of males after the war. So I'd be very careful with attributing stereotypes like that - especially because in most cases it either just isn't true, or doesn't make a difference (I.e. some very good basketball players are white or even asian, and you might as well attribute the skill of a player to how and where they were raised).

Cheers,
Mike

parm
06-25-2008, 11:10 AM
Why are most all construction workers men? Why is there literally something like 19 times the amount of female nurses than male nurses?

Could you ever entertain the possibility, the reason may be. Lack of equal opportunities. Coupled with negative attitudes and stereotyping.

A least a third of my work so far this year, has been for a female blacksmith. Who is a sculptor and highly skilled metal worker. The huge studio complex where she is based. Was recently fitted out with an alarm and CCTV system. As well as substantial rewiring, by a female electrician who employed her father as her assistant. I've worked with female cabinet makers. And my sister used to project manage, very large civil engineering projects. Female architects? look into it you probably will be surprised.

I am willing to personally vouch. That the female craft and tradespeople I've worked with. Have definitely got what it takes.


Because men are better at construction and women are better at caretaking? It's what it seems to me.


Sorry Steamthrower. That is not good enough.

Steamthrower
06-25-2008, 11:51 AM
I was specifically stating "construction worker", as in laborers. I deal with female architects all the time, on a daily basis. Of the 100+ architects that I have contact with, I'd say a good deal of them are female....not a majority, but not a minority either. But heavy, physical work, like ditch digging and framing and concrete...they're all men.

Andyjaggy
06-25-2008, 12:34 PM
Steamthrower, you racist sexist pig.

parm
06-25-2008, 12:39 PM
So. Do you accept that many women, the chance would be quite capable tradespeople. Carpenters, Plumbers, Electricians, that sort of thing?

I wouldn't be much good at ditch digging and heavy labouring either. Don't have the build for it. I have used mechanical diggers though. I know how to use lifting equipment. I expect a woman, if inclined to do so, could operate plant as well as anyone.

If you're saying that, men are on the whole physically stronger than women. Fine. I don't see it as much of an excuse though.

Steamthrower
06-25-2008, 12:44 PM
Steamthrower, you racist sexist pig.

I know. And I haven't even mentioned the word gay yet.

CMT
06-25-2008, 12:55 PM
Interesting observation.... There's a whole lot of construction going on on the roads where I work. Just about every route I can go to work has some type of construction on it. I rarely see some women on the crew. But why is it that 100% of the time when I do actually see them, they are never doing anything but holding the "SLOW" or "STOP" signs for the traffic? Either the men on the crew won't let them work on the stuff they are working on, or the women choose not to do the hard stuff.

Just an interesting observation staying on this latest discussion tangent. Not that I care one way or the other what women do.

Steamthrower
06-25-2008, 01:21 PM
CMT, you racist sexist pig...

Sometimes they're driving the trucks with flashing lights.

toby
06-26-2008, 12:42 AM
I'm not talking about ambition, or motivation, here.
I realize you're not talking about ambition or motivation, that's what your mistake is. Neither the Swiss nor Asians, nor anyone else, are successful at difficult tasks without motivation.

I'm talking physical. Blacks are physically more athletic than I, and most whites, are. No matter how hard I try, no matter how many hours I work out, and no matter how hard I push myself, I will never be able to run a basketball like Michael Jordan or hit a golf ball like Tiger Woods. Imagine how many black guys are trying to be like Michael Jordan every day of their lives? Try *millions*. His tremendous success can't be attributed to race either. What I said is that you could be competitive, that's the most anyone can expect. Confidence, motivation and personality have ten times the effect on your life that race does. Judging by race is clearly innaccurate, and is also the lazy man's way of not having to think, too lazy to look at someone's credentials or talk to them before judging.



I think that the problem is saying everyone is equal. Everyone is NOT equal. There will always be persons that are not as athletic as others, not as intelligent, not as artistic, not as mathematical, and it's not always like an RPG where everyone has a dozen trait points to distribute...some people will have 8, some people will have 14.

Just because the Declaration of Independence says it doesn't make it true. Should we treat all as equals? Yes, to a certain extent. Is someone without great physical or mental talents a lesser person? No, not at all.
No we're not all physically equal. But those inequalities have almost nothing to do with race.



I have tried to be honest with myself and place myself within society...honestly. When you do this you can see where others are in relation to you, and it has helped me tremendously in treating others fairly. I am fairly young...so I should treat men, especially ones much older than I, with respect and understand that even though I might disagree with them, they've got a lot more years on them than I do. I am in an upper middle class strata...so when I see someone with less money/harder circumstances, I've got to tread carefully and not even hint or bring light to their status, and help them if possible. I am a male, so I've got to treat females like they are females, NOT like they are males...they have completely different needs and feelings.

