# Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )



## Canuck_25 (13 Nov 2004)

beyondsblue said:
			
		

> Thanks, Inch
> I heard that the average i should aim for in gr.12 is 90%.
> Is it true?



 Well, if your a visible minority, female or are well active, you coul make it in with an 78% average.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Nov 2004)

Canuck_25......Where did you get this information?


----------



## Infanteer (13 Nov 2004)

Canuck25, you obviously failed to read this official board policy.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17343.0.html

You've been quite prone to flapping at the gums since you got here.  Consider this a warning; don't give any input on stuff that you know jack shit about....


----------



## Canuck_25 (15 Nov 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Canuck_25......Where did you get this information?



 Its simple, the forces are desperate for visible minorites and women to join the CF. Their numbers are very low. Same as in the RCMP. White males are constantly applying but visible minorities arent. So, they visit areas where they are a mojority (reserves, urban areas) to encourage recruitment. For example, the CF set a program up at a native reserve near my area to encourage recruitment of the native population. Its simple, the CF wants to be seen as multicultural and they will pass exceptions racaily just like the Universities do for native students and the RCMP. Its a fact and those who have trouble believing it should take a look around.


----------



## NavyGrunt (15 Nov 2004)

Its true- its a block recruting system- you compete with your peers, not the entire group. Im not sure about your sarcastic tone or the number you quoted but-

(these are the blocks- not an order of ease, not in any particular order)

For the RCMP its -visible minority
                                      female visible minority
                                      female Caucasion
                                      Caucasion male

This is to ensure diverisity in the forces. I dont think its a big deal do your best and you'll have lots of doors open to you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Nov 2004)

No, its not quite that easy there, sunshine. You stated a "fact"....

_Well, if your a visible minority, female or are well active, you coul make it in with an 78% average._

..and I asked where you got this "fact", your answer was just a song and dance,and not a good one, so I'll ask again,
Where did you get this information?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Nov 2004)

Canuck 25 I am in the Forces and I don't see that and I have "looked around"

 :


----------



## MissHardie (15 Nov 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Well, if your a visible minority, female or are well active, you coul make it in with an 78% average.



To refute with some anecdotal evidence:
My sister was toying with the idea of attending RMC 2 years back, and was told that despite being female, being active in sports and even teaching martial arts (showing leadership potential) and being fluent in french, since she had a 78% average she'd have to go to St. Jean for a year to prep for RMC.  Her marks were too low to get straight in.  There is, then, a bar you have to meet -- or at least there was 2 years ago.


----------



## CivU (15 Nov 2004)

It is interesting how a thread intended to help persons interested in entering RMC and/or the ROTP program deteriorated toward a criticism of affirmative action policies subverting the fairness of the CF recuriting process.  Howver, I digress...

It would seem to me Canuck that if you feel adamantly oppossed to the recruiting methods you cite as being used by the RCMP and CF, you should develop some knowledge based on actual affirmative action scholarship.  In many cases, visibile minority status is not seen as a means to enter below the accepted standard, but instead as a tangible skill to be exercised in the work environment.  For example, a native person working in an isolated region of Canada for the RCMP may be better suited to dealing with the policing dynamics of that area due to their similarities with the local population, their cultural background, their experiences in relation to the environment their dealing with.  Hiring a visibile minority in this case would not be to fill a superficially driven quota system but to serve an important purpose.  I'm not going to address the CF as a means to generate an example, but if what you say is true, could the same stream of thought not apply to certain circumstances the Canadian Forces finds itself...


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Nov 2004)

I don't know about the figure being quoted, but the idea is bang on. It's called a systemic remedy, and was ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the early 1990's. The CF has seldom, if ever, met it's CHRC mandated recruiting targets for employment equity. Without a doubt, applicants to the CF who fall into this category at the very least are supposed to recieve more expiedited consideration for their applications. There was, at one time, some discussion of a cash incentive for succesful applicants. Good for morale eh? I'll dig up the cases tomorrow and supply the  info. IIRC, the target figure was 14 percent "all inclusive."


----------



## Infanteer (15 Nov 2004)

The entire notion of affirmative action is a load of horseshit.  It is antithecal to the idea of promotion and opportunity based upon merit and it is inappropriate in a democratic society where citizens should be judged "not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character...."


----------



## bossi (15 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The entire notion of affirmative action is a load of horseshit...



(hmmm ... hot button, eh?  ... and to think that some people get annoyed when I erupt in emotional outbursts ... chuckle!)


----------



## Infanteer (15 Nov 2004)

Not "emotional hot button", just getting straight to the point.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Nov 2004)

It has its uses, and without it we wouldn't see some of the more positive aspects of diversity [can't think of any right now]  But on the whole, I think it simply feeds into the whole entitlement issue we discussed a few months back. The darkest cloud is as stated by Infanteer, that is to say ... when competency takes a back seat to equity. Infanteer, I gather you do not disfavour equal opportunity, but are opposed to engineered outcomes for the purposes of achieving equality nirvana? LOL.


----------



## CivU (15 Nov 2004)

"The entire notion of affirmative action is a load of horseshit..."

Before making a hasty generalization perhaps one should identify the two distinct forms of affirmative action.   The one suggested above as a "load of horseshit", in which persons are fast tracked through application processes to fill quotas that are representative of their percentage of the entire population, has been the fundamentally problematic form of affirmative action; however, there exists another facet of affirmative action policy that is difficulty to argue against.

The removal of, or assistance of persons to overcome, barriers that exist within society that favour one group over another in the workplace are necessary to the establishment of a more egalitarian society.   There can be no doubt that discrimination on the groups of sex and ethnicity have and continue to be factors in the lower wages of women (roughly 75 cents on every dollar a man makes) and the underemployment of qualified but recently immigrated minorities.   Programs that assists persons affected by these obstacles attain an equal footing in the job market are, im my opinon, difficult to argue against.   That being said, generalizing affirmative action as negative often is indicitive of the prevailing attitudes that led to a need for such policy in the first place...

It's up to persons more knowledgable on the recruiting process to determine where CFRG policy fits into these two dynamics.


----------



## koach (15 Nov 2004)

CF recruiting has specific programs and methods for exposing aspects of the military to those demographics who would not normally think of the military as a career choice.   These methods are used as an attractions tool only.

When an applicant is ready to be submitted for a job offer, a file is sent to Borden.   This file consists of your transcripts, previous military service (if any), Aptitude test scores, Express Test scores, Medical category, your interview evaluation, and a few other things depending on the entry plan.   That's it!

The enrolment standards for each entry plan DO NOT WAIVER AND ARE NOT BASED UPON ONES RACE.   The only difference in standards is that the fitness requirements are based on gender.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> The removal of, or assistance of persons to overcome, barriers that exist within society that favour one group over another in the workplace are necessary to the establishment of a more egalitarian society.   There can be no doubt that discrimination on the groups of sex and ethnicity have and continue to be factors in the lower wages of women (roughly 75 cents on every dollar a man makes) and the underemployment of qualified but recently immigrated minorities.   Programs that assists persons affected by these obstacles attain an equal footing in the job market are, im my opinon, difficult to argue against.   That being said, generalizing affirmative action as negative often is indicitive of the prevailing attitudes that led to a need for such policy in the first place...



That's a very flowery definition for a hazy concept that in reality seems to be ill-defined.   Please specify "barriers that exist within society that favour one group over another in the workplace" and how it pertains to the Military.


----------



## OLD F of S (15 Nov 2004)

Affimative action has been in the Candaian Forces since 1970 it was called
Francaphone Bypass. Any oldtimers will remeber it well.






            Regards


----------



## CivU (15 Nov 2004)

"That's a very flowery definition for a hazy concept for a practice that seems to be ill-defined.   Please specify "barriers that exist within society that favour one group over another in the workplace" and how it pertains to the Military."

I think Koach described the barriers I suggested quite appropriately.   Exposure to the military may be an issue for any number of reasons, be it cultural or geographical.   In areas or ethnic groups of limited engagement with the CF (for lack of a better term) many persons may not even recognize the CF as being an option and oppurtunity.   This may especially be the case for visible minorities (who studies show are often times underemployed for their level of qualifications) who already possess degrees and could enter through DEO, or persons in isolated areas who cannot access a recruiting centre as easily as someone in a more urban area.   In addition, groups largely unrepresented in the CF may not have any influence from family or friends to consider joining, as much as say, a person residing in the maritimes (an area of high CF recruitment) would possibly have.   To seek out and expose the oppurtunities within the CF to a group who may not otherwise consider the military as an option is hardly taking away from someone in a community like Halifax or Edmonton where the presence of the CF is much more distinguishable.

Hopefully that clarifies the matter for you...and as I said before, I didnot intend to specificially discuss its relationship to the CF as much as offer you some insight into the general concept of Affirmative Action that you hastily considered to be entirely "horseshit".


----------



## koach (15 Nov 2004)

> The CF does not use recruitment, training or promotion "quotas". Quotas are arbitrary numbers that are met without regard to merit or qualifications. Merit and ability remain the cornerstones of CF recruitment, selection, training and promotion.
> 
> The Employment Equity Act does require the CF to set reasonable and achievable representation goals for each designated group under the Act. These are long-term objectives used to measure the organization's progress in attracting and retaining designated group members in the CF.



quote taken from the CF Personnel Newsletter

Another good article on this subject can be found here:

http://www.journalism.ryerson.ca/online/mosaic/ohcan/ssanmiguel.html


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> It's up to persons more knowledgable on the recruiting process to determine where CFRG policy fits into these two dynamics.



Sort of ... equality and discrimination are questions of law, and our courts and tribunals have taken the attitude, in the spirit of Lord Denning "I'll be the judge of that!!"  8)

Cheers.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Nov 2004)

Well, this is just fucking great, from the Ryerson article above:

Protecting his country is a duty Pte. Dich takes seriously, even if he doesn't consider himself 100 per cent Canadian.

â Å“I consider myself Chinese first and Canadian second, I guess, because I was brought up in Canada but my roots are Chinese,â ? he says.

This attitude does not surprise Lieut. Tremblay. "We're not like the Americans. We don't call ourselves Americans or Canadians first. We identify a lot by heritage," she says, citing the common use of terms like  French-Canadian or English-Italian as examples. 

Does the word Oath mean anything anymore?


----------



## bossi (15 Nov 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> Well, this is just ******* great, from the Ryerson article above ...



Ditto.



> ... We don't expect people now to just walk into our recruiting centre and sign up voluntarily...



Huh?  WTF???



> ... The traditional white male will do that because it's in our culture ...



Hmmm ... what a sexist racist comment ... WASB.


----------



## Dreadnought (16 Nov 2004)

It's funny reading how all you complaining probably aren't from a visible minority.


----------



## NavyGrunt (16 Nov 2004)

Dreadnought said:
			
		

> It's funny reading how all you complaining probably aren't from a visible minority.



Im not complaining. I could care less. I make my own no matter what people say I have to acheive. However I do know an overwhelming number of Vis.Minorities who feel all there acheivements are undermined by the fact that they "only got the job because".....

And outside of that fact- of course the people complaining arent the visible minorities- besides the ones from my above statement, why would they complain?


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (16 Nov 2004)

I think most will agree that at some point in the history of the CF there was sexist or racist policies in recruiting(even if unwritten)however this thread seems to be leaning towards an argument of weather minorites are still being repressed or not.IMHO if the CF adopted a policy of basing their recruiting on the people interested and not targeting specific groups, there would be less problems.If you as an employer was blind and had every job applicant read off their capeabilities and qualifications, you would hire the people that could best do the job for you, not the person who fits into the category of smallest represented race/sex group.Maybee its as simple as certain race groups have different motivations towards a service in the military, be it a stronger or weaker aversion but in the end I believe its up to the Canadian themselve no matter what race or sex and noone should be preassured into service just to meet a quota.


----------



## Heatwave (16 Nov 2004)

You can lead a horse to water.....I don't object to bringing the Forces to the attention of everyone, including those that aren't exposed to us, or those who aren't aware that there are opportunities available for them (notice...I didn't say minorities!  There are people of all races that aren't aware of the opportunities we offer).

My concern is Reverse Discrimination.  As working in a field that has been subject to it on the civilian side (that is a fact and was proven during inquiries in both Hamilton and Toronto Human Resources Depts.), we have to be careful.  Sure, the majority in the military is currently Caucasian males.  Then, after concentrating our efforts towards recruiting the â Å“Blue Quahogsâ ? (my invented race, done so not to directly offend anyone), eventually the Blue Quahogs will become the majority race.  What will that bring?  Reverse Discrimination...as the Caucasion male would now become a minority.  What a vicious circle!  My point being, regardless of our hiring process, one race will always be the majority.  Yes, advertise and educate everyone on our opportunities (ie:  the Lead a horse to water analogy).  However, if certain races choose not to enroll, favouritism over others can't be given to those few of that race that do choose to enroll.  In other words, as I believe SHELLDRAKE had already alluded to, may the best and most qualified â Å“Blue Quahogâ ? for the job, win (to say â Å“manâ ? would've been discriminatory in this case ).

It's nice to get input from Koach on this whole manner, as his/her avatar states that he/she is experienced in this manner (No, that's not meant in a sarcastic way).

 As for the Ryerson report â Å“the Canadian Forces no longer represent the people they have sworn to defend.â ?   That's funny, because I never once swore to defend the Caucasian Male.  I proudly defend this whole Country and protect those in it from harm.  As well as defend the interests of this Country, while operating abroad, within my given mandate .  That whole report is nothing but a â Å“blood boilerâ ? IMO.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2004)

> â Å“I consider myself Chinese first and Canadian second, I guess, because I was brought up in Canada but my roots are Chinese,â ? he says.



What would he do if he had to conduct operations against the PLA?


----------



## Canuck_25 (16 Nov 2004)

We have to face is, their is racism in canada. Growing up in a small town near a native reserve really lets you see what our goverment policies are.

 Native students get paid for each day they attend highschool
 Native students can enter a university with far lower GPA then any other student.
 natives dont have to pay income tax 


 Its a bit of a joke, considering we have a charter of rights and freedoms that praises equallity.


----------



## combat_medic (16 Nov 2004)

Dreadnought: It may come as a surprise to you that there are "minority groups" on this forum, and think it's as much horse$hit as the average Caucasian Male. I'm considered a minority, and I still think that "affirmative action" is a load of crap. If you can't get in on your own merits, then you can't get in. No lowering the bar to meet HRDC-defined quotas saying we need 12% more recruits of Mongolian/Malaysian/Icelandic descent. 

Remove all the bars, and don't deny qualified people the opportunity to serve, and let everyone compete. The most competitive people get in, whether they're a Polynesian Jewish Woman, or an Anglo-Saxon White Male.


----------



## humint (16 Nov 2004)

There is more to the issue than this -- you need to be aware of the reasons for affirmative action beyond merely attracting and accepting visible minorities to right historical wrongs. 

At its most basic level, affirmative action attempts to rectify disproportionate demographic representation. The theory behind it is that there are systemic barriers, such as a lack of access to quality education by low income wage earners in urban environments or a lack of access to  support systems that are available in suburban high income areas, and that this lack of access limits a person's ability to compete.

By having affirmative action programs, you are providing an opportunity to someone that would not otherwise be able to participate due to systemic barriers, and are attempting to have proportionate representation. 

It is impossible to get into all the issues in this limited means of comms.

Yes, in a perfect world, we would all compete against each other in an equal competition. However, this is not a perfect world. And, not all the solutions are perfect either. 

That said, as historical disadvantaged groups gain greater access to services, you will see less affirmative action programmes. At this point, demographic proportion is maintained through direct recruitment initiatives based on fair competition.


----------



## CivU (16 Nov 2004)

I think argylls touched on some of the barriers I mentioned earlier...

Affirmative action as a means to place every one on a level playing feel, so that they can compete fairly for positions in whatever aspect of the labour market, is both reasonable and necessary.  Everyone can be treated fairly, but if their ability to achieve competitive skills is hindered by their income, race, location, etc. then they are at an unsurmountable disadvantage from the onset.

As for reverse discrimination, trying to eliminate the exploitative practices that have placed Caucasian males in their present position, and subordinated other groups, is hardly reverse discrimination, but an attempt to again level the playing field.  You have to ask yourself how one came to be the dominant group, without dominating someone else...

As for the comments of Canuck on the treatment of Native Canadians...I suggest you review some of your Canadian history and ask yourself if our seemingly favourable actions of present could ever come close to making up for the effects and results of our abhorrent actions of the past...I think not.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2004)

Canuck 25, you're an idiot - your posts to date have been nothing but uneducated bashing on various topics that you know jack shit about (the military, recruitment, Natives).  Unless you wish to present a point backed by evidence, keep it too yourself.

CivU:

Thanks for taking the time to spell out what you were explaining earlier.

Although it may fall under the definition of "affirmative action", I'm not sure that I'd classify what you underlined to be affirmative action in the "political" sense.  Targeting different regions/groups of people with recruiting drives does not affect standards of enrollment or recruit competition, so it does not seem to fit into the "political" defintion of affirmative action - which means that standards or requirements are set at different levels for different groups of people; a practice I'm fundamentally opposed to.

Cheers,

Infanteer


----------



## Canuck_25 (16 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Canuck 25, you're an idiot - your posts to date have been nothing but uneducated bashing on various topics that you know jack crap about (the military, recruitment, Natives).   Unless you wish to present a point backed by evidence, keep it too yourself.
> 
> CivU:
> 
> ...



  Evidence, you are saying everything i posted is false? Well your wrong. Its a fact that the military is trying to encourage minorities to join th military, and its a fact that the natives recieve unequal treatment as the rest of canadians. 

 My statements stand, im surprised one in the military is posting crap like this. I know enough, not all. If you say you know it all, and i know nothing, well, that is false also.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Evidence, you are saying everything i posted is false? Well your wrong. Its a fact that the military is trying to encourage minorities to join th military, and its a fact that the natives recieve unequal treatment as the rest of canadians.
> 
> My statements stand, im surprised one in the military is posting crap like this. I know enough, not all. If you say you know it all, and i know nothing, well, that is false also.



You attempt to paint certain policies with broad, unsubstantiated statements.  Unless you're going to prove it, STFU.

I've pointed out to you that your constant blabbing of hearsay, misconceptions, and unsubstantiated claims is in direct contravention of Forum policies here.  If you want to keep this up, I'll bring the formal warning system into play.

Since you obviously ignored it the first time I gave the link to you, here it is again; this is your final warning.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17343.0.html


----------



## McG (17 Nov 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Evidence, you are saying everything i posted is false? Well your wrong. Its a fact that the military is trying to encourage minorities to join th military, and its a fact that the natives recieve unequal treatment as the rest of canadians.


Show how encouraging minorities to join is the same as having different standards.  The two are not linked and there is only one standard for Canadian Forces applicants.


----------



## winchable (17 Nov 2004)

Going along with this topic has anyone ever heard of a program in place which encourages businesses dealing with the government to reflect the percentage of visible minorities in the Canadian populace. I've heard about it but can't quite place exactly where. For example, 5% of the population of Canada is black (not a real statistic) so a company dealing directly with the government would have to have 5% of their staff black, or not *have* to, but are encouraged to. 
I have no idea how they would be encouraged, perhaps companies who reflect the population statistics would be higher on the merit list than those that don't??
Not quite affirmative action I think?
Does it even exist or is Che creating things again?


----------



## cgyflames01 (17 Nov 2004)

Canuck; I thinks its time you only worried about yourself, getting into the armed forces, instead of dipping your hands into other people's matter's. A major concern to governments is the unemployment issue, And unfortunately our native population, is having some problems. I wont deny that their are many well-off natives, but several of them are disenfranchised from there reserves, and have an awkward time entering the cities. So I believe the CF, is striving to advertise, Carreer opportunities to natives. To ensure they know there is a door open to them, to live a meaningfull and healthy lifestyle. I also doubt highly that they get any special treatment. But if they do, what can you really do about it, don't worry, your time will come, and no matter what colour you are, everyone has to pass BMQ.


----------



## Heatwave (17 Nov 2004)

CivU - Reference your statement;
As for reverse discrimination, trying to eliminate the exploitative practices that have placed Caucasian males in their present position, and subordinated other groups, is hardly reverse discrimination, but an attempt to again level the playing field.   You have to ask yourself how one came to be the dominant group, without dominating someone else

I just want to clarify that I never said that our current topic was reverse discrimination, I said "we have to be careful."   In other words, as that which happened in the Toronto and Hamilton scenarios I mentioned on the 2nd page of this thread, we have to target ourselves (military) appropriately, so as to avoid reverse discrimination.   I'm sure that both the Human Resources centres in the a/m cities never intended to do so, but without instilling appropriate measures, they ended up doing just that, and it hit them in the face.

Just wanted to clarify that, so as not to be taken out of context.   I've noticed that you've eloquently explained yourself and your points, and I just wanted the same chance.   Otherwise others will be led to believe that I've jumped the gun and started crying wolf (aka: reverse discrimination).
Cheers

Chimo!


----------



## pbi (17 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> Going along with this topic has anyone ever heard of a program in place which encourages businesses dealing with the government to reflect the percentage of visible minorities in the Canadian populace. I've heard about it but can't quite place exactly where. For example, 5% of the population of Canada is black (not a real statistic) so a company dealing directly with the government would have to have 5% of their staff black, or not *have* to, but are encouraged to.
> I have no idea how they would be encouraged, perhaps companies who reflect the population statistics would be higher on the merit list than those that don't??
> Not quite affirmative action I think?
> Does it even exist or is Che creating things again?



I think that this does in fact exist, and is one of the criteria used by PWGSC in letting contracts to suppliers and contractors for the Federal Govt, not just DND. Cheers.


----------



## CivU (17 Nov 2004)

Heatwave,

Part of what I didnt address directly in my previous statement was a prevailing notion that there is in fact no such thing as reverse discrimination.  The concept of reverse discrimination is a label addressed to acts that seemingly enrich oppurtunities for visible minorities at the expense of caucasian males; however, this lacks credibility.

If you offer programs to visible minorities who have been disadvantaged by a cycle of exploitation and subordination by caucasian males, you are not discriminating against white males, but eliminating the barriers implemented by this group in an attempt to place all persons, regardless of race (im not even going to entertain a discussion on the merits of the term race, as much of a hot topic as that could become), sex, religion on an equal playing field. You are therefore not discriminating against caucasian males, but simply removing the effects of discrimination imposed by them, by advantaging certain groups who have been discriminated against.  Proponents of affirmative action are not suggesting that all caucasian males be removed from their positions to make way for visible minorities, as that would certainly be discriminatory, but instead suggests that the discriminatory reasoning that in numerous cases placed them there over other eligible candidates are removed so all parties can compete on the basis of what Infanteer (if you dont mind me suggesting this) seemed to deem absolutely necessary, a meritocracy.

I offer this as one perspective on the concept of reverse discrimination.  I certainly don't take credit for it, but it offers an interesting argument to the fundamental problems of affirmative action, that is, advantaging one grouip by seemingly disadvantaging another.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2004)

It still seems stupid to me...I don't see how I, as a Caucasian male, am the perpetuation of a cycle of exploitation and subordination against others.     :

Your membership dues for the NAC come up recently?



> Part of what I didnt address directly in my previous statement was a prevailing notion that there is in fact no such thing as reverse discrimination.   The concept of reverse discrimination is a label addressed to acts that seemingly enrich oppurtunities for visible minorities at the expense of caucasian males; however, this lacks credibility.



I'm not following this.   Just because it happens to be Caucasian males that are excluded from opportunities, all the sudden it is not discrimination?

If "affirmative action" exists (in the conventional sense where standards differ based upon race/sex/preference of deodorant) then by nature "reverse discrimination" exists.   By lowering the bar for some you are automatically making it more difficult for the group still held to the standard to succeed.   In the case of "reverse discrimination" you are just replacing the poor _________ (insert minority group of choice) with a guy who happens to look like another guy who owned a plantation, beat women, and stole land from Natives a couple hundred years ago.

Instead of dancing around in the realm of theory, lets look at some hard examples of where affirmative action has been used and see the empirical results (the most famous is probably California's post-secondary education system, and the controversy around that was thick enough).

[BTW, this has left the realm of recruiting, off to Politics it goes)

Infanteer


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Nov 2004)

_ You are therefore not discriminating against caucasian males, but simply removing the effects of discrimination imposed by them, by advantaging certain groups who have been discriminated against. _ 

In all my 44 years this is getting close to the being the most moronic phrase I have ever read. So 10 years from now it will reverse and change the names around. :  DISCRIMINATION   It was wrong then and it wrong now! Slice and dice it how you want but if the best/fastest/fittest/most qualified/etc. does'nt get the job/promotion/etc. than its DISCRIMINATION

....and by the way, sunshine, I've never discriminated against anyone in my life so put this little gem and sti........


discrimination imposed by them


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2004)

Well, at least we agree on something for a change, Bruce.

I guess it's a conspiracy of white guys like you and me to try and perpetuate millennia of oppression and subjugation.... :


----------



## CivU (17 Nov 2004)

"In all my 44 years this is getting close to the being the most moronic phrase I have ever read. So 10 years from now it will reverse and change the names around.    DISCRIMINATION 
    It was wrong then and it wrong now! Slice and dice it how you want but if the best/fastest/fittest/most qualified/etc. does'nt get the job/promotion/etc. than its DISCRIMINATION 

....and by the way, sunshine, I've never discriminated against anyone in my life so put this little gem and sti........"



I'm not quite sure whether to feel flattered, the most moronic? I suppose it could be worse...I digress.

To address how in ten years affirmative action policies will have reversed the situation, and the names will seemingly change around so as to place the average caucasian male in the position now held by visible minorities. I suggest you read literature, I recommend the American Journal of Sociology, Canadian Jounral of Sociology, Canadian Social Studies or the Perspectives released by Statistics Canada.   They should provide you with data that suggests the present disparity between minorities and caucasians in terms of per capita income, education levels, literacy rates, etc. is staggering.   Given the empirical evidence available it would be next to impossible for visible minorities to surpass the socio-economic standings of their caucasian counterparts in a decade.

As for the "best/fastest/fittest/most qualified/etc." getting the job...of course this is the aim of all persons, most certainly the Canadian Forces.   But are you suggesting that all caucasian persons hired in the past have been superior candidates to visible minorities, because that is the only reasoning that could account for the present discrepencies in most white collar and professional fields.   Playing devil's advocate, if this were the case and in all instances the caucasian candidates were superior, one would have to ask themselves why...and after doing so, would it not seem reasonable to try and eliminate any discriminatory factors that were directly corrolated to this inequality.

As for, "....and by the way, sunshine, I've never discriminated against anyone in my life so put this little gem and sti........", the eloquence is unparalleled.   I as a caucasian male doubt that I have not been directly afforded any advantages in my life as a result of discrimination.   This doesnt even begin to address the position caucasian males presently occupy as a result of a history (and ongoing) of discrimination that has resulted in our benefit over the suffering of many...I doubt you could argue against this in your own case. As for, "Well, at least we agree on something for a change, Bruce.  I guess it's a conspiracy of white guys like you and me to try and perpetuate millennia of oppression and subjugation.... " I think history will attest to the fact that it has been white guys like you or I who have been, and continue to be, perpetrators of oppression.

And Infanteer, if you consult my previous post regarding the two variations on affirmative action, you should recognize that I support a process that removes barriers to equality for oppressed minorities, and do not support an affirmative action that is merely quota filling at the expense of merit, and in our case in the CF, potential lives.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2004)

> I think history will attest to the fact that it has been white guys like you or I who have been, and continue to be, perpetrators of oppression.



I think you need to put Noam Chomsky down and step back for a moment.  We shouldn't be forming policies along the lines of past injustices.  

"The Romans burned the village of my ancestors down in Gaul, I demand retribution from the Italian Government!!!"


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Nov 2004)

Infanteer, this IS getting scary, I'm going for the same arguement here. 

Quote,
But are you suggesting that all caucasian persons hired in the past have been superior candidates to visible minorities,
There is the hitch for me, yes it happened, it was wrong,....BUT ITS STILL WRONG.
Why is that hard to wrap around?


----------



## MissHardie (17 Nov 2004)

CivU



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> I think history will attest to the fact that it has been white guys like you or I who have been, and continue to be, perpetrators of oppression.



"Perpetrators of oppression". I like that; its use reminds me of the distinction between one man's terrorist and another man's freedom fighter. The flip side being what, that us successful white caucasian folk today are the winners? 

The question is, how can a past wrong be righted by another wrong?


----------



## CivU (17 Nov 2004)

As far as Noam Chomsky goes...I didn't know he wrote on affirmative action.   But on the topic of a process of disconnection from "the other", may I suggest the late Edward W. Said...

In terms past injustices, I think it is hard to overlook present discrimination in the workplace when, for example, a woman earns 75 cents on every dollar a man makes.   The basis for this disparity it certainly not based on gender superiority, but instead, a history and presence of gender discrimination.   As for history, in which you decided to use an episode two thousand years ago as oppossed to a more recent and therefore relevant citation, "The Romans burned the village of my ancestors down in Gaul, I demand retribution from the Italian Government!!!", if we dont hold anyone accountable for the actions of the past, how can we expect anyone to behave any differently in the future.

As well..."There is the hitch for me, yes it happened, it was wrong,....BUT ITS STILL WRONG." 

I don't know how you can refer to a form of affirmative action in which marginalized groups are offered oppurtunities that eliminate barriers, such as education initiatives or bursaries and grants, to the discrimination of the past in which persons were exploited, assimiliated, subordinated and/or eradicated...the two hardly seem comparable.   

Miss Hardie, I don't think anyone is a winner in the aftermath of oppression, but that's not to say they are not benefactors.  As for two wrongs don't make a right, this is a compelling claim; however, the affirmative action I mentioned above is hardly a 'wrong' in attempting to even the playing field.  In addition, to use a contemporary example but at the same time not to try and deviate from the topic at hand, if two wrongs dont make a right, then how can persons on this board justify ousting a violent tyrannt who murdered countless civilians, by using means that have resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 civilians...seems analogous...I'd be interested to hear your view...


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Nov 2004)

>It's funny reading how all you complaining probably aren't from a visible minority.