Anyway. I believe I digress from the topic. My apologies. :D
No not at all, it's entirely on topic, thanks for being candid. Personally I think we should treat everyone, young and old, with the same respect, until we see that conditions merit otherwise. There's plenty of older people who're complete bastards, a-holes get old too - like Dick Cheney =) oh! sorry! :offtopic:

Lightwolf
06-26-2008, 04:10 AM
I know. And I haven't even mentioned the word gay yet.
What, now you're a gay, racist sexist (and probably chauvinistic) pig? tsk ;)

Before we know it you'll probably out yourself as a redneck tree-hugging pinko KKK member...

Cheers,
Mike

Andyjaggy
06-27-2008, 08:15 AM
What, now you're a gay, racist sexist (and probably chauvinistic) pig? tsk ;)

Before we know it you'll probably out yourself as a redneck tree-hugging pinko KKK member...

Cheers,
Mike

Just the fact that you don't like Steamthrower because he's a sexist, racist, gay, chauvinistic, redneck, enviro, tree hugging, liberal, pinko kkk member, shows just how prejudiced you are.

Lightwolf
06-27-2008, 08:24 AM
Just the fact that you don't like Steamthrower because he's a sexist, racist, gay, chauvinistic, redneck, enviro, tree hugging, liberal, pinko kkk member, shows just how prejudiced you are.
Actually, those are the only reasons for me to like him, or even communicate with him at all.

That shows how prejudiced I really am :D

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
06-27-2008, 01:23 PM
In fact, let's just get rid of anyone who's not female, blonde, 5'8", petite build with at least size C cup and has a penchant for talking endless babble about where you're going on holiday or what happened in last night's mindless episode of 'Big Bruvva'.


There, fixed that for you. :thumbsup:

*Pete*
06-27-2008, 01:49 PM
No we're not all physically equal. But those inequalities have almost nothing to do with race.

actually, "race" (i hate that word) does have a lot to say..worlds best runners, short and long distance are africans or of african origin, they do have better build bodies than we have.

but, one thing is for sure..not every black is better than you in basketball only becouse he is black...if you train, and train hard, you can become better than 99% of all people of all races, but that last 1% is difficult to reach, becouse at such high level you will start to see the genetical advantage that black people can have.

it is wrong to think that "race" forbids you from becoming professional in any given sport...you can claim that race is the problem once you are the very best among your own race.

*Pete*
06-27-2008, 01:51 PM
Actually, those are the only reasons for me to like him, or even communicate with him at all.

That shows how prejudiced I really am :D

Cheers,
Mike

oh no...i always liked to talk to him, but i didnt know he was like that!!

does it mean that im also prejudiced without knowing it`*shocked*

Steamthrower
06-27-2008, 02:51 PM
it is wrong to think that "race" forbids you from becoming professional in any given sport...you can claim that race is the problem once you are the very best among your own race.

Very good point. A fat African can't run any faster than a fat Caucasian, but a highly toned and trained African can probably beat (and endure) a highly toned, trained Caucasian into the dust.


oh no...i always liked to talk to him, but i didnt know he was like that!!

Not only am I sexist, racist, gay, chauvinistic, redneck, enviro, tree hugging, liberal, and a pinko KKK member, but I dislike homosexuals and like to eat red meat. :hey:

*Pete*
06-28-2008, 09:53 AM
Not only am I sexist, racist, gay, chauvinistic, redneck, enviro, tree hugging, liberal, and a pinko KKK member, but I dislike homosexuals and like to eat red meat. :hey:

add chizhofrenic (spell?) to the list

Iain
06-28-2008, 01:11 PM
Black athletes are better at some sports than white athletes, sprinting and basketball being the most obvious ones.
There are slight physiological differences and they make a big difference in certain circumstances.

It works the other way too and it's only our political correctness that makes it seem an unacceptable thing to say.

parm
06-28-2008, 01:49 PM
It works the other way too and it's only our political correctness that makes it seem an unacceptable thing to say.

Funny thing that.

But Black people seem to come in as many different shapes and sizes, as White people do. To my eyes at least.

toby
06-28-2008, 07:13 PM
Black athletes are better at some sports than white athletes, sprinting and basketball being the most obvious ones.
There are slight physiological differences and they make a big difference in certain circumstances.

It works the other way too and it's only our political correctness that makes it seem an unacceptable thing to say.
It's amazing how many logical arguments you can make and still be considered to be at the whim of some knee-jerk group-thinking.

Just because 9 out of 10 basketball players are black doesn't mean it's genetics that got them there. It's not their race that makes them decide to pursue basketball instead of accounting, is it. You can't just watch sports on tv and make a determination like that.

Iain
06-29-2008, 05:13 AM
You can't just watch sports on tv and make a determination like that.

Well, you can actually.
Or you can go a bit deeper and look at statistics outlining the number of black men in sport versus the number who excel at basketball or sprinting.

You can also look at the number of black men who have run 100m in under 10 seconds versus the number of white men.

It's not racist stereotyping, it's just physiological fact.

parm
06-29-2008, 05:16 AM
Physiological fact? Or perhaps just a statistical curiosity.

Iain
06-29-2008, 05:49 AM
Physiological fact? Or perhaps just a statistical curiosity.