It's funny how most of the people who have actually worn a Canadian uniform and been killed, or maimed in spirit and body, are not from a visible minority.  I will be quite happy to see everyone else ante up in proportion.  Those who want Canadian Values as currently constituted by the chattering establishment have the first duty to defend those values.  Those who thought earlier wars were not their business and those who have worked hard to erase and belittle the core, common sense moral values which came down to us over centuries of struggle need not look to me with a worried expression if someone else comes over the hill, well armed, with a different set of ideas in mind.

What are the systemic barriers, if any, remaining with regard to entry into the CF?  There are plenty of visible minorities in the large urban centres which have CFRCs.  Maybe the problem is - gasp! - self-selection.  I doubt very much that generations raised to exalt rights and privileges over responsibilities and obligations are going to line up for a profession which enshrines the notion of service before self.  Do we want a more socially balanced CF?  Start in the elementary schools.


----------



## Torlyn (17 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> In terms past injustices, I think it is hard to overlook present discrimination in the workplace when, for example, a woman earns 75 cents on every dollar a man makes.  The basis for this disparity it certainly not based on gender superiority, but instead, a history and presence of gender discrimination.



Ah, you may want to re-check that statistic...  I agree with the .75-1 ratio, however you are forgetting something very important, and that is that us males don't get pregnant.  When you are taking 9 months time of work (that's the average mat leave in the federal government, probably different private sector, don't have stats on that, however), whether it be through a leave of absence, maternity leave, sick leave, whatever, you cease being eligible for raises or promotions during that time.

We had one lady where I used to work that raised a human rights complaint against the company because she got overlooked for promotions and raises during a 3- year period, during which she had taken 24 months of maternity leave.  She claimed that as she had still been an employee for 3 years, she should be father along both the promotion & salary scale than 2 people who were hired at the same time.  (1 of which was a female, had no kids, and was farther along than the guy, but that's another story)  God bless her for having children, and I'm glad that our company topped up her mat leave pay to equal her working salary, but it is fair that she should a raise/promotion during that time when she's only been present at work 33% of that time period?  Her complaint was tossed, BTW.

I am not trying to totally refute your statement, nor am I saying that such sexism doesn't exist, but it's not always that cut and dry.

T


----------



## Inch (17 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> As for the "best/fastest/fittest/most qualified/etc." getting the job...of course this is the aim of all persons, most certainly the Canadian Forces.   But are you suggesting that all caucasian persons hired in the past have been superior candidates to visible minorities, because that is the only reasoning that could account for the present discrepencies in most white collar and professional fields.   Playing devil's advocate, if this were the case and in all instances the caucasian candidates were superior, one would have to ask themselves why...and after doing so, would it not seem reasonable to try and eliminate any discriminatory factors that were directly corrolated to this inequality.



No, the reason there are more Caucasians in *all* jobs is the law of probability. Here's the stats according to Stats Canada from the 2001 Census:
Total population 29,639,035 
Total visible minority population 3,983,845 

So if 13% of the population are visible minorities, why should the percentage of minorities in jobs be any different than the society as a whole? We're talking about 1-2 people out of 10 that are not Caucasian. A little over 2% are Black for instance, so why would it surprise you that there aren't more Blacks in the military when they only account for 1 in 50 in all of Canada? 

The law of probability holds true even at the Olympics, the USA is about 10 times the size of our country, is it any surprise that they win more medals than we do? They have a larger pool to choose from.   The same can be said with visible minorities versus the Caucasian majority.

So to answer your question, yes, the odds are that someone in the other 87% of the country is faster/bigger/more qualified to do the job than someone in the 13% visible minority. That's just the way it works. 

I believe in equal opportunity for everyone and special treatment for no one regardless of race, period.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> As far as Noam Chomsky goes...I didn't know he wrote on affirmative action.



No, he didn't.   I'm referring to that tendency of some Westerners to commit acts of self-flagellation due to the fact that in the game of civilization, we've ended up on top of the heap for now.



> In terms past injustices, I think it is hard to overlook present discrimination in the workplace when, for example, a woman earns 75 cents on every dollar a man makes.   The basis for this disparity it certainly not based on gender superiority, but instead, a history and presence of gender discrimination.



Torlyn was spot on with the statistics and the sad personal example of the culture of entitlement.   I've seen other statistics that have shown that the reason for the lower income of woman is skewed by the fact that a greater amount of woman work part-time while raising a family.

The point is that for every statistic, there is a counter-statistic.   The fact remains that "affirmative action" and "reverse discrimination" are counter-intuitive to the notion of an equal citizenry that is judged on merit and ability.

Consider as well that 1/3 of the entire population of Canada lives in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto - which also happen to be where immigrants will flock towards.   Silly ideas on the workforce of Grand Prairie, Alberta being a mirror image of the Canadian population are out to lunch as they take no account of the distribution of population and the geography of Canada.



> As for history, in which you decided to use an episode two thousand years ago as opposed to a more recent and therefore relevant citation, "The Romans burned the village of my ancestors down in Gaul, I demand retribution from the Italian Government!!!", if we dont hold anyone accountable for the actions of the past, how can we expect anyone to behave any differently in the future.



So, what's the time frame for "atonement" then?

Should the American Government be forced to pay out Africans for slavery (which African tribes, selling their enemies, were equally complicit in)?

Should the Canadian Government be forced to give rights to Natives because we essentially displaced them, just as they had been doing to eachother before the "Fourth Wave" of people (Europeans) moved to the Americas?

Should we be forced to pay restitution to the Japanese for the unfair treatment and internment they received at the hands of our great-grandfathers?

What is the "statute of limitation" then?   I'm interested to here if one has been decided on, or if you arbitrarily decided who is oppressed and who isn't.



> Miss Hardie, I don't think anyone is a winner in the aftermath of oppression, but that's not to say they are not benefactors. As for two wrongs don't make a right, this is a compelling claim; however, the affirmative action I mentioned above is hardly a 'wrong' in attempting to even the playing field. In addition, to use a contemporary example but at the same time not to try and deviate from the topic at hand, if two wrongs dont make a right, then how can persons on this board justify ousting a violent tyrannt who murdered countless civilians, by using means that have resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 civilians...seems analogous...I'd be interested to hear your view...



_"since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

Thucydides_


----------



## MissHardie (17 Nov 2004)

EDIT: repeats much of what Infanteer said; he got this thoughts out quicker than I. 

CivU,

â Å“if we dont hold anyone accountable for the actions of the past, how can we expect anyone to behave any differently in the future.â ?

This statement cuts both ways. If those people we are claiming to 'undiscriminate' get used to all the anti-discrimination efforts, who's to say they'll ever stand on their own feet?  The human being is always drawn to the easiest choice.  

Furthermore, how long should 'we' be held responsible for past actions? A lifetime? Since the inception of our nation? Since we colonized? How can we adequately rectify past wrongs when those who produced what we now view as wrong and immoral actions were only doing what their society dictated as right?  For example, how would one go about recompensing those descendants of slaves? Is their national government responsible? Or are those African tribes who captured their ancestors and sold them into slavery responsible? Or maybe the European merchants who transported them from Africa to the New World? Who is to be held accountable? Should anyone be held accountable? How could be possibly make a difference in helping make better the life of one who was once a slave when they're all dead? 

Not all wrongs can be made right.  Actually, I'd argue that no wrongs can totally be made right and the ensuing actions to rectify the situation are all attempts at the impossible â â€œ to make as if the wrong never occurred.  Such is life â â€œ as Hobbes wrote, it is brutal, hard and short.

What's wrong with assimilation?  Granted, immigrants should keep their culture to make Canada a richer place, but in moving to Canada they also imply they want to adopt the Canadian lifestyle and values as well to earn all the Canadian benefits. (Then again, what are the Canadian values?... But that's a topic for another thread.)

I'm interested to know why you're in the military if you don't believe that violence can solve international problems.  People die in armed conflicts, combatants and non-combatants alike.  It's a function of war and the assorted dangerous and life-threatening activities that occur in the locale where the fighting is.  War is a messy business; no one can predict when a civilian is going to start fighting back, or just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Granted, I think the Bush administration could have given much better reasons to the international community for going to war, but how can you say that leaving the Iraqi civilians to a future of terror, torture and oppression is better than a bloody regime change with plans to implement a free political organization?  I'd like to see where you drew the number of 100,000 civilian deaths.  Sources? Feel free to send me a whole pile; I will actually check them.  And no, I'm not being sarcastic or trying to be offensive; I've just not seen that number bounced around by any credible news source â â€œ perhaps I've been lax in reading my news.

As for the analogous comment: how is engaging in a practice that will undoubtedly kill your citizens as well as those of the enemy in pursuit of a political goal analogous to giving grants or opportunities to 'disadvantaged citizens' (gotta love PC) to better their lives â â€œ at the expense of others, it seems?  

Anyway, I think I just bored everyone to tears with that little diatribe, so I'll finish that particular train of thought.

I think the Noam Chomsky reference made was statement made to imply that you, based on your posts and your wordings, follow the type of logic that condemns George Bush Jr. as a war criminal.  Just my thoughts, though.  Is your major sociology?


----------



## NavyGrunt (17 Nov 2004)

Every debt has to eventually be repaid. The notion that the repayment carry on forever is ridiculous. I have not oppressed anyone- and most(read MOST) now havent been oppressed in Canada. So why would they continue to be repaid? We are creating a system that will eventually create a bigger problem of entire cultures reliant on handouts. 

If every barrier is erased and the playing field leveled then how is that discriminitory? I understand the education benifits for native people- as they and the government have created a society that is essentially unable to compete at all- because of the reliance on programs set up to pay them back for people that "oppressed them" before I was born....and my parents were born....and their parents......

Yes me must learn from the past- the past has also shown that this program isnt working properly- when will we learn from that? 

You want the best person for the job period. You also want the person most interested in the job. Not just the guy whos there for the healthcare or paycheck. Is it so hard to believe that there are cultures that are not interested in certain job types? Why do we work so hard to recruit people with no interest in the job?


----------



## CivU (17 Nov 2004)

Well I step out to write an exam and the responses flow in...

As far as atonement goes, it would seem obvious that we can't address all historic prejudices and the events that follow them; however, that is not to say that we should accept them and not consider how we can change our behaviour in the present so as to not reflect a lack of concern, or an inevitability of repeating themselves...This can be done by addressing issues of inequality that perpetuate one groups dominance over another as not merely "the way things are" but an issue that should be addressed and equalized.  To merely pass the buck, "for people that "oppressed them" before I was born....and my parents were born....and their parents......" is not a solution to any problem.  Is it not the RCR who say to never pass a fault?  

In terms of, "while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".  At the expense of sounding too idealistic, with ideologues touting this message (sounds strikingly neo-con) how did Canada ever acheive a system of social safety that ensures the weak, be it the unemployed struggling for work and needing employment insurance to get by, the single mother needing social assistance, the lower class family who without socialized health care would suffer immensely or the elderly person who lives month to month off CPP, come about. 

I think your attempt to promote assimilation (akin to the American melting pot) hit an impass when you failed to recognize Canada values...perhaps Canadian values are a sense of concern for inequality suggested by the above socialize methods to equalize society that many Canadians have come to rely upon in times of need, and the aspects of our country that make it an admirable nation the world over...

As for the 100,000 marker for the Iraqi death toll, considering you asked for it...consult a recently published article in The Economist (I guess you don't read what is essentially the most credible news source, not to appear sarcastic either) that discusses figured indicated in a report released by Lancet (arguably the most reputable British medical journal) entitled "Estimating the Iraq War's Death Toll".  As for my interest in the military, I hardly feel Canadian foreign policy and American foreign policy are comparable, and I support (under this government) the direction intended for the Canadian Forces.

As for Noam Chomsky...I guess it's a love-hate discourse...not unlike the opinons voiced on this site.


----------



## McG (17 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> how did Canada ever acheive a system of social safety that ensures the weak, be it the unemployed struggling for work and needing employment insurance to get by, the single mother needing social assistance, the lower class family who without socialized health care would suffer immensely or the elderly person who lives month to month off CPP, come about.



Hmmmm.  On that note .  .  .

Maybe it is not race/culture/penis size that sets the barriers to opportunities.  Maybe, just maybe, it is social class.  Are a disproportionate percentage of a given ethnic group living below a certain economic level?  Should we do something to help members of that ethnic group achieve more?  NO!  Maybe we could look at â Å“economic affirmative action.â ?  Aim to help everyone living below that certain economic level. 

Affirmative action has the effect that minorities are given extra means to escape their social class.  However, the white Anglo-Saxon family can sit in that social class and that is okay.  We do not need to worry about them because they are white.

CivU,
Can you show me that Canadian born minorities have a harder/easier time of escaping their social class?


----------



## CivU (17 Nov 2004)

These are merely a selection of brief synopsis' from various scholarly sources, as you requested.  I do suggest you read them at length, as the amount of data is overwhelming and my cut and paste is essentially insulting to the work of these academics.

"We found that the ethnicity and racial factors were just as important, in line with Shevky and Bell's predictions that heritage and colour would act as boundaries to regulate access to opportunities. All three factors-class, ethnicity and race-are important reasons why some residents live near the centre or on the periphery of these urban systems."

from - Changing Boundaries: Sorting Space, Class, Ethnicity and Race in Ontario 
Leo Driedger. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. Toronto: Dec 2003.Vol.40, Iss. 5;  pg. 593 

"Our findings, which are generally consistent with the findings in earlier studies, affirm the designation of visible minorities as one of the disadvantaged groups in the Canadian labour market, but not without major qualifications. Minority immigrant men experience a significant wage disadvantage relative to white immigrant men."

from - The relative earnings of visible minorities in Canada: New evidence from the 1996 census 
Robert Swidinsky, Michael Swidinsky. Relations Industrielles. Quebec: Fall 2002.Vol.57, Iss. 4;  pg. 630, 30 pgs 

"Using the 1991 and 1996 Canadian census data, the present study addresses the issue of poor or low-income immigrants, a topic largely overlooked in previous immigration research. The authors found that, compared to native-born Canadians, immigrants were consistently over-represented among the poor, and that this over-representation had a clear ethnic and racial colour with visible minority immigrants experiencing the most severe conditions."

"Racial discrimination is another problem that deserves more attention. Although the findings of this study on the effect of racial discrimination are far from definitive (due to the inherent measurement limitations in the data used here), they are consistent with the findings of many previous studies and also with the trends observed in other immigrant-receiving countries. If left unchecked, the problem of race is only going to intensify."

 from - The changing colour of poverty in Canada 
Abdolmohammad Kazemipur, Shiva S Halli. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. Toronto: May 2001.Vol.38, Iss. 2;  pg. 217, 22 pgs 

"Besides the income variations due to possible discrimination as implicitly suggested by Model 5, various factors also strongly influence the income differentials among ethnic groups. The difference between Model 1 and Model 5 reflects the effect of immigration status. Among the four European minorities, only the Polish group is in a disadvantaged position due to its composition in age at and period of immigration, as indicated by the fact that its income level increases after controlling for this variable (from - 389 to +781). Meanwhile, immigration status is detrimental to the income level of all the visible minorities, with recency of immigration depressing their earnings."

from - The integration of visible minorities in contemporary Canadian society 
Hou Feng, Balakrishnan, TR. Canadian Journal of Sociology. Summer 1996.Vol.21, Iss. 3;  pg. 307

If you wish to have me cite any more scholarly documentation on the matter please ask.  I have access to plenty of material as it is well within my stream of study.