Good point. Fact is a loose term when it comes to genetics as our science isn't advanced enough in a lot of areas on the subject.
I suppose I should point out that I'm not speculating after watching sport on TV. I don't actually watch much but my wife is a sports scientist and I find the subject fascinating.
In his 'Taboo' book Jon Entine makes a very convincing case for genetic advantage in sport.

It's easily challenged due to the lack of scientific proof but the evidence is there to see.

parm
06-29-2008, 09:19 AM
In his 'Taboo' book Jon Entine makes a very convincing case for genetic advantage in sport.

Clearly genetics play a crucial role in sporting success, for obvious reasons.

It's the attribution of particular traits,to specific racial groups. That put you on very shaky ground. These, are the kind of claims that have a habit of proving you very wrong. Because the kind of determined, and fiercely competitive individuals, who participate in top level sport. Don't tend to be swayed very much by that kind of theory.

In the context of how this discussion started. It is interesting to note. That Athletics, is one certain area, where the most qualified applicants will get the job.

*Pete*
06-29-2008, 09:30 AM
Physiological fact? Or perhaps just a statistical curiosity.

Physiological fact.
some sports, such as basketball might be a strong sport for blacks becouse its THE game for them, while icehockey is 99.9% white man sport.

Also, being white (or black) means less when it comes to the potentiality of becoming the best in a sport than it does to live in a geografical area where that sport is practised as a national sport.
strong competition tends to make us good in a sport..thats the reason why Finland with 5 million in population is very strong in icehockey and motorsports, becouse those are the national sports...they suck in football and tennis though, and basketball.

But when it comes to running, black people have been leading it since they were first allowed into the olympic games...they do have better genetics for it, i just dont know the english word for it..but they do have a more strong and elastic *string* that helps them to get more bounce for every step they take when running...its not a muscle, but closely related to it.

this is no different from american indians having bigger and broader feet and not able to grow beard, or asians getting worse vision or more easily get affected by alcohols/fat food than us...or even that we (scandinavians atleast) tend to have blonde hair and blue eyes.


anyway...the genetical advantages comes into play only at the very, very top level of any given sport, so it must mean that the genetical advantage only adds a percent or so to the performance, the rest is the result of hard training.

IMI
06-29-2008, 09:37 AM
I just found this thread, hadn't even noticed it, but I wanted to mention this.
In the course of doing my job, I drive all over the state of Florida, into and out of many neighborhoods, poor, middle class, and affluent. Frequently these neighborhoods have playgrounds with tennis and basketball courts. More often than not, the white neighborhood's basketball courts are empty or sparse, while the black neighborhood's courts are teeming with activity. And, the white kids who are playing with the black kids seem to be more into it and better.
I really don't think it's a question of genetics that makes black guys generally better basketball players, just that it's become a part of the black culture, which alot of them get into at a very young age.
As they say, practice makes perfect.

*Pete*
06-29-2008, 09:50 AM
very true IMI.

and to further add strenght to your argument, Icehockey is mainly a white man sport and there is to my knowledge only one black player in the nhl, and he is far from being among the top 10 percent of the players.
would it be genetics alone, he would be the top player.
there is a difference, scientifically proven..but its not the only thing you need to become professional athlete..you need training and strong competition far more.

kopperdrake
06-29-2008, 10:06 AM
Indeed. I think your hostility is misdirected and quite uncalled for considering this is in fact a discussion board (though it is probably an inappropriate venue for this particular discussion). Your post contributes nothing but discord to the topic.

This thread has drawn varied views from passionate people across the globe and well it should, for the phenomenon of religious appeasement and political correctness affects us all. IMO this case strikes such a subtle but devestating blow to personal freedoms that I felt compelled to share my concerns.

Accordingly, I am no less concerned with my own country's "problem with integration," as you put it.

Good day.

Apologies Chris - I just get so wound up by the more extreme views on here (only extreme by my definition) and didn't see the more balanced general view.

As someone who has lived in large cities with all mixes I figure I may be more liberal, as in this world of mass migration to be anything else only invites contempt and causes long-term trouble. I agree that certain religions/cultures are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being less tolerant, but in my eye the fact that we live in a society that is *not* hinged on intolerance is what makes me smile. When I see the asian kids round here holding hands in public (albeit in secret as the families would often not approve) or wearing the latest fashions I smile...it's integration at its most basic and they see the offerings the country their parents/grandparents brought them to can give them. And we should often remember that it is precisely the faut of our countries' earlier exploitation of other countries that lead to many of these immigrants entering our countries.

Short of blocking borders with guns then this integration *must* happen, and it has to happen by stealth - let the woman one day work in a salon with her scarf and maybe her daughters will grow up a little more integrated. Turn her away for her scarf and it's just reinforcing the differences.