As far as, "Affirmative action has the effect that minorities are given extra means to escape their social class.  However, the white Anglo-Saxon family can sit in that social class and that is okay.  We do not need to worry about them because they are white." The above mentioned articles address the ability for non-visible minorities to more easily move out of class defined conditions of socio-economic inequality.


----------



## McG (17 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> The above mentioned articles address the ability for non-visible minorities to more easily move out of class defined conditions of socio-economic inequality.


Not in any of your quotes.   They talk of immigrants, not of Canadian born citizens escaping their social classes.   One quote adds that â Å“findings of this study on the effect of racial discrimination are far from definitive.â ?   Your quotes talk of ethnic minorities being traditionally disadvantaged, but do not state that this advantage is unlinked from those minorities traditionally starting from lower economic classes.   In fact nothing you have shown presents a comparison between minorities and â Å“non-minoritiesâ ? of Canadian birth within the same social class.

Btw: I am generally unimpressed by quotes even from scholarly articles.   Present me with the arguments and present me with facts.   Obviously you've read, understood, and agreed with these arguments.   So argue them.   Don't just give other people's conclusions.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> As far as atonement goes, it would seem obvious that we can't address all historic prejudices and the events that follow them; however, that is not to say that we should accept them and not consider how we can change our behaviour in the present so as to not reflect a lack of concern, or an inevitability of repeating themselves...



Yeah, we did that; it's called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms



> This can be done by addressing issues of inequality that perpetuate one groups dominance over another as not merely "the way things are" but an issue that should be addressed and equalized.



The crux of the matter is who is being oppressed?   You sure love to use that term, but I fail to see what relevance the term and all the whimsical spin-offs you've derived from it has to reality.

Are Natives oppressed?   They can walk off the reservation anytime they want and there is a plethora of programs to assist them (not at the expense of others) in entering the information age economy (we've both agreed that those programs are good).

Are Woman oppressed?   I don't think my mother (Margaret Thatcher's got nothing on her) would think so.

Are Minorities oppressed?   There is a reason people come to this country from around the world as opposed to leaving it.

So who really is it that the big bad white man is oppressing anyways?



> To merely pass the buck, "for people that "oppressed them" before I was born....and my parents were born....and their parents......" is not a solution to any problem. Is it not the RCR who say to never pass a fault?



Neither is the self-flagellation of our society because we, in the past, didn't follow the golden rule.



> In terms of, "while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". At the expense of sounding too idealistic, with ideologues touting this message (sounds strikingly neo-con) how did Canada ever achieve a system of social safety that ensures the weak, be it the unemployed struggling for work and needing employment insurance to get by, the single mother needing social assistance, the lower class family who without socialized health care would suffer immensely or the elderly person who lives month to month off CPP, come about.



I am not to sure one could classify Thucydides as a neo-con.

It was in reference to the Iraq analogy you attempted to draw out.   Comparing the clash of societies to relations between the Canadian government and it's citizenry is apples and oranges.



> I think your attempt to promote assimilation (akin to the American melting pot) hit an impass when you failed to recognize Canada values...perhaps Canadian values are a sense of concern for inequality suggested by the above socialize methods to equalize society that many Canadians have come to rely upon in times of need, and the aspects of our country that make it an admirable nation the world over...



Are you sure about that.   Like she said, that is a topic for another thread, but I think you're making a broad assumption in assuming that socialism is an "Canadian value" and that it is "admired the world over".



> As for the 100,000 marker for the Iraqi death toll, considering you asked for it...consult a recently published article in The Economist (I guess you don't read what is essentially the most credible news source, not to appear sarcastic either) that discusses figured indicated in a report released by Lancet (arguably the most reputable British medical journal) entitled "Estimating the Iraq War's Death Toll".



Like any statistic that is hot off the presses, it should be taken with a grain of salt.   Looking at the article, it says that:

"The centre of its estimated range of death tolls - the most probable number according to the data collected and the statistics used - is 100,000.   And even though the limits of that range are very wide, from 8,000 to 194,000, the study concludes with 90% certainty that more than 40,000 Iraqis have died."[/i].

Although it doesn't change the fact that many people have died, between 40,000 and 100,000 looks pretty loose to me.   Real fresh statistics like this (which was done with random sampling) aren't always a good thing to bank your reputation on, as "Prime Minister" Steven Harper found out the hard way.

Anyways, what difference does it make.   Iraq is in the middle of a civil war (catalysed by an invasion) that has been brewing for decades - of course there are going to be alot of casualties.   What do you think happens in wars?



> As for my interest in the military, I hardly feel Canadian foreign policy and American foreign policy are comparable, and I support (under this government) the direction intended for the Canadian Forces.



I'd love to hear what you think that direction is, because alot of us here haven't managed to figure it out yet.


McG

"Economic Affirmative Action"

We call that Welfare, don't we?


----------



## CivU (17 Nov 2004)

"Btw: I am generally unimpressed by quotes even from scholarly articles.   Present me with the arguments and present me with facts.   Obviously you've read, understood, and agreed with these arguments.   So argue them.   Don't just give other people's conclusions."

It's interesting how you place the onus on someone else to prove your own hypothetical...last time I checked, that's not how an argument was presented.

â Å“findings of this study on the effect of racial discrimination are far from definitive.â ?

Of course this is the case.   Sampling can only be drawn at a certain time to reflect a particular sample population.   At what point would research be deemed definitive?   Research is still done speculating on the causes of world events dating thousands of years ago...

One quote stated, "The authors found that, compared to native-born Canadians, immigrants were consistently over-represented among the poor, and that this over-representation had a clear ethnic and racial colour with visible minority immigrants experiencing the most severe conditions."

If their experiencing the most severe conditions, then would it be easier for them to escape these conditions compared to native born Canadians (who I understand could also be visible minorities) who are not as represented in the most impoverished...

"do not state that this advantage is unlinked from those minorities traditionally starting from lower economic classes"

Why are those minorities traditionally starting from lower economic classes...?

I have presented scholarly data, you have presented little more than a weak rebuttal that overlooked an attempt at offering access (through the citations provided, which you clearly did not have the time to look further into) to material by asking me to, "Present me with the arguments and present me with facts".   I suggest you read the data provided at length and you will find both the arguments and the facts.   Furthermore, other people's conclusions are the basis for substantiating your own argumentative stance.   Without support any argument lacks merit, which brings me to my question, why don't you offer some literature supporting your claims that it is equally hard for lower class persons who are not visible minorities to rise up...

Infanteer: How did the Charter exonerate persons from accepting responsibility for their actions. In the case of Japanese-Canadians interned in Canada during the Second World War, there has been little done in the way of reciprocity, are you suggesting the Charter alleviates a need for that?


----------



## McG (17 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> McG
> 
> "Economic Affirmative Action"
> 
> We call that Welfare, don't we?


"Social Safety Net"
""Welfare"
"Workfare"
"Canadian Millennium Fund"

yeah, it's out there now under a lot of names.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> These are merely a selection of brief synopsis' from various scholarly sources....



I'm reading your excerpts and the only thing that really comes to my mind is

"no shit".

I don't think an academic journal article is required to tell me that immigrants are usually the poorest people in society.   Are you expecting us to roll out the red carpet for them or something?   My Grandfather moved here from Europe and he didn't need "Intervention to breakdown barriers that were set up through a cycle of repression and subjugation" or however you termed it - he worked his ass off. 

As well, I would challenge the assumption of a constantly poor group of immigrants.   That statistic is like the one that states that 40,000,000 Americans are without Health Care.   Sure, there are 40,000,000 without health care, but that is a number that is constantly in flux.   People get uninsured, people get insured.   Kids leave there parants coverage, kids get a job and get covered.   Same with the immigrant population.   People come to Canada and have to make their way up the social economic scale.   However, to imply that there is this seething mass of poor people who've never been given a chance to prove themselves in Canada seems a little far-fetched.

Many groups of families who immigrated here in the earlier 20th century (Many Indian and Chinese families I know come to mind) live quite comfortably and have grandchildren who are going to University to become Doctors and Lawyers.   Like any other immigrant, it takes time for them to resocialize and earn their success, but Canada is proof that people do it all the time.


----------



## NavyGrunt (18 Nov 2004)

I dont see   how putting weak candidates in positions where they are not the BEST candidate helps out anyone. thats the argument. Justify that. If a bad candidate gets a good job because he's "purple" we might as well call him the "prince of space" and give him a sceptre. They both mean the same thing. Except when we give him a position he didnt earn he can royally screw things up.....unlikle when he waives his "space sceptre" in a parade.....


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

Infanteer, you left out the crux of the Lancet article from the Economist that stated, "The centre of its estimated range of death tollsâ â€the most probable number according to the data collected and the statistics usedâ â€is almost 100,000."

As far as "this seething mass of poor people", why don't you read the journal articles.   If you provide me something you took time to find, I would read it.   You have not, it doesn't give your argument much support without corroborating sources.

And to suggest the labour market in Canada when your grandfather arrived is comparable to today's conditions is narrow minded to say the least.   Today's economic conditions are drastically different than a generation ago, yet alone several.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> Infanteer: How did the Charter exonerate persons from accepting responsibility for their actions. In the case of Japanese-Canadians interned in Canada during the Second World War, there has been little done in the way of reciprocity, are you suggesting the Charter alleviates a need for that?



You sure get your wires crossed easily, don't you.   Follow the argument.

You stated that we need to _"consider how we can change our behaviour in the present so as to not reflect a lack of concern, or an inevitability of repeating themselves"._   

I stated that an entrenchment of political equality, the Charter, was that consideration.   I don't know where Japanese internment comes into play....


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

Japanese internment seemed a relevant historic example for the issue of not accepting recent lapses in morality that remain to be given due restitution.  Only in 1988 did Brian Mulroney offer an apology:

"I know that I speak for Members on all sides of the House today in offering to Japanese Canadians the formal and sincere apology of this Parliament for those past injustices against them, against their families, against their heritage, and our solemn commitment and undertaking to Canadians of every origin that such violations will never again in this country be countenanced or repeated." â â€œ Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, House of Commons, September 22, 1988."

It is widely acknowledged that the treatment of Japanese Canadians in Canada was worse than the treatment of Japanese in the United States at the same time...


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> Infanteer, you left out the crux of the Lancet article from the Economist that stated, "The centre of its estimated range of death tollsâ â€the most probable number according to the data collected and the statistics usedâ â€is almost 100,000."



I said take the figure with a grain of salt with a grain of salt.   90% for 40,000 and almost certain at 100,000 means a lot of room for error.



> As far as "this seething mass of poor people", why don't you read the journal articles.   If you provide me something you took time to find, I would read it.   You have not, it doesn't give your argument much support without corroborating sources.



Well, to be honest, I have better things to do then to read sociology journals to tell me "immigrants are poor" due to the fact that it really is a no-brainer.   However, I can walk outside and tell you that:

A) Canadians do not "oppress" each other.

B) Immigrants are not "exploited and subjugated".

C) Canada is not an enduring hegemony of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.



> And to suggest the labour market in Canada when your grandfather arrived is comparable to today's conditions is narrow minded to say the least.   Today's economic conditions are drastically different than a generation ago, yet alone several.



I don't know what things are like in Kingston, but from where I'm standing, people are doing the same thing they were doing a generation ago.   Things don't change much in a resource based economy.

Anyways, that's besides the point.   What are you trying to tell me, that there is no more entry level jobs for people to start at?



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> It is widely acknowledged that the treatment of Japanese Canadians in Canada was worse than the treatment of Japanese in the United States at the same time...



It is also widely acknowledged that the brutality of the Japanese was on par with Nazi atrocites.   Should we still hound them about that - do you want them to come and build a road for us or something?

Total War is a bitch, accept it and move on.


----------



## McG (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> It's interesting how you place the onus on someone else to prove your own hypothetical...last time I checked, that's not how an argument was presented.


I could say that of you.   You have claimed that minorities are systemically held to their social class and need special doors opened only for them if they are to get out of that situation.   The general proof of this is that more minorities live in the lower social classes.   I've called BS on these claims you have made and you have not proven your claims.   

We have checks in place that ensure everyone is treated equally.   Prove that we (as a society) are violating or own rules on a scale that would systemically repress minority advancement in the social classes.

You have identified that a disproportionate number of minorities are in lower social classes and that they are remaining in those classes because of their ethnic/cultural/other status.   Prove it (and to prove that the stagnation is systemic & due to minority status, you would have to be able to show that non-minorities are not experiencing this same stagnation).




			
				CivU said:
			
		

> One quote stated, "The authors found that, compared to native-born Canadians, immigrants were consistently over-represented among the poor, and that this over-representation had a clear ethnic and racial colour with visible minority immigrants experiencing the most severe conditions."
> 
> If their experiencing the most severe conditions, then would it be easier for them to escape these conditions compared to native born Canadians (who I understand could also be visible minorities) who are not as represented in the most impoverished...


Immigrants do not provide a good litmus test of Canadian born citizens' opportunities & barriers.   You would not be able to look at them to model movements through Canadian social classes.



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> Furthermore, other people's conclusions are the basis for substantiating your own argumentative stance.


Funny thing about scholarly works, they never just quote other works.   They also summarize arguments and facts that allow conclusions to be drawn.   They state the nature of studies done.   Funny thing about undergrad assignments, they would get a Fail if they did not provide more than quotes.

So, to summarize:

1)	It is you who has not proven an argument.

2) You made one long post full of quotes that, while not hurting your case, added no value to your arguments.


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

McG, I provided the articles and offered to provide more once you exhausted those...your responses are frank but dont offer any insight into the situation you are trying to address.  I don't understand how you entertain discourse with persons, is it merely a "Prove it...I said prove it...I said prove it" knee jerk reaction as they offer you something to read, consider and evaluate for yourself...

"Funny thing about scholarly works, they never just quote other works.  They also summarize arguments and facts that allow conclusions to be drawn.  They state the nature of studies done.  Funny thing about undergrad assignments, they would get a Fail if they did not provide more than quotes."

It seems your relating scholarly works to undergrad works? All I can state to this effect is that yes, undergrad assignments do require you to provide more than quotes, in fact, they are basically a summary of others works to come to a conclusion determined by and argued by the student in regards to the topic at hand.


Infanteer, I think your oversimplifying a complicated issue by simply using an example of, "I can walk outside and tell you that."

As for entry level jobs, much of the research done shows that many immigrants remain in those positions depsite being qualified in many professional fields.  In BC there is presently a movement afoot for Canadian trained doctors to apprentice foreign trained doctors, as there are many who are not employed despite being qualified and Canada having a lack of physicians.

As far as Japanese internment, I was referring to Japanese Canadians in Canada who were interned, while at the same time Italian or German Canadians were not interned.  Not only is Total War a horrid thing, but so too was the paralleling Race War of WWII's Pacific Campaign.

If you want to read more about it, I suggest:
Race War!: White Surpremacy and the Japanese Attack on the British
by Gerald Horne (Author)
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814736408/qid=1100752717/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/702-3345160-1008840


----------



## McG (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> your responses are frank but dont offer any insight into the situation you are trying to address.


Neither do yours.