I'm only using that original case as a pointer - it works for all walks of life.

kopperdrake
06-29-2008, 10:12 AM
There, fixed that for you. :thumbsup:

LOL - you could've glossed over the 'endless babble' bit though... ;)

parm
06-29-2008, 10:24 AM
Physiological fact.
some sports, such as basketball might be a strong sport for blacks becouse its THE game for them, while icehockey is 99.9% white man sport.

Could it be more Psychological than Physiological Though?

Most of the lines in reasoning you've taken, do, certainly suggest just that.

IMI
06-29-2008, 10:45 AM
I'd say it's *entirely* psychological. You just have to personally see the vigor and exuberance with which these young kids attack the sport on a daily basis to really understand how much a part of their life it is.

Not just that, but it's a cultural peer competition thing for alot of them, too.

Iain
06-29-2008, 11:25 AM
The argument that basketball is available at an early age for a lot of kids in inner city areas is very valid and it's referenced a lot in discussions like these. It just can't be used to completely dismiss genetic advantage.

There are great non-black basketball players. They just don't seem to become as great as the best black players.
This seems most likely to be attributed to a lesser natural ability for explosive actions (jumping/pushing etc.)

To back that up, the most obvious example is the sprinter.

So either the non-black sprinters just aren't trying hard enough or there is something in the genes.

*Pete*
06-29-2008, 11:26 AM
Could it be more Psychological than Physiological Though?

Most of the lines in reasoning you've taken, do, certainly suggest just that.

I believe it is a bit of everything...i would never say that all black people are automatically better than me becouse of genetics...some are, but all of them.

there was a recent study in sweden about the effectivines of the drug tests done at sporting events.
the study was based on the fact that some peoples test results will not show the druguse even if they did use the drugs...so they did tests between a number of swedes and a number of southkoreans.

they gave all people participating in the test a dose of steroids and then did a test to find out if they could find traces of it.

the result was, 12% of the swedes had genes that hid the steroid usage, it was impossible to tell, even in labtests where it was a fact that they been injected with steroids that there was any trace of it in the blood...
on the korean test group, only 2 percent had the gene that hid the steroid usage.

so, in theory..88% of swedes do not have this gene, 98% of koreans do not have it, so its far more often occuring among swedes and as such a "racially" (hate that word) spread advantage.

we are all mutants, in some form..in my case, i always been able to get a good stamina with only a little training while others had to struggle with it..i noticed it when i was a kid but never put much attention to it.
a few years ago i did a test of my lungs becouse of a sickness i had at the time..the test result showed that i was able to absorb 60% of all oxygen that i breathe in...not bad, considering that the average amount for me at my age (30 back then) is 30%.
Professional athletes have 75-70%..it can be trained higher from the average 30% that people have, but its obvious that i do have a genetical/physiological advantage since i, without training can absorb the double.

how much oxygen you can absorb is directly linked to your endurance when doing physical exercises.

had i known this when i still was young, i would have done all i could to use the advantage and become a top athlete...but without hard training i would never become one, so..genetics matter, but its not everything there is to it.

look at Tiger Woods that someone mentioned earlier...he is where he is, becouse he started with golf at age of 6, and not becouse he had the genetics for it (i consider golf to be more of a precision game than strenght/endurance where black people could have an edge).

Iain
06-29-2008, 11:52 AM
It's the attribution of particular traits,to specific racial groups. That put you on very shaky ground. These, are the kind of claims that have a habit of proving you very wrong.


I think that was the case when people like Roger Bannister claimed the black sprinter must have natural advantage. He had nothing to back it up other than observation.

We now know for example, that the number of fast twitch muscle fibres present in black people is greater than the number found in white people.

parm
06-29-2008, 12:10 PM
[QUOTE=Iain;715804So either the non-black sprinters just aren't trying hard enough or there is something in the genes.[/QUOTE]

another possibility to consider is: That the non-black population, within our, (and other), cultural milieu. Who have the greatest genetic potential to excel at the sports, black athletes currently excel in. Are simply electing to do other things.

parm
06-29-2008, 12:15 PM
We now know for example, that the number of fast twitch muscle fibres present in black people is greater than the number found in white people.

In all Black people? Is that true? Or is it not more the case; that there is a distribution of these traits, among any given population.

Iain
06-29-2008, 01:51 PM
In all Black people? Is that true? Or is it not more the case; that there is a distribution of these traits, among any given population.

It seems that on average, people descended from indigenous West Africans have less slow twitch fibres and more of both types of fast twitch than even those with East African heritage.

It is, of course, a variable across the human species but there seems to be an obvious pattern which goes a long way to explaining the black dominance we see in some sports.

Iain
06-29-2008, 02:07 PM
another possibility to consider is: That the non-black population, within our, (and other), cultural milieu. Who have the greatest genetic potential to excel at the sports, black athletes currently excel in. Are simply electing to do other things.

Possibly. It seems to me however that people pursue activities far more vigorously when they find that they excel at them.

There are a lot of very good white runners at the upper levels of athletics but I don't think it can be coincedence that between 1990 and 2000, the ten-second barrier in the 100m was broken 200 times, not once by a white athlete.
There were lots trying.

toby
06-29-2008, 03:00 PM
It is, of course, a variable across the human species but there seems to be an obvious pattern which goes a long way to explaining the black dominance we see in some sports.
Sure, if you ignore their passion and drive for sports. You're undervaluing what people can achieve with determination alone. Those runners descended from Africa are what, 2-5% faster than their competitors, when trained to their maximum? That isn't enough to make you think you excel in a sport from childhood, and not enough to explain a domination in a sport.

Iain
06-29-2008, 03:15 PM
You're undervaluing what people can achieve with determination alone. Those runners descended from Africa are what, 2-5% faster than their competitors, when trained to their maximum? That isn't enough to make you think you excel in a sport from childhood, and not enough to explain a domination in a sport.

I'm not sure what you mean; 2-5% faster is everything at 100m distance. It completely explains dominance.

Do you not think their competitors are trained to their maximum?

mrpapabeis
06-29-2008, 03:36 PM
Just throwing my 2% in here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Thorpe

toby
06-29-2008, 04:07 PM
I'm not sure what you mean; 2-5% faster is everything at 100m distance. It completely explains dominance.
2-5% faster obviously demonstrates a winner, and it may explain dominance *in that event*, but it does not mean that *race* explains dominance in a range of sports.



Do you not think their competitors are trained to their maximum?
Yes I do, for the sake of that argument I'm not saying that african descendants are trained better.

But that is a factor you don't seem to realize. The best trainers will train who they think the best athlete is, and sponsors will pay for training based on who they think will win. Those decisions can be affected by race, as well as the devotion to the sport that they see in the athlete, from childhood on. So it's very possible that they do get better training.

Iain
06-29-2008, 04:51 PM
2-5% faster obviously demonstrates a winner, and it may explain dominance *in that event*, but it does not mean that *race* explains dominance in a range of sports.

I'm not talking about a range of sports, just sprinting and basketball, specifically sprinting in this instance.
The argument was never that "black athletes are better at sport", just that they are better at some sports. Similarly, white athletes seem to be better genetically armed for others.



But that is a factor you don't seem to realize. The best trainers will train who they think the best athlete is, and sponsors will pay for training based on who they think will win. Those decisions can be affected by race, as well as the devotion to the sport that they see in the athlete, from childhood on. So it's very possible that they do get better training.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The best athletes are brought forward by the best trainers hence the number of black sprinters competing (and winning) in the US Olympic teams, for example. They are the best sprinters.

toby
06-29-2008, 06:12 PM
I'm not talking about a range of sports, just sprinting and basketball, specifically sprinting in this instance.
The argument was never that "black athletes are better at sport", just that they are better at some sports. Similarly, white athletes seem to be better genetically armed for others.
To say that black athletes are better at one physical sport but not another because of genetics, ignoring culture and geography, is what convinces me that you're judging by the face value of what you see. "A black guy wins again... they must be genetically superior".



I think you've hit the nail on the head. The best athletes are brought forward by the best trainers hence the number of black sprinters competing (and winning) in the US Olympic teams, for example. They are the best sprinters.

let's try this again

The best trainers will train who they think the best athlete is (forget about sponsors). What they think can be affected by race, as well as the devotion to the sport that they see in the athlete, from childhood on. So it's very possible that they do get better training for reasons other than genetics.

Iain
06-29-2008, 06:55 PM
To say that black athletes are better at one physical sport but not another because of genetics, ignoring culture and geography, is what convinces me that you're judging by the face value of what you see. "A black guy wins again... they must be genetically superior".


Have you actually read my posts? I'm not taking anything on face value. I've been very specific on where and why black athletes are thought to have genetic advantage.
I've also said that it's thought to work the other way. The same physiological differences mean that white athletes are naturally more predisposed to excelling at weightlifting, for example.

I have not used the term "genetically superior" and I have no reason to. It's assumptions and comments like that, in fact, which create the taboo surrounding this whole issue.

toby
06-30-2008, 01:40 AM
Have you actually read my posts? I'm not taking anything on face value. I've been very specific on where and why black athletes are thought to have genetic advantage.
And 'where' just happens to be the same thing that you see on tv - and the only genetic advantage you've suggested is worth far less than the other factors imho. You don't even to consider those.


I've also said that it's thought to work the other way. The same physiological differences mean that white athletes are naturally more predisposed to excelling at weightlifting, for example.

I have not used the term "genetically superior" and I have no reason to. It's assumptions and comments like that, in fact, which create the taboo surrounding this whole issue.
I didn't mean to imply that you think any race is superior or inferior. Let me re-word that:
"A black guy wins at basketball again... it must be because of genetics".
That better expresses my impression of the way you think. I don't understand why you'd think that race matters more than anything else - there's so many other factors involved - and you haven't offered any reasons as to why it should.

*Pete*
06-30-2008, 01:42 AM
Just throwing my 2% in here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Thorpe

very intresting.