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> I don't understand how you entertain discourse with persons, is it merely a "Prove it...I said prove it...I said prove it" knee jerk reaction as they offer you something to read, consider and evaluate for yourself...


It is as per your observation that one prove one's own arguments.   I found some big gaps in your arguments and you don't want to close them.   Why is that?



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> It seems your relating scholarly works to undergrad works?


Not exactly.   I'm saying that your use of quotes did nothing to benefit your argument.   An 2nd yr poli sci could have argued better with or without quotes.


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

As far as relating my use of quotes to a particular undergad program or year, the comparison seems irrelevant.  I'm not writing an essay here, I'm discussing something informally on a website...

If you don't see it fit to use quotes, or refer to larger works which I suggested reading as they cover many aspects of the present conditions of minorities in the labour market, then I'm not sure how to support an argument.  Without referring to something concrete your just speculating, that may work on a web site but not in the real world...

As for my discussion being devoid of insight, I guess thats a matter of opinon.  Providing sources, quotes and referring to instances, whether other persons agree with their representativeness or not, seems to be more of a contribution than you have made...


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> Infanteer, I think your oversimplifying a complicated issue by simply using an example of, "I can walk outside and tell you that."



And I think you're overcomplicating things by assuming that everyone who's poor will never achieve social mobility without discriminatory measures being emplaced.

As well, you're overcomplicating things by assuming that because immigrants are poor, they are oppressed and need a foot in the door.



> As for entry level jobs, much of the research done shows that many immigrants remain in those positions depsite being qualified in many professional fields. In BC there is presently a movement afoot for Canadian trained doctors to apprentice foreign trained doctors, as there are many who are not employed despite being qualified and Canada having a lack of physicians.



Many of these are legitimate cases.   Canada has stringent standards for professions for a reason, and we cannot assume that foreign training will meet Canadian requirements.   Anyways, there is nothing wrong with programs to upgrade the training of immigrants.

Now, are these doctors and engineers eternally damned to a life of poverty and driving taxis?   Look at a university campus in Canada - probably not.



> As far as Japanese internment, I was referring to Japanese Canadians in Canada who were interned, while at the same time Italian or German Canadians were not interned.



Yup.   So we're racists; as I said in another thread, _inclusive fitness_ is an innate process in our psyche.   I am not trying to defend the policy, just pointing out that other societies are equally unjust and that it is part of the way the world works.



> Not only is Total War a horrid thing, but so too was the paralleling Race War of WWII's Pacific Campaign.



Umm...the Pacific War, with all its racial undertones (_Shido Minzoku_, "Yellow Fever") was the Total War I was referring to.

It wasn't the first and it won't be the last.



> If you want to read more about it, I suggest:
> Race War!: White Surpremacy and the Japanese Attack on the British
> by Gerald Horne (Author)



Looking through the reviews....

The Japanese were poor targets of a shift in American racial hatred?

The Chinese appreciated the Japanese "Liberation" of the mainland from European Hegemony?

Race was the primary driver of war in the Pacific?   (Sorry, black and white arguments almost always collapse)

No thanks, revisionist history is not really my forte.

Unless one is a complete moron, no one paints the Pacific War as a rosy clash of good vs evil.   As well, the deep flaws in the civil society of the United States are universally recognized (C'mon, we all watched Hart's War).

Is there anything special you're trying to tell me here.   Was this war any different then the Eastern Front?   Or how about the Crusades?   Or how about Cortes?   I could go on here, but what I'm getting at is that applying our "lofty" moral standards of today to historical events isn't going to help much.


----------



## McG (18 Nov 2004)

If you cannot summarize the facts & arguments from the works you have read, then it leads me to believe that you are not convinced by the substance of those articles.

Lets face it, we cannot argue quotes.   I can post quotes, you can post quotes, Infanteer can post quotes.   But if we don't get down to arguing substance, we have not really had a discussion.   To present quotes, state and opinion, and say "go read the books" does not constitute an argument.


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

"Many of these are legitimate cases.   Canada has stringent standards for professions for a reason, and we cannot assume that foreign training will meet Canadian requirements.   Anyways, there is nothing wrong with programs to upgrade the training of immigrants.

Now, are these doctors and engineers eternally damned to a life of poverty and driving taxis?   Look at a university campus in Canada - probably not."

and...

"Yup.   So we're rascists; as I said in another thread, inclusive fitness is an innate process in our psyche.   I am not trying to defend the policy, just pointing out that other societies are equally unjust and that it is part of the way the world works."


Infanteer, I'm beginning to think we may not be so far off on a lot of things...I agree training has to be stringent and that programs to elevate existing standards are neccessary, and also that we can't defend that policy, but that also isn't to say we aren't alone...

In saying that, while I dont believe everyone who is poor will never acheive social mobility...I do believe particular groups are more hindered in their attempts systemically.   These barriers are necessary to break down if we are to acheive the kind of equality supported by the Charter.   As well, I do believe some persons are oppressed and that assistance in alleviating such forces would lead to a more productive society based on equality, which is hardly an undesirable concept...

Regardless of oversimplifying or overcomplicating, the point I've been trying to make is that barriers do exist to certain groups that need to be addressed by programs that identify the causes, attempt to eliminate them, and do so not at the expense of merited persons...If an individual has attained a position through merit, they should not lose it, but if a person has attained a position through networks that have fostered inequalities and not based on merit, then their position will most certainly be in jeopardy to merited persons put on an equal footing...

McG, it would be insulting to try and summarize a scholarly work of great depth in an informal setting such as this. What is more prudent is to cite the article so that you can access it.  If you provide citations I will review them myself.  The quotes were an attempt to partially introduce the direction (they came from abstracts) so as to provide a stepping stone to documents you might be interested in.  If you feel it's not worth your time to read the relevant literature, how can you participate in a legitimate discussion...


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> In saying that, while I dont believe everyone who is poor will never acheive social mobility...I do believe particular groups are more hindered in their attempts systemically.   These barriers are necessary to break down if we are to acheive the kind of equality supported by the Charter.   As well, I do believe some persons are oppressed and that assistance in alleviating such forces would lead to a more productive society based on equality, which is hardly an undesirable concept...
> 
> Regardless of oversimplifying or overcomplicating, the point I've been trying to make is that barriers do exist to certain groups that need to be addressed by programs that identify the causes, attempt to eliminate them, and do so not at the expense of merited persons...If an individual has attained a position through merit, they should not lose it, but if a person has attained a position through networks that have fostered inequalities and not based on merit, then their position will most certainly be in jeopardy to merited persons put on an equal footing...



...and I've been trying to ask of you what those systemic barriers are.

And up until now all you've provided me with is that "Immigrants are Poor".   As McG pointed out to you, it doesn't do much to further your case.

Please show me where minorities need additional help to get a foot in the door beyond those already legally possessed under the Charter (in that no one can throw a sign out saying "Whites Only").   Sure, some redneck may not hire an immigrant from Trinidad to drive a loader, but is that an exception or the norm?

Please show me how woman are being held down under the boot of patriarchy.  

Please show me how any poor person can only achieve success at the expense of a Caucasian male who may have warranted the opportunity.

Until you can do this, you're not going to convince me that Affirmative Action is an inherently good or healthy policy in a modern liberal democracy.

...and since McG has so cordially invited us all to play the quote game (opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and they all stink...)

_"Affirmative action programs corrode minorities' long-term aspirations and should be abandoned because they violate basic American democratic values of equality and merit, according to University of Michigan philosophy professor Carl Cohen."_

Read about it here: (a caveat; I have no real interest in the topic, I just googled something to back me up - the point is to, as McG says, show some substance, which a googled article doesn't really add up to):

http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002/html/news/2003_fall/cohen.htm


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

"Thanks for taking the time to spell out what you were explaining earlier.

Although it may fall under the definition of "affirmative action", I'm not sure that I'd classify what you underlined to be affirmative action in the "political" sense.  Targeting different regions/groups of people with recruiting drives does not affect standards of enrollment or recruit competition, so it does not seem to fit into the "political" defintion of affirmative action - which means that standards or requirements are set at different levels for different groups of people; a practice I'm fundamentally opposed to."

Earlier I discussed some barriers such as a lack of cultural connection or geopgraphic factors.  I do not agree with lowering standards; however, I will address the systemic barriers you questioned.

Access to education is hindered by financial status, this can apply to anyone of any race, sex, religion, but as we've already established, the most predominantly poor are minorities.  The highest test scores are predominantly produced in either the private school sector or the public schools in the most affluent neighbourhoods, drawing conclusions between a relationship of income to educational access.  As well, despite the availability of loans to a certain number of persons, increasing deregulation of tuition prices is causing access to university to become more and more limited to members of the upper middle class.  

Access to certification, as briefly discussed earlier.  Limiting access to foreign trained professionals, despite shortages in Canada, provides limited oppurtunity for qualified immigrants to attain work.  There must be a stringent evaluation process, but as both underemployment and a lack of professionals remains a problem, one must question why an evaluation process isn't firmly established.

General access limited by income.  The development of cultural capital can be an expensive process.  The advantages of travel, access to museums and cultural centres, computers in the home, and enhanced learning tools to develop a child's developmental potential are limited to those who can afford them. 

Ability to study uninhibitied.  Having to balance full or part time work while in high school, as well as babysitting your brothers and sisters while your parents work overtime in minimum wage occupations to make ends meat can hinder a persons ability to compete with individuals who have only studies to concentrate on due to economic advantages.

Here are a few, I'm not suggesting concrete solutions to any of these problems, as many are issues of one persons situation as being tougher than anothers; however, the inequalities previously suggested, and largely accepted, in income levels within Canada between minorities and non-minorities is a fundamental factor in existing social barriers...


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

I would attempt to address your points, but it would be a waste of time (why, I'll explain below):



> Access to education is hindered by financial status, this can apply to anyone of any race, sex, religion, but as we've already established, the most predominantly poor are minorities.



No you didn't.   You established that the most predominantly poor are immigrants.   

Does the fact that some immigrants are poor mean that all immigrants are poor?   No.

Does the fact that some immigrants are "minorities" (what a stupid word) mean that all immigrants are minorities.?   No.

Does the fact that some poor people are minority immigrants mean that all poor people are minority immigrants?   You can see where this is going; your logic is beginning to stretch thin.

What you seem to be addressing with your examples are issues related to economic disparities as opposed to prejudicial disparities (McG brought this up earlier - did you just ignore him?).   Economic issues don't really have much to do with affirmative action; which is "positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group, often to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice." (got that off google too).   Steps to remedy the examples you presented lie not with an affirmative action program, but with different approaches to wealth distribution which is the subject for another thread (socialism, Invisible Hand, blahblahblah)

You've yet to convince me that "Woman and People of Colour need Assistance to Move up the Socioeconomic Ladder".  What you've presented are good cases for "Poor People need Assistence to Move Up the Socioeconomic Ladder." - which is a valid point for discussion on another thread but irrelevant here  (remember:  positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group.)

You've still got a ways to go before you'll convince me that "Poor People are Predominantly People of Colour and Woman and this Poorness is a result of Systemic Barriers put in Place by a White Male Oriented System".


----------



## Bograt (18 Nov 2004)

Infanteer,

Not that it matters much, but I would like to congratulate you on your series of posts. Excellent job.


----------



## Heatwave (18 Nov 2004)

Wow, leave for a few hours, and look at the work that's been done!   

Anyway, sorry to go back to page 3 of this post but I have to address something from   CivU:   "there is in fact no such thing as reverse discrimination."

Unfortunately, you are misinformed on this statement...as with the Toronto and Hamilton Human Resources Dept situations...more to follow.

"The concept of reverse discrimination is a label addressed to acts that seemingly enrich opportunities for visible minorities at the expense of Caucasian males; however, this lacks credibility."

This doesn't lack credibility, because it, in fact, happened!   Well, I didn't want to get into too many details, but I better give the Reader's Digest version of what happened.   The Hamilton and Toronto Fire Departments were having competitions to hire new Fire Fighters.   The Human Resources Departments are the ones that do the hiring, which is normal.   The tests consisted of everything from medicals, physicals, aptitude tests, and general professionalism during interviews.   There was a large number of individuals that scored high, but were never hired.   This caused an investigation and, using the Access to Information Act, it was found that people were "skipped-over" in order to hire those that "were less proficient and scored lower" just for the sake of increasing the visible minorities within the Department.   That is it, in a nut shell...Reverse Discrimination...and these are the cases that essentially, coined that term for us to be aware of today...which, again, is my point.   We must be careful.

I don't know about yourself, but if I require First Aid, or need to be rescued from an auto accident/fire/confined space, etc, etc, I want the one that scored the highest to be saving my ***, not the one that was placed in the position because there weren't enough "Blue Quahogs" seen wearing the Fire Dept. uniform.   

Kind of ironic...this coming from an individual (implying myself) that works for a company which gets most of it's equipment form the lowest bidder :

Chimo!


----------



## Gunnar (18 Nov 2004)

Interesting reading the discussion here.

======
I have proof.  Just read this book!  What they say is true!

Why is what they say true?

Well, you'd have to read the book!

Haven't *you* read the book?  Why is what you are claiming true?

It says so in the book!
=======

Sounds like some of the arguments for the existence of God.  And similarly models the argument that "there is no such thing as reverse discrimination"  Why?  Well because we said there isn't.

The argument from authority is not an argument.  (Well, if you'd read what I read, you'd KNOW!.  It's been a long time since "magister dixit" was considered a valid response, and I haven't read what you read.  Prove it).  Further, the burden of proof lies on he who attempts to assert the positive.  Lastly, statistics used to support your thesis must be relevant to the point you are trying to make.  So far, the syllogism goes like this:

1.  All minorities are immigrants.
2.  Most immigrants are poor
3.  Most Immigrants are descriminated against.
4.  Therefore, most minorities are poor because they are descriminated against.

1 is patently not true.  You have stats for 2.  3.  Remains to be proven, thus 4 is not supportable.

Any conclusions you make about reversing the descrimination through some sort of affirmative action plan are irrelevant until you prove discrimination.  There is no disease, thus no need for medical treatment.


----------



## Torlyn (18 Nov 2004)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> 1.  All minorities are immigrants.
> 2.  Most immigrants are poor
> 3.  Most Immigrants are descriminated against.
> 4.  Therefore, most minorities are poor because they are descriminated against.
> ...



I checked with some friends at both Immigration and the CRA.  Number 2 is not true as well.  Most REFUGEES are poor, but most immigrants gain access to the country because they are "desirable".  (I don't mean that refugees aren't desirable, but Immigration labels you either desirable or not desirable based on a point system, which has heavy weighting towards economic standing).  As well, refugees make up a small percentage of the total migration to Canada.  It is a fact that immigrants on the whole, are economically superior to those born Canadian.  By this I mean that the majority of immigrants who come to this country do so by paying out the nose for it, and many of them are bringing businesses with them.  Look no further than the Vancouver waterfront for proof of this.  Sorry about the lack of coherence to this, but my brain can't write well today.    Hope it's clear enough, however.

T


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

Ironically enough, I've been reading some of my first year Poli Sci textbooks, and I'm currently plugging through articles on feminism and politics of difference (got to get back to the basics sometimes).   I found a little discussion that brings a little clarity to this debate.

What Canada has now, especially after entrenchment of the Charter, is formal equality.   I believe this is a good thing for a modern liberal democratic state.   Formal equality gives the same right or freedom to an entire group.   In Canada's case, political rights and freedoms are formal in the sense that they are applied in a nonprejudicial to all citizens.   Read it yourself:

_15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability._

Seems to pretty straightforward.   Now what you are arguing for is substantive equality.   Substantive equality argues that when put on the same footing, certain groups are still faced with disadvantages.   This is very true to an extent; so true that it is covered in the next sub-section of the Charter:

_(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability._

Good examples of this would be mandatory wheel-chair access, maternity leave, the religious observances in the workplace.   You cannot dispute the fact that physically disabled (in a mobility sense) people cannot climb stairs or fit through doorways, that woman do not bear children, or that a turban is "just a hat".

However, substative equality can only be applied so far before it becomes untenable.   The way you are using it has no qualitative or quantitative grounding in contemporary Canadian society.   Your use of substantive equality to justify affirmative action policies is based more on notions of a ill-founded "right of entitlement" as opposed to obvious examples of "disadvantages because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Individual cases of racism or sexism denying opportunity in Canadian society does not automatically mean that it is systemic or that it is widespread.   Substative equality as you would have it does not hold water as it makes no effort to discern if individual cases are actually the rule or the exception.   In making policies to encourage hiring of Natives, Chinese, or woman, you are assuming that all Natives, Chinese, or woman come from a inferior position in society.   I would argue that this is painting with a broad brush and thus wrong - I know plenty of well-to-do Natives, smart Chinese, and confident and capable women (or any combination of the three - you get the point).

Formal equality looks at "the rule" - citizens

Substantive equality looks at "the rule" - women have children, which will inhibit their ability to work.

You are applying substative equality to "the exception" - you are assuming that all minorities face barriers and that all white males have a superior position on the socioeconomic ladder.   Prove it.

*Let's quit pussy-footing around the issue here; by your flowery use of the term "systemic barriers" you mean to imply that Canadian society has deep-seated attitudes of racism and sexism.   As well, your use of the terms "oppression" and "subjugation" seems to imply that this is an active, cognisant behaviour perpetrated by the majority of white men.*

I will argue that this is an inherently false belief - I don't know where you're pulling it from but I suspect it is coming from the tendencies of Western self-flagellation that you picked up.  I feel I've seen enough of a cross section of Canadian society to be pretty confident that it isn't true (military, university, big city/small town, employer/employee).   I don't think you will be able to prove that Canadian society is an inherently bigoted or misogynistic one.   You yourself even said so, in you omnipotent journal articles, that _"Although the findings of this study on the effect of racial discrimination are far from definitive (due to the inherent measurement limitations in the data used here)"_.

I won't deny that racism and preferential treatment exists in Canadian society.   It exists everywhere as it is hardwired into our psyche.   It cuts both ways; sure, some redneck may not hire a black guy with an accent to deliver documents but on the other hand, watch me try and get a job at the Yohan mall in Richmond, BC with no ability to converse in Cantonese.   These are exceptions, unfortunate exceptions that occur when different societies mix, mingle and interact - but they are far from the norm in a society where the political dialogue is underscored by the notion of fairness and equality before the law.   

I don't see how enacting government legislation that only further serves to deepen alienation is going to fix this.   Are we to enact policy that creates fundamental differences in the formal (and I would argue, far more important) equalities of our civil society based off of data that you admit is "far from definitive"?   Seems like asking for trouble if you ask me.

The balls in your court.


----------



## Gunnar (18 Nov 2004)

The difference is "equality before the law" and "equality in circumstances".   Equality vs. Egalitarianism.

Under equality, the best qualified person for a job gets it.

Under egalitarianism, an equal number of all are given jobs, regardless of those unequal qualifications which would inhibit their chances, e.g., say person A is smarter, better looking and interviews well.   Person B is underrepresented, but is dumber than wood, ugly, and doesn't interview worth a damn.   Person B gets the job to fill the quota, just to make things "equal".

It's a social re-engineering vs. justice.  It is the social implementation of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", with need here being the "need to have a job" or the "need to feel good about themselves".  It completely ignores the fact that the job market is a medium of free exchange where you offer your best capabilities to an employer who offers the best money and benefits in return...proportionally to how badly he wants your ability of course...  Sometimes, your best isn't good enough, and somebody else gets hired - that's justice.  If he hires the no-brainer simply because he is a Blue Quahog, then that's injustice....and somebody always pays for injustice.

Imagine the dumber than wood Blue Quahog brain surgeon who was hired because of his minority status.  Image the brilliant brain surgeon who will never be hired because he wasn't a Blue Quahog...and thus many more people have to die because of someone's idea of "equality".  Imagine worse still, the qualified Blue Quahog brain surgeon who can't get a job because we wouldn't want to "overrepresent" Blue Quahog brain surgeons, and we already hired the dumber than wood one--he has seniority, and we have our quota...

Or the gifted Blue Quahog brain surgeon who will be treated by everyone as "one of those" because they know he was hired on the basis of his Blue Quahogness, and they have no idea whether or not he is the best placed candidate for the job.  Because if you're hiring people on the basis of non-relevant qualifications, everybody will know you're doing it, and feel like they're being exploited...because they are.


----------



## McG (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> the inequalities previously suggested, and largely accepted, in income levels within Canada between minorities and non-minorities is a fundamental factor in existing social barriers...


So why do you recommend racially/ethnically/culturally targeted solutions?   Should the focus not be on the "fundamental factor?"   What advantage, that non-minoreties have over minoreties of the same economic standing, warrants support systems, to economic betterment, that the non-minority is to be excluded from?


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

"Unfortunately, you are misinformed on this statement...as with the Toronto and Hamilton Human Resources Dept situations...more to follow."

I stated earlier, that there is a notion in present discourses of affirmative action that refutes reverse discrimination.   I did not say that nobody believes in reverse discrimination, nor did I state that a mindset consistent with the one I mentioned negates any person's right to claim reverse discrimination; therefore, how can a person be misinformed when they are presenting an idea.   Misinformation lies in presenting a fact that is fallacious, not an opinon held by a number of persons.   If I were to claim your God didn't exist, this wouldn't mean I was misinformed if you were to dispute this idea...

"It is a fact that immigrants on the whole, are economically superior to those born Canadian"

If this is a fact, show me.   I'm gonna take the position all posters on this board apparently take in not disproving your comment with fact, but simply saying, prove it to me.   In your case (as was not the case with myself, as I provided relevant sources that persons here apparently feel it unneccessary to even briefly consult) I would like to see empirical evidence showing that immigrants on the whole are economically superior...Nowhere in any literature on income inequality in Canada have I ever came across such a statement, but if you are stating it as fact, then it must be recorded in some reputable source.

Infanter, "I would attempt to address your points, but it would be a waste of time (why, I'll explain below)"

Your time must be immensely valuable if you went ahead to respond anyway...If you feel responding on a message board is such a waste of time, then why would you have over 3000 posts...I guess there have been a couple of slow days...If you hold some intellectual superiority to me or my views, and that this dialogue isn't worth your time, then that is your perogative.   Critical discussion, that isn't one sided (as much of the conservative commentary of this board tends to be) is imperative to making progress intellectually...I digress...

You stated that I confirmed several things...

"What you've presented are good cases for "Poor People need Assistence to Move Up the Socioeconomic Ladder." 

"You established that the most predominantly poor are immigrants"

I've only taken one university level logic course, but nonetheless...if you agree that poor people need assistance to move up the socioecomic ladder, and that the most predominantly poor are immigrants (i dont know how this term came to represent visible minorities, what i was initially using, but nonetheless), than would this not suggest that the persons who need assistance to move up the socioeconomic ladder are most predominantly immigrants/visible minorities...

As for, "Look no further than the Vancouver waterfront for proof of this"

I'm from British Columbia, and I don't think suggesting that because there are a large number of economically successful visible minorities in this area of Vancouver paints a general picture for the socio-economic conditions of all Canadian visible minorities.   No persons living on the Vancouver waterfront are representative of the socio-economic conditions of the majority of Canadians, regardless of race or sex...

"All minorities are immigrants"

I don't recall stating that all minorities are immigrants.   I did however use the term visible minorities to describe the group I was addressing as being systematically affected...any group who does not compose 50% + 1 of the population is a minority...which would mean men are a minority by the line of reasoning you've adopted...

"I have proof.   Just read this book!   What they say is true!

Why is what they say true?

Well, you'd have to read the book!"

If you had bothered to even read the citations, (not the actual scholarship of course, that would be too much of your time spent on something informative) then you could have recognize I wasn't even citing books...I was citing articles in accredited academic journals, which are generally more scholarly than books that can be published by any small house...If you had read the articles, they would have supported the statements I was making.   The evidence they cite in their own references lends to the validity of their argument.   If you aren't going to entertain the evidence I am providing by acknowledging where it was even published how can you expect to engage in any meaningful discourse that isnt a back and forth, "Why?...Well why?, No show me more..."

"It's been a long time since "magister dixit" was considered a valid response, and I haven't read what you read.   Prove it"

If this were a formal piece of academia, you would refer to large sections of relevant scholarship on the subject...but this is a message board.   If you want I could post a journal article in full, but that would hardly be to anyone's benefit when the citation is right there to independantly access...I wasn't simply going by the dogma of "the teacher said so" but instead offering several corroborating works...If you haven't borthered to read them, even though you easily can, then why participate...

As for the discrimination that seemingly doesnt exist...

"The study, Unequal Access: A Canadian Profile of Racial Differences in Education, Employment and Income, written by Jean Lock Kunz, Anne Milan, and Sylvain Schetagne from the Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD) is based on recent quantitative statistics and focus group discussions with visible minorities and Aboriginal peoples in cities across Canada.

"Clearly the talents of Aboriginal peoples and visible minorities are being under-utilized or wasted as a result of systemic discrimination. This is not good for the productivity of the Canadian economy and the cohesion of our society," says Dr. Kunz, senior research associate at the CCSD.

Focus group participants identified three factors critical to employment as being post-secondary education, the right skill set and a booming economy. However, Canada's booming economy is not translating into equitable access to employment for Aboriginal peoples and visible minorities who still face "polite" racism when job hunting. Racism is a "hidden thing" in the workplace, and "subtle discrimination" includes being passed over for promotion and senior positions often held mainly by white Canadians. A disturbing revelation in the study is that even with post-secondary education, job opportunities may still be out of reach for Aboriginal peoples and that Aboriginal youth lagged far behind in their rates of university completion compared to all other groups."

from - "Hidden discrimination" and "polite racism" prevents Aboriginal peoples and visible minorities from gaining equal access to jobs"   
Canada NewsWire. Ottawa: Jan 9, 2001. pg. 1 

McG, The focus is on the fundamental factor of income inequality and the causes...it just so happens that data demonstrates that the discrepencies most often exisit for visible minorities.   That is why the support systems are perceived as racially motivated, as the group they target is composed of visible minorities who also happen to be in the targetted economic grouping.

If anyone wants to provide something for me to read, and I actually will read it out of respect for your time and opinons, then feel free...

(edited out extra bottom space only- mod)


----------



## Gunnar (18 Nov 2004)

Corroborating works are data.   We're looking for reasoning.



> I have proof.   Just read this book!   What they say is true!
> 
> Why is what they say true?
> 
> ...


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

Reasoning is extrapolated from collected data...

Why don't you take some time to read something I've presented and consulted...


----------



## McG (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> McG, The focus is on the fundamental factor of income inequality and the causes...it just so happens that data demonstrates that the discrepencies most often exisit for visible minorities.   That is why the support systems are perceived as racially motivated, as the group they target is composed of visible minorities who also happen to be in the targetted economic grouping.


But you have been defending the term "Affirmative Action."   This term implies a system(s) that focuses on groups based on "visible minority status."   It is not a term associated with ensuring the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder have the same opportunities through life as the people at the top of the ladder.   "Affirmative Action" is about ensuring the minority at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder has the same opportunities through life as the non-minoreties at the top of the ladder.   How is such a system fair to the non-minority that happens to be born into the bottom of the ladder?


----------



## Heatwave (18 Nov 2004)

"I stated earlier, that there is a notion in present discourses of affirmative action that refutes reverse discrimination."    
Actually, the part that I copied and pasted from what you really said was,    "there is in fact no such thing as reverse discrimination."    

This is why I said you were misinformed and presented my case to you.   Misinformed, meaning not receiving some/all of the available information.   This is why I provided the summary of the case.   If I knew that you had this information...I would simply have said you were wrong.   But, because I figured you didn't have this info, how could I justifiably call you wrong, when you were simply missing some of the info.   I know that many weren't privy to this info, so now you are aware.   

Perhaps, we are just playing with words, and getting away from the original topic.

Sorry, I really must go, but will be back tomorrow.   Keep it up, as this is full of good reading and rebuttals

Chimo!


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

If you carefully review the discussion, I have been defending a particular type of affirmative action.

Programs exist at the bottom for all persons, no matter of race or sex (ie: employment insurance, job creation initiatives, social assistance); however, there are a disproportionate number of visible minorities here that warrants the question of whether systems need to be put in place to address why this is the case...

Heatwave,

We are arguing symantics...I satated that the present notion believes there is no such thing as reverse discrimination, for the reasons I suggested...That is certainly one train of thought, not that I wholeheartedly adhered to, but that I presented to facilitate the discussion...


----------



## McG (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> however, there are a disproportionate number of visible minorities here that warrants the question of whether systems need to be put in place to address why this is the case...


But there is nothing to show that this in fact related to modern racial discrimination.

There are historical events where identifiable groups were visibly discriminated against to the effect that they were forced into the lower classes.   You are assuming that it is continued discrimination that keeps them there.   Is it possible that they are a barometer of programs aimed at giving economic mobility to lower classes?   Is it possible that there is a disproportionate number of minoreties still in lower income levels because historically they were forced there and nobody at those levels has economic mobility?


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

Why don't you offer me something to support your notion that no-one at the bottom was social mobility...

It's certainly an interesting point...


----------



## camochick (18 Nov 2004)

I'm a woman, I come from a low income family. I have never taken a hand out nor will I ever. I don't want a job based on the fact that I am a woman. I couldnt pull a man out of a burning building so why should I be able to get the job over a man who can actually do the job without the standards lowered . Shouldnt it all boil down to the fact that it should be the best person for the job. I dont think people should be usuing the excuse of poverty for lack of success. Not in canada anyhow, even though education is expensive, I have access to student loans, i work my ass off everyday I am not in school. Making the excuse that because you are poor you cant go anywhere is ridiculous. We do need to address the issues of education becoming too expenisve and student loans not being enough but really, its up to the individual to decide if they want to succeed or not.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

> You stated that I confirmed several things...
> 
> "What you've presented are good cases for "Poor People need Assistence to Move Up the Socioeconomic Ladder."
> 
> ...



Again you're crossing your wires.   I said there was validity to your claim that different economic levels create unequal playing fields (another "no shit" statement).   Programs that help to get people from low income backgrounds into are debatable and the execution and validity of these policies could be a suitable topic for another forum.