There was something about Autralia also, with the aboriginis and sport..previously they werent allowed to participate in sport, untill the natural talent for it was obvious...i just cant remember what sport it was though.

anyway..both Toby and Iain are correct in their claims, arguing nearly the same thing without noticing it.

genetics, when it comes to the fast twitch muscles (explosive strenght) is a fact and gives an advantage.

culture and geography gives another advantage...you do need to be surrounded with the sport you are doing, it has to be a lifestyle and you need to have tough competition to be the very best.

the best sprinters comes from USA, not africa..but still, every American top class sprinter is black.

Iain
06-30-2008, 02:22 AM
I don't understand why you'd think that race matters more than anything else - there's so many other factors involved - and you haven't offered any reasons as to why it should.

I have.
The 100m statistic that I posted earlier single handedly backs up the claims of Bannister, Entine and others like them.

During that 10 years when 200 black athletes ran the 100m in under 10 seconds, there would surely have been some world class white athletes with similar levels of dedication, training and desire to win as the black runners.

Statistically, it is as near proof as you could get that there is a more important factor.

toby
06-30-2008, 10:22 PM
I have.
The 100m statistic that I posted earlier single handedly backs up the claims of Bannister, Entine and others like them.

During that 10 years when 200 black athletes ran the 100m in under 10 seconds, there would surely have been some world class white athletes with similar levels of dedication, training and desire to win as the black runners.

Statistically, it is as near proof as you could get that there is a more important factor.
( I presume you mean "that race is the more important factor"? )
Statistically, it is proof; as long as you don't factor in any other statistics.

You're trying to use that one statistic to justify itself. "Black athletes break the 10 sec. barrier, and whites don't, because of genetics" ... "how do you know it's because of genetics?" "Because black athletes break the 10 sec. barrier, and whites don't." You haven't offered any reason to put genetics in front of the other factors.



the best sprinters comes from USA, not africa..but still, every American top class sprinter is black.
Interesting, so it *could* be that more advanced technology and more money in the training, combined with the passion of black culture here the U.S., that makes a 4% difference, and race makes 1%. It could be racism in the choice of trainers for all we know.

parm
07-01-2008, 12:52 AM
There are great non-black basketball players. They just don't seem to become as great as the best black players.
This seems most likely to be attributed to a lesser natural ability for explosive actions (jumping/pushing etc.)

The world record for the triple jump, is still held by Jonathon Edwards, a white athlete.

These genes certainly do exist within the white Caucasian population. There are plenty of reasons, other than genetic, why certain racial groups don't perform as well as others in sports. Indeed, why entire countries do not do as well as others, (United States).

Statistical evidence is circumstantial, at best, never proof. Until a white or other athlete breaks the barrier, so to speak. I think many people will accept this, (statistical evidence), as fact. And I'm sure that most black sprinters, are quite happy for white athletes to believe it as well. Because there in lies the true advantage. A psychological one.

*Pete*
07-01-2008, 02:25 AM
the difference between us, white and dark africans is obvious when looking at the color of the skin, hair and eyes.

but it is more than just color, the skin of a black person is thicker, has more melanin (color) and is basically immune to skin cancer caused by the sun, becouse of its thickness it doesnt heal scars as well as our white, thin skin.

the hair of an african is far thicker, often curly than our more blonde and thin hair..we, white have more hair fibers, they have less.

the eyes on our darker skinned brothers is usually brown (always?), becouse it has more melanin (color) in it than our blue/green/grey eyes..when a black and a white person make a child, the child gets brown eyes (nearly always) becouse genetically its better to have more melanin than less.

all of that we know, for a fact and there is no argument of it either...we can all see it.
so, the question is..why would one think that the only difference between people from different parts of the world is only the color and appearance?

we see that black people run faster, we know that black people have more fast twitch muscles as Iain pointed out, but when it comes to claiming that black people do have an advantage, just as with being resistant against skin cancer, we end up with endless discussions on whether or not it is or not helpfull in certain sports?

I have a friend, from Gambia..we both train at the same gym, we both eat everything we can eat (not holding any diet) and i have been training 2 years more than him..still, he is stronger than me, he is actually stronger than anyone in the gym, he doesnt train more than the rest of us, but he is the strongest of all despite of not being the biggest of all.
sure...there are other africans, from eastern africa (somalia) but they are far from being stronger than me, or the guy from Gambia (west africa).
coinsidence..it sure could be, but when all sprinters able to compete for gold are from, or have roots from western africa, the coinsidence seem to be quite often repeating itself.

Iain
07-01-2008, 02:35 AM
Statistically, it is proof; as long as you don't factor in any other statistics.

You're trying to use that one statistic to justify itself. "Black athletes break the 10 sec. barrier, and whites don't, because of genetics" ... "how do you know it's because of genetics?"

I don't know but I think the evidence is strong. I subscribe to the point of view of researchers who have taken all things into consideration.

How do you know it's not because of genetics? Passion for sport among blacks is hardly reason enough for that glaring statistic when there are passionate and well trained sprinters from all ethnic and racial backgrounds.