Let's sort some things out.   I think we both agreed back on page 1 that any measures that create different playing fields through alteration of standards is a bad thing.   What I've been arguing with you over the last 5 pages is that you seem to hold the conviction that there are "systemic barriers" that are upheld through a history of "oppression and subjugation" (you've used those terms multiple times).   I've constantly reiterated the request for proof of these systemic barriers - I don't see Jim Crowe laws, "Whites Only" signs, race riots, or broken down ghettos filled with disparate ethnic groups (although Native Reserves are close, but that's another issue - besides, I've seen enough poor white areas to know this isn't an issue confined to minorities).   

Up until now, you've dodged my simple question by throwing curve balls - immigration; despite the fact that not all immigrants are visible minorities and that not all visible minorities are immigrants, you've brought this issue into the argument.   Torlyn was even kind enough to give you a fact from a first hand source citing the weakness of your Immigration curve ball, and you didn't even bother to address it (was it because it wasn't in an academic journal?).   As well, I've failed to see any link between the ideas of "poor immigrants" and "systemic barriers".   Has it ever occurred to you that immigrants may be poor because they immigrated?

Now you've again thrown a curveball with the issue of Natives:



> "The study, Unequal Access: A Canadian Profile of Racial Differences in Education, Employment and Income, written by Jean Lock Kunz, Anne Milan, and Sylvain Schetagne from the Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD) is based on recent quantitative statistics and focus group discussions with visible minorities and Aboriginal peoples in cities across Canada.



Your ideological bent is starting to shine through (it already was with your love of the word "oppresion").   I've looked over the CCSD sight and, frankly, I remain unimpressed.   I could supply you with studies (to assuage your ego) done from the other end of the spectrum that will point to the opposite in terms of poverty, native issues, and economic opportunity.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=216

As for the issue of Canada's Natives, this is an issue of where your claims for "substantive equality" to remove "systemic barriers" has gone wrong.   The Indian Act enshrines difference based upon ethnicity and attempts to allow Natives to participate in Canadian society to their own standards.   As well as being antithical to the formal equalities that Canadian democracy is built around (all citizens are equal before the law), this system of "advantages" given to Native communities has instead led to the formation of the "Indian Industry".   Culpability for this lies not with "oppressive" mainstream Canadian society making money off the backs of Natives, but rather with Native Leaders who thrive off of the multi-billion dollar Indian Affairs budget and a Government with no backbone to put a stop to it, thus leading to an unending cycle of poverty and failure.

http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/CAPC_A_Lost_Century_(November_2002).pdf

http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/Standing_Committee_Indian_Affairs_(Feb_27_2003).pdf

http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/APARTHEID_Canadas_Ugly_Secret_April_2004.pdf

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/commentary_175.pdf

As well, I don't see how you can link the problems faced by Natives - with the quote _"Hidden discrimination" and "polite racism" prevents Aboriginal peoples and visible minorities from gaining equal access to jobs"_ - which are governed by their own archaic regulatory system (The Indian Act) to those faced by other minorities who are citizens of Canada and recognized by the law as such.

I'm a little put-off by the fact that after 7 pages of banter I've yet to see any real justification to support the notion that Canadian elites (re: White Men) maintain "systemic barriers" because they are all bigots.   Rather, all you've offered up is to come off the high throne of Academia to offer snide retorts on why journal articles are vastly superior to anything we have to say to you.


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

My ideological leanings should be as obvious as yours are, the Fraser Institute is the epitome of whats wrong with neo-liberal policy making...

Regardless, I read the article, it was irrelevant to the discussion, as it dealt with measuring poverty in Canada, and not the issues that in fact cause poverty...(of course the neo-cons would prefer to blame that on a persons inability to compete in the market)

"Has it ever occurred to you that immigrants may be poor because they immigrated?"

So why do they continue to remain poor?

Your perspective on Native rights is typical right (white?) wing.  The disparity addressed in the articles between natives in urban centres and those on reserves is used to cloud the most important aspect, regardless of where the native persons reside, they are still worse off than nearly any other group.  The native population in Canada (those we actually left alive) are in their present position because of the conditions imposed on them from the beginning of colonial interactions.  This treatment spanned hundreds of years, and was not exclusive to the genocide of the Beothuk or placing populations on reserves... keep in mind it was only several decades ago that we saw the elimination of residential schools...

I hardly think I've sat on a throne of academia, there are plenty of educated persons participating in these forums; however I do value substantiating claims with supporting evidence, something you apparently only now see fit to do.  Its obvious that your not willing to accept that discrimination does exist, and is problematic, and while we may not tap a sign on the bus when a minority boards, or designate different bathroom facilities based on ethnicity, there are overt conditions at present that relegate certain persons to certain situations...

By the way, journal articles are invaluable, as they are researched and composed by persons far more knowledgable than you or I will ever be on the specific topics being addressed.

If you've been put off after 7 pages, then perhaps you should have contributed more than "No...that's not the case" and actually gone ahead and showed me the way things actually are...


----------



## McG (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> Why don't you offer me something to support your notion that no-one at the bottom was social mobility...


Why don't you offer something that shows it is only the minorities that are not economically mobile?   You are the one trying to make the case for "Affirmative Action."   You are the one suggesting that not everyone deserves to be treated equally when it comes to assistance moving up the social lader.

If you want to tell me that Canadian minoreties need special assistance for economic mobility, you have to show that there is a disparity in thier economic mobility with non-minoreties.   You have not shown that.   Why is "Affirmative Action" the route to take and not an approach that is blind to race/religion/culture/etc?   Why is it okay to discriminate against non-minorities that are members of the lower class?   Why should the non-minoreties be denied the same opportunities for economic mobility?



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> Why don't you offer me something to support your notion that no-one at the bottom was social mobility...


But you yourself have admited that economic disparities are fundamental barriers to economic mobility.   So, I don't need to prove that.   You have concluded that minoreties require discrimination in thier favour ("Affirmative Action") in order to achieve economic mobility comparable to thier non-minorety peers.   However, you have not demonstrated a disparity which would justify a â Å“reverse discrimination.â ?


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

> the Fraser Institute is the epitome of whats wrong with neo-liberal policy making...



 :
Do you got a journal article to prove that too?



> Regardless, I read the article, it was irrelevant to the discussion, as it dealt with measuring poverty in Canada, and not the issues that in fact cause poverty...(of course the neo-cons would prefer to blame that on a persons inability to compete in the market)



Considering that so far all your fabulous cases presenting arguments of "systemic barriers" have been based around poverty, I would think an article that takes an objective look at how poverty is measured (since statistics are so important to you) would be valid.

But if your taking your idea of poverty from the latest Jack Layton promo, go right ahead....



> So why do they continue to remain poor?



I'm a second generation Canadian, and my family seems to be doing all right.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that there are people of all ethnicities succeeding in Canada (and consequently, people of all ethnicities failing).   You can't tell me that by looking at the numerous communities in large cities (where 85% of immigrants flock to) that they are downtrodden and left to wallow in the mud.   As the immigrant community is constantly in flux (new people arrive and acclimate themselves every year) can you really prove that it is the same immigrants who are the constantly showing up under the poverty line?



> Your perspective on Native rights is typical right (white?) wing.



Funny, I didn't know that opposing the notion that ethnicity is deserving of special rights and privileges was a right wing stance?

Are you implying I'm a racist?   I guess that would play into your little conspiracy theory, wouldn't it?



> Its obvious that your not willing to accept that discrimination does exist, and is problematic, and while we may not tap a sign on the bus when a minority boards, or designate different bathroom facilities based on ethnicity, there are overt conditions at present that relegate certain persons to certain situations...



I guessed you missed the part where I said _"I won't deny that racism and preferential treatment exists in Canadian society.   It exists everywhere as it is hardwired into our psyche."_

I'm still waiting to hear about an overt condition that hinges specifically on race.



> By the way, journal articles are invaluable, as they are researched and composed by persons far more knowledgable than you or I will ever be on the specific topics being addressed.



...and who are just as liable to a bias as you and I are.   You've presented information that you felt was pertinant, and myself and others debated it.   I offered you articles in return to show you that other opinions exist, and you write it off as _"Typical right-wing perspectives"_ that are the _"epitome of what's wrong with neo-liberal policy making."_

What happened to Mr. Objectivity?



> If you've been put off after 7 pages, then perhaps you should have contributed more than "No...that's not the case" and actually gone ahead and showed me the way things actually are...



Well, we've tried - but obviously the blinders are on way too tight....


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Nov 2004)

>"Has it ever occurred to you that immigrants may be poor because they immigrated?"
>So why do they continue to remain poor?

They don't.  They prosper.

The only systemic barrier I can see remaining in the way of aboriginals is the one which prevents them from integrating completely into Canada.  It is up to them and the socio-political establishment which believes it has their best interests in mind to remove it.  The longer one frigs around with government tweaks which are long on ideals and short on rigorous thinking, the longer unintended consequences will continue to bite one in the ass.


----------



## CivU (18 Nov 2004)

"Well, we've tried - but obviously the blinders are on way too tight...."

I guess if having due concern for fellow Canadians living in poverty is a product of being blinded by left wing notions of reaching true equality, then I'm guilty...

It's a shame I can't be over on the right where it's so easy to blame everyone for their own misfortune...


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> It's a shame I can't be over on the right where it's so easy to blame everyone for their own misfortune...



...it is a shame, because your camped in the _"It's everyone else's fault, especially the white guy"_ corner.

 :'(


----------



## McG (19 Nov 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> I guess if having due concern for fellow Canadians living in poverty is a product of being blinded by left wing notions of reaching true equality, then I'm guilty...


You don't seem to show any due concern for non-minoreties living in poverty.


----------



## canadianblue (19 Nov 2004)

"I guess if having due concern for fellow Canadians living in poverty is a product of being blinded by left wing notions of reaching true equality, then I'm guilty..."

But don't some white males also live in poverty, so why are'nt we giving them special privilidges when they join up with the army or police force. I've got a good idea, when a person applies, lets figure out their whole life story, and lets screw going with whose the best for the job. Lets instead go by who the most discriminated against and lets pick them only and screw all those other applicants. 

So are you saying that if I joined up with the RCMP lets say, and I got the top scores on all of my tests, but since an immigrant is applying they should immediatly get the job because of the "discrimination" they face.

Lets try eradicating discrimination by not looking at race at all when hiring people, and give every single person an equal oppurtunity regardless of their race. I don't really see how immigrants are immediatly disadvantaged when they come to this country, if they feel this country is racist and discriminatory, I'm sure their home country would allow them back in.


----------



## camochick (19 Nov 2004)

It's so easy to blame everyone else for your misfortunes. I agree that lately it seems like the white male is getting the shaft big time. I mean why is the military standards for entry different for men than women. Don't they all do the same job?


----------



## aesop081 (19 Nov 2004)

I agree with your last statement.  When i was a combat engineer, i always wondered why women had to do 19 push-ups to pass and men 21.......Dont bridge parts weight the same for all soldiers ????


----------



## camochick (19 Nov 2004)

actually it's 9 push up hehe


----------



## aesop081 (19 Nov 2004)

Hehe...whatever it is....you get my point.  Maybe Aaron White or ToRn would like to insert their 2 cents ??


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2004)

True story:

In 1994, I was an instructor at the RCR Battleschool in Pet, teaching a QL-3 Infantry course. There I had the pleasure of instructing the best candidate I have ever had (and I have instructed on Basic, Junior Leadership, Basic Officer Training Course and RESO over the years). This guy was smart, in both the "book" and "street" sense, was a superb athlete, had natural charisma (the section would follow his lead off duty), and was photogenic to boot. In military slang, this guy was a "streamer", and I could see him moving quickly up the ranks, or taking a commission.

Unfortunately, at the end of the course, the first ever "self identification" survey came out and the troops were required to fill them out. My candidate was extremely upset, and justifiably so; for no matter how good he was, or how much ability or merit he displayed, for the rest of his career, his accomplishments would be discounted as being due to his ethnic background: he was a Cree from Saskatchewan.

I wonder how many people have to struggle with this suspicion planted by the quota system. It is bad enough in peacetime, just imagine if you are wondering about the qualifications of the soldier next to you  in a combat situation. Looking the other way, a person who "may" be favored by quotas will know there will always be suspicion directed at their achievements, with someone always ready to say, well, it is just because they are an...


----------



## NavyGrunt (19 Nov 2004)

* Insert sarcastic comment here with smiley face*


----------



## camochick (19 Nov 2004)

hehe yeah . There is definatly no shortage of opinions from those two.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Nov 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> .....Dont bridge parts weight the same for all soldiers ????



Maybe that is why we are going for lighter Bridging these days 

GW

Question:  Why do we have to harp on all the ways we are "different"?  We have to take Sharp Trg, and then Differential Trg, where we learn all about "Xs" and "Ys".  Why?  We should be learning why we are all the same.   What makes us the same?  We all wear Green?

Language has always been a bone of contention for me.  How does learning French make me a better shot on the range?

GW


----------



## camochick (19 Nov 2004)

I dont understand it either. I don't understand why we dont stop looking at people different and realize we are all humans. We should embrace what makes us different and try and understand each other. By giving someone a job because of their race or the language they speak dont we further create a divide between us.


----------



## Slim (19 Nov 2004)

camochick said:
			
		

> I dont understand it either. I don't understand why we dont stop looking at people different and realize we are all humans. We should embrace what makes us different and try and understand each other. By giving someone a job because of their race or the language they speak dont we further create a divide between us.



In my experience there are two things that break down barriers of race, class and sex. 

Those are

Teamwork and shared Hardship.

Go to a combat arms unit (reg force). Some will be black, some white, some oriental...But ask them about this issue. The answer you'll get almost to a man (or woman) is that they're all soldiers. Its also, to a lesser degree, the same with cops and firemen.

In the face of what they do sex, race and class distinction completely dissapear.  For the average joe on the street there is no motivation to want to integrate him or herself into any other groups. Furthermore, all the prejuduces of the past come into play. Suddenly Joe on the street thinks that the immigrants from the country of purple are here to take his job and date his women (or men-I've been sharpened)

How do you fix that?

I haven't got that answer. And I don't know if anyone else does either...

Slim


----------



## aesop081 (19 Nov 2004)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Maybe that is why we are going for lighter Bridging these days
> 
> GW
> 
> ...




Where did you get the idea that we were getting lighter bridges ? Last time i checked the MGB is still around......did it get lighter recently ? 

You have to learn french for the same reason that i have to learn english.  It may not be apparent to you but we have troops that speak only one language and the more senior you become , you have to be able to communicate with ALL of them.  You have to look beyond what is straight in front of you ( your range comment) and look at the bigger picture.  So please don't cry me a river about having to learn french, i have been employed in english my entire career and my current MOC will nottake you if you can't speak and read english......


----------



## homerjsimpson (19 Nov 2004)

> Differential Trg?



What is that?, I've had to take "Diversity" training...


----------



## Heatwave (19 Nov 2004)

CivU,

We are arguing symantics...I satated that the present notion believes there is no such thing as reverse discrimination, for the reasons I suggested...That is certainly one train of thought, not that I wholeheartedly adhered to, but that I presented to facilitate the discussion...

Got it!  Much clearer now...I didn't correctly interpret your meaning/intent...must of been all that "smoke-eatin" in my earlier years.  

Chimo!