Psychological advantage is, I'm sure, a part of it but that only comes from an overwhelming track record of success. That has to be explained also.

Red_Oddity
07-01-2008, 02:44 AM
I don't know but I think the evidence is strong. I subscribe to the point of view of researchers who have taken all things into consideration.

How do you know it's not because of genetics? Passion for sport among blacks is hardly reason enough for that glaring statistic when there are passionate and well trained sprinters from all ethnic and racial backgrounds.

Psychological advantage is, I'm sure, a part of it but that only comes from an overwhelming track record of success. That has to be explained also.

The reason we don't mention genetics is very well pointed out in the title of the thread, poltical correctness, we are all so afraid we might say something that might be concidered racism we rather exclude it from any topic no matter how logical it might sound and fit.

I don't understand why we are all so anal and afraid when it comes to our genetic heritage.

kopperdrake
07-01-2008, 04:19 AM
My barrel belly is genetic - I'm not ashamed to admit it :P

j__
07-01-2008, 03:33 PM
"As someone who has lived in large cities with all mixes I figure I may be more liberal, as in this world of mass migration to be anything else only invites contempt and causes long-term trouble."

That's perfectly laudable. I haven't read all of this thread so I don't know...but can anyone point to a majority grass roots movement in an established sovereign nation, committed to mass immigration for people of different race/population background, which asserts as its reasons, qualities that politicians state mass immigration has given today ? There could well be examples but I can't think of one off the top of my head right now.

"And we should often remember that it is precisely the faut of our countries' earlier exploitation of other countries that lead to many of these immigrants entering our countries."

Or empires have no borders depending on how you look at it... And you're from the UK.. what was Britain's 'exploitation' of Poland ?

toby
07-01-2008, 09:39 PM
The reason we don't mention genetics is very well pointed out in the title of the thread, poltical correctness, we are all so afraid we might say something that might be concidered racism we rather exclude it from any topic no matter how logical it might sound and fit.

I don't understand why we are all so anal and afraid when it comes to our genetic heritage.
Please, we already covered that and moved on, and there's no one here who's afraid to express themselves on the topic.

Even if these black sprinters really were 2-5% faster than caucasians sprinters because of genetics alone, it's pretty stupid to judge entire races based on 0.0001 percent of the population, which is what this sub-topic started with.

parm
07-02-2008, 01:54 AM
The reason we don't mention genetics is very well pointed out in the title of the thread, poltical correctness, we are all so afraid we might say something that might be concidered racism we rather exclude it from any topic no matter how logical it might sound and fit.

I don't think that's right.

People here, don't have a problem discussing race, culture or genetics. There is a problem though. When, (as with the topic starting this thread), irrational conclusions are made; and then, justified on a quasi-scientific basis.

The issues are complex, with lots of variables. Dispensing labels to those holding opposing views. Be it Racist or Politically Correct, Liberal; whatever. Will never bring clarity to a discussion. And only ever really signifies to me, an individual, not open to rational debate.


I don't know but I think the evidence is strong. I subscribe to the point of view of researchers who have taken all things into consideration.

All things?

How is Jonathon Edwards, world record holder for the Triple Jump, accounted for?

I took the time this week to read some of the material by Jon Entine. And if what he says is correct. Then things are pretty much cut and dried, in his own words: "White athletes need not apply".

Fortunately, there is more a ring of propaganda and myth building about it. I need better evidence. And a much more convincing scientific foundation, to be swayed. In my view his sample group is too narrow. The assumption that everyone good enough to compete, will, necessarily even choose any sport as a career. Is deeply flawed. And you can't really compare the breadth of raw data. On such genetic peculiarities as sickle cell anaemia, or the quality of the scientific explanation accounting for it. With this assertion on fast twitch muscle fibres.

He doesn't deal satisfactorily with one important aspect of his own statistical data. That is, the overwhelming U.S dominance in the acquisition of medals. Even though the American athletes, are competing with other Black athletes from around the world. Who presumably share the same genetic advantage. And therefore, aught to be getting just as many medals as the Americans. They are not. Some other significant factor/s are clearly at work here. What are they?

Iain
07-02-2008, 02:40 AM
He doesn't deal satisfactorily with one important aspect of his own statistical data. That is, the overwhelming U.S dominance in the acquisition of medals. Even though the American athletes, are competing with other Black athletes from around the world. Who presumably share the same genetic advantage. And therefore, aught to be getting just as many medals as the Americans. They are not. Some other significant factor/s are clearly at work here. What are they?

Superior finance and research put into training. Which the white athletes get the benefit of too.

Jonathan Edwards put his jumping prowess down to faith in God did he not?:devil:
As Toby eloquently pointed out, it's 'stupid' to base evidence on 0.000001% of the population.

parm
07-02-2008, 03:04 AM
Superior finance and research put into training. Which the white athletes get the benefit of too.

I can't claim to know nearly enough, about the mechanism behind the selection processes involved; to be sure of that. Even so, clearly, other factors do then outweigh genetic advantages. Which does actually, gel better with common sense. Human bodies are very adaptive systems. With enough flexibility to respond to an enormous range of environmental an training pressures.


As Toby eloquently pointed out, it's 'stupid' to base evidence on 0.000001% of the population.

Whatever population you care to choose from. Individuals who are capable of competing at that level. Occur at a very, very small percentage rate. It's a question of looking in the right places.

Whatever Jonathon Edwards thinks. Someone didn't tell him; that since he didn't have the right genetics, he need not apply. He is a recorded fact. Which needs to be accounted for.

Iain
07-02-2008, 03:47 AM
Whatever population you care to choose from. Individuals who are capable of competing at that level. Occur at a very, very small percentage rate. It's a question of looking in the right places.


That's true.
I know quite a lot of athletes personally, top level runners, a world judo champion, a high level volleyball player, a former world class badminton player and a few swimmers.
They are predominately white but not all.

These people live and breathe their sport. To suggest that they don't want success enough or that they aren't encouraged or well trained enough just doesn't wash when you know them. When you witness their routines and their discipline.

When you watch them compete, you see them change from the person you know into a hungry, determined competitor, regardless of their colour or background.
So I do feel there must be more to dominance of a certain sport by a certain race than what 'common sense' tells you.

I think we are resistant to any kind of thinking that could be construed as supremacist for very understandable reasons. Supremacists generally reveal themselves as monsters.
That is not what this is, however.

toby
07-03-2008, 10:11 PM
These people live and breathe their sport. To suggest that they don't want success enough or that they aren't encouraged or well trained enough just doesn't wash when you know them. When you witness their routines and their discipline.

When you watch them compete, you see them change from the person you know into a hungry, determined competitor, regardless of their colour or background.
Of course, but that's relative. There's no way you can determine that they're all equally motivated, nor how long they've been motivated. And someone who's grown up running is going to have an edge on someone who's only done it for 5 years, with the same level of motivation.

*Pete*
07-04-2008, 12:06 AM
I think we are resistant to any kind of thinking that could be construed as supremacist for very understandable reasons. Supremacists generally reveal themselves as monsters.
That is not what this is, however.

true.

the point, or atleast my point is, that when we do have genetical differences in the visuals (skin, hair and eyes) that is obvious to see, its strange not to take into account for invisible differences.
it doesnt make someone, or some people better in everything, only better at some things.

i cant remember the exact number, but i think as many as 20% of scandinavians are resistent/immune to HIV/AIDS, by far the highest immunity in the world.

hypotethically speaking, if the genes that make the black superb sprinters is among, say 20% of them and the same gene is among 1% of white people...then given that among the same amount of black sprinters you will find more talent than among the white ones, but sometimes you will find that 1% who is very competetive even at the absolute top level.

we are different, i think that to point out different genetical advantages or disadvantages is by far less supremacist than to point at culture, religion, nationality or traditions.


as i once was explaining to one neo-nazi who meant that white and black shouldnt mix...i told him that if you take a purebreed bulldog, who has loads of genetical problems and mix it with for example a purebreed greyhound, who also carries genetical problems..the mix of those dogs will eliminate many of the genetical problems the parents of them had, and the result will be a better dog...and i said that the same applies for humans as well.

naturally, he didnt agree but he was well ridicalised in front of others when trying to deny it and explain why mother nature works different on people than animals :)

so, our genetical differences is not supremacist as such...we all have some advantages and disadvantages within us, some strenghts and some weaknesses...natural evolution works as an argument against dividing people from eachother becouse of race.

parm
07-04-2008, 01:19 AM
the point, or atleast my point is, that when we do have genetical differences in the visuals (skin, hair and eyes) that is obvious to see, its strange not to take into account for invisible differences.
it doesnt make someone, or some people better in everything, only better at some things.

The important difference here, is that. As well as such things as Skin colour, Eye colour, even diseases, such as sickle cell anaemia. Being highly visible differences. They are also accounted for, by very sound science. That is to say, there is a wealth of data to support the observation. And a sound theoretical basis for the findings, meaning, it is understood how environmental pressures have favoured those characteristics.

Not so, with this other assertion. Who's reasoning goes along the lines of: We see Black Athletes dominating in a particular area of Athletics. Then goes straight to the conclusion: Must be because of a genetic predisposition, towards a greater number of Fast Twitch muscle fibers. Backed up by the reasoning: We know that genetic variations exist, i.e. Eye Colour etc. So it must be what's happening here.

Possibly, maybe or perhaps. Are more appropriate terms for conjecture. There may well be something in it. These genes may exist to a greater extent in West African populations. But then. To what greater extent? And, are they absent altogether in other populations? If not, how do we ensure that the fewer individuals from those groups, get a fair chance to compete?

Presenting what is actually conjecture as fact, Quasi-Science at best. Can easily become 'received wisdom'. Having the effect of self-reinforcing the initial observation. It sets up a bias. "Black Athletes are the best runners because of genetic advantage". "White Athletes need not apply".