----------



## mover1 (9 Dec 2005)

http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/engraph/recruiterforaday/index_e.aspx

CANFORGEN 186/05 ADM(HR-MIL) 100 091313Z DEC 05
CF RECRUITING PROGRAM - RECRUITER FOR A DAY

"THE CF HAS APPROXIMATELY 170 FULL-TIME RECRUITERS, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHOM ARE CAUCASIAN MALES. RECRUITING EFFORTS REQUIRE REINFORCEMENT FROM FEMALE, ABORIGINAL AND VISIBLE MINORITY REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTRACT APPLICANTS FROM UNDER-REPRESENTED, NON-TRADITIONAL GROUPS, TO WHOM IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CF IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT VALUES THE DIVERSITY OF ITS PEOPLE "

I am not going to say a thing about this program and its merits or its vices, However, the way the career manager explained things to me was when he chooses people for postings, he leaves sex and ethnicity out of the equation's

Its hard to treat people like people and try to be unbiased when we get this type of program encouraged in the CF which favours certain groups to others. This has the potential to backfire and only cause a further divide for those who are predjudice between certain groups....

....ok I said something!! :-X


----------



## kincanucks (9 Dec 2005)

This is about serving CF members who are female, aboriginal and VM and who are interested in being involved in recruiting at attraction events that are specifically targeting those groups that are under represented in the CF.  It is not about posting them to recruiting units so I am a little confused about your post.  Believe it or not but we do conduct recruiting events to attract people other than white Anglo males.


----------



## GO!!! (9 Dec 2005)

I agree with Mover.

The CF is not promoting anything even close to "equality" with tripe like this. This is just discrimination against the one group that the CF was founded on, and that continues to provide it's backbone today. This superficiality is revealed in the fact that only "minorities" who are "visible" are worthy of representation.

I would think that as a recruiter kincanucks, you would be insulted by the inference that you "require reinforcement" to recruit natives and women. Are you not able to recruit from these two groups now? 

Why does this military continue to treat soldiers like some massive, employee social engineering project?


----------



## kincanucks (9 Dec 2005)

We do our best to attract and recruit people from all backgrounds.  Can we do better?  Sure we can and programs like this will hopefully assist us in getting the word out to all Canadians that the CF is an excellent organization to work in.  Cheers.


----------



## ZxExN (10 Dec 2005)

I'm all for getting the word out and attracting more 'applicants' from minority groups, hopefully that will mean more successful applicants. But please if they're not suited for the job, don't try and fill some equity 'ratio' like they do in the work force.


----------



## Dog (10 Dec 2005)

While not an organization that is considered a mainstream part of the workforce, the CF is part of Canada's workforce, and it's not necessarily a bad thing that they want to attract a group/groups of people who traditionally don't serve in the forces, the more the merrier, right?

 However, that being said, I can't help but wonder about the problems I had when applying for a few police forces and being told that I wasn't "reflective of the community demographic that they were looking for at that point in time." I see that in the recruiting brochures many of the people shown, whether sailors, techs, or infantry are women, and I know that when you gear a recruiting process to a group like women, you inevitably make it less attractive to men. I have friends that didn't apply because it didn't look like something they were interested in, because all the video's and brochures were full of smiling happy women, and they were more interested in being dirty, and crawling around under barbed wire, and cussin' and spittin'.

 Is that going to happen when you gear it to blacks, or aboriginals, or whatever... is it going to stop looking attractive to whites? Is it going to be another situation where white guys get passed over for minorities, regardless of qualifications? And then they get disillusioned (like I did with the police) and start looking somewhere else?

Grub fer ponderin'....


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Dec 2005)

Interesting comments. Off the top of my head I can think of the names of four "visible minority" soldiers who were Regimental Sergeants Major in The RCR.  They are certainly among the most professional soldiers I have ever had the privilege of serving with, and their abiity to balance their 'old school' military upbringing with new attitudes of inclusiveness and equal opportunity (i.e., the right to to try, not to be confused to any perception of a right to success without the required potential and performance) was exemplary. Statistically, I suspect their success was way above any expectations based solely on numbers. I would hate to think we may miss the chance to recruit other soldiers of that calibre because some would promote the concept of the Canadian military as an exclusive club for white males.


----------



## GO!!! (10 Dec 2005)

The CF is not, and should not be an exclusively white anglo male club, but neither should it imply to potential recruits that one group of them is more highly prized due to the color of their skin. 

True equality would mean that the recruiting system would be "blind" to ancestry and sex. You are your rank, trade and pers file - nothing more, nothing less. The bottom line is, certain lines of work are going to be more attractive to certain groups of people, no matter how much the CF tries to diversify. 

I suspect that the reg force infantry will always be a male dominated trade, just as dental assistant will probably always be a female dominated one, why can't we be happy with this? The social engineering that the CF pursues looks shallow, and most people I know only smirk and laugh at these foolish attempts. 

Pick the best person for the job - period. SAY you are going to do so, then do it - color and sex be damned.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Dec 2005)

Why use warm bodies to chase social engineering?


----------



## Bert (10 Dec 2005)

The warm bodies, if I understand the context correctly, serve as role models or people of minority that have made it
into the CF.

Separating the issue of recruiting potential applicants and members who are already in the CF, the government in
general is trying to attract people who are representative of the overall population.  The face of Canada in the last
30 years have changed.  Also the CF is challenged by attrition, retirement, recruitment, and recent changes to 
enhance the Force.

In my opinion, the average aboriginal, chinese, south american, vietnamese, immigrant or second generation as 
examples are less likely to consider the CF as a possible career choice.  I see no problem in the government or 
the CF reaching out to ethnicities advertising recruitment.  

I agree with GO!!!'s statement ,"Pick the best person for the job - period. SAY you are going to do so, then do it - 
color and sex be damned.".  However, to pick the best, you need applicants.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Dec 2005)

Bert said:
			
		

> However, to pick the best, you need applicants.



We have plenty of applicants.   There just seems to be a problem with the fact that they are overwhelmingly young white males.   Why?

There are better ways to attract people then saying "Hey look, this person has the same skin colour as you - Sign Up!"


----------



## Dog (11 Dec 2005)

I don't think anyone has a problem with the government reaching out to minorities who wouldn't traditionally think of the CF as a viable option for a career, but I think that reaching out to one group at the expense of another group who, let's face it, is the bread and butter of the recruiting system, is folly. The government should pull it's head out of it's ass and accept the fact that there are not as many women out there who have the desire to join the infantry, as there are men. I don't think that the CF should be an mens-only club either, but let's face facts and acknowlege that it's going to be a boys club for as long as we aren't specifically engineering women for combat on a genetic level. There will be exceptions, and that's great, but not many.

 And there quite simply are not a huge percentage of Aboriginals out there to begin with... 2% of the population. That's including women and elderly and children... how many of what's left will meet the requirments? 30% maybe? How many of those are practical to reach? How many are going to be interested even after the forces looks like a viable option? How many are we talking about now? Seems like the pie is sliced pretty thin.

 As for immigrants, how many are fully intergrated into Canadian Society? Go into the nearest ethnic centre of any major city and you are going to find huge numbers of people who can barely speak English, or who can't speak it at all. You think they've got a deep-seated loyalty to our country, a loyalty deep enough that they are willing to die for it? How many have a military/family history in Canada? Now, how many young white guys on this forum have a relative, whom they are proud of, who fought for Canada at some point in the past? 

 Now, how much money is the CF willing to spend to try to fight what has, so far, been an uphill battle? Is it worth it?

 I'm not advocating ignoring those segements of society, but what's wrong with fishing where the fish are biting?


----------



## Stupor (12 Dec 2005)

It may not be an easy process, but intergrating non-Caucasians into the Canadian Army is an important goal. The percentage of the Canadian population that is non-white is only going to increase, and the Army should reflects that fact. Reaching out to minority applicants will NOT be "at the expense of another group", who is indeed the "bread and butter of the recruiting system". This program encourages minority applicants to be more interested in the Canadian Military, but it will not be an affirmative action program. Qualified minority applicants who have not considered a career with the DND might join, which is an undeniably good result, but under-qualified minority applicants will NOT take the place of a qualified white male soldier simply due to his minority status.

White male Canadians are indeed more likely to have military ties to this country - but should they be the only ones who do? If programs like this succeed in drawing more qualified minority candidates to the Canadian Military, then more of them will have the "deep-seated loyalty" to Canada that you speak of. Perhaps that will help intergrate the increasing number of immigrants to this country.


----------



## GO!!! (12 Dec 2005)

Stupor,

You are using "immigrant" interchangeably with "visible minority" which I find interesting. Since our illustrious government is actively assisting "visible" immigrants to Canada, while raising the bar ever higher for "*in*visible" immigrants (primarily of scandinavian and european descent) you have to wonder just what these polices are in the first place. 

Canada was built on the white, european settler, why is this something to be ashamed of, and it seems, eradicated?

You state that vis-min applicants will not take the place of other less well endowed applicants - how is that? If there are a limited number of positions, and priority is given to people who are the color of the month, how can other applicants hope not to be excluded?

Categorising applicants by the color of their skin is *RACIST* whether it is to help them get a job or not. 

I would suggest that certain numbers of immigrants with skills required by the forces be conscripted as a "price" for them and their families to immigrate. This great nation of ours was not free for our families, why should it be for theirs?


----------



## Stupor (12 Dec 2005)

I used "immigrant" interchangeably with "visible minority" because the majority of new immigrants to Canada are visible minorities. I am not aware of different immigration standards for applicants of Scandinavian and European descent, but I welcome you to enlighten me on that topic.

This program does not show that the Military is "ashamed" of its white, European root, or that it wants that legacy to be "eradicated". It simply seeks to keep the Military up to date with changing demographics of the Canadian population. I may have read wrongly, but from what I understand, this program merely _encourages_ visible minority applicants to apply, presumably because they are under-represented in the Military. That encouragement does not, and indeed should not, translate into preferential recruitment. If there is no preferential treatment after applicant applies, then it would *not* be racist.

Immigrating to this country is no more free than it was in the past; present day immigrants pay their price to come here. It is a great country to immigrate to, for sure, and I would hope that as a good Canadian, you would welcome programs that call on these new immigrants to serve this great country.


----------



## GO!!! (12 Dec 2005)

The most common barrier emplaced is that of the ever elusive refugee status.

Immigrants from developed nations must show skills required in Canada, knowledge of the nation and at least one official language, identification, health checks, a large balance in a bank account and enter onto a long waiting list. It is difficult for these people to obtain refugee status because their countries keep accurate records and do not, as a group persecute their citizens.

Refugees are often turned loose in our cities while immigration attempts to confirm their identities. After they have lived there for a few years, they cannot be deported and are permitted to sponsor the rest of their families for entrance. The only prerequisite for entry is a belief that they will be persecuted in their home countries. While here, refugees and their families are entitled to the use of our Health Care system, a drivers licence, and welfare. Their children are citizens. 

Policies like this allowed the illustrious Khadr family into Canada - and allows them to stay, despite well known and publicised terrorist connections, and the fact that the youngest son was recieving medical care in Canada after being wounded in a shootout with US troops in Afghanistan. 

I welcome legitimate immigrants to Canada, but the legitimate, documented, legal immigrants are vastly outnumbered by the illegal refugees who stream into Canada on false pretenses, and take full advantage of a system they have no intention of ever participating in or supporting.

At present, 13% of the Canadian population identifies as a visible minority http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050322/d050322b.htm, and the CF has expressed in the past that this goal has been "exceeded". 

If the goal has been met - Why the drive to have a disproportionately high number of visible minorities?


----------



## geo (13 Dec 2005)

I am confused that this discussion is even taking place.
Some leaders in the CF have determined that while we have been having success in bringing in the front door white franco/anglo males & females BUT that we have been having limited success in even getting to see potential candidates from these other groups.
The request for volunteers - from serving members in these same said other groups - was to provide some confidence builders - make the Recruiter's "sell job" easier to deliver.
The fact that someone had the brains to realise that some of our serving members could help - without yanking em out of their units is a good thing.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (13 Dec 2005)

Does this not imply that by having a "visible minority" CF member try recruiting, they will attract more recruits of the same race? Sounds a little clanish to me.

 Since when do we want to attract soldiers/sailors/airmen based on their minority standings and not on their genuine desire to serve? IMHO the government is so afraid of sounding racist/sexist that they have gone completely overboard.

 CF recruiting should be spending funds expanding to urban areas and building more recruiting offices in order to make the forces apealing to all Canadians. Instead the powers that be come up with these ideas that are intended to imply that up till now we were a white boys only club but we are going to change things.


----------



## Dog (13 Dec 2005)

Stupor said:
			
		

> ... Reaching out to minority applicants will NOT be "at the expense of another group", who is indeed the "bread and butter of the recruiting system". This program encourages minority applicants to be more interested in the Canadian Military, but it will not be an affirmative action program. Qualified minority applicants who have not considered a career with the DND might join, which is an undeniably good result, but under-qualified minority applicants will NOT take the place of a qualified white male soldier simply due to his minority status...



I politely suggest you wake up and take a look around at some of the other governemt services that white anglo males are being slowly pushed out of. Men in general are rapidly being failed in the education system, and now are a minority on college/university campuses, because the government set up the system to be more accomodating to girls, the police department now HAS to hire a certain number of minorities and women, and as a result more highly qualified white guys get told that they should take a hike. Same with the Fire department. There are special days to recognize women in the workplace, there are programs for women to deal with domestic violence, but nothing/little for men (that's an odd topic anyway... but whatever), there is a systematic discrimination against men when it come to the legal system and divorce (don't even get me started...).

All I'm saying is that merit has fallen by the wayside, and the colour of your skin, or your gender is now seemingly more important that what you can do.... and it's wrong.

I graduated from a Police Foundations program, almost every visible minority member of my class/female has been hired by a police department. All the white guys are frustrated and working low-paying blue collar jobs because no one will hire them.

I have a friend who went through the same program as I did, and applied to half of the police forces in the country.... he gave up after seeing some of the same female recruits and finding out that they weren't paying for all the testing that they had to do, and he was because he didn't qualify for the subsidies because he was a member of an over-represented segement of society.... he tried for 3 years to get a job as a cop. Eventually he got frustrated, gave up, and applied to the army. He's now a member of 3PPCLI.

He's a member of 3PPCLI because the army didn't care what colour he was. As it should be.


----------



## geo (13 Dec 2005)

Dog,
agree 100% with you that forced diversity is defenitively not the way to go.
should be going entirely on competence and capabilities.
but, in some communities, the youths avoid the police 100% and the authorities pretty much just as much - because they don't trust them... 
so a little bit of a helping hand to bring em out of the woodwork so we can talk to them makes a lot of sense

to me anyway

IMHO


----------



## GO!!! (13 Dec 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> Dog,
> agree 100% with you that forced diversity is defenitively not the way to go.
> should be going entirely on competence and capabilities.
> but, in some communities, the youths avoid the police 100% and the authorities pretty much just as much - because they don't trust them...
> ...



Geo, the US army identified an untapped recruiting pool in the urban, non - white demographic too. 

So they identified what those people were interested in, and they found SUVs, Rap Music, Pro sports and money.

As a result, they now drive US Army recruiting Humvees playing a specially commissioned Snoop Dogg rap tune to NCAA football and basketball games, where they tout the US Army's signing bonuses. Enlistment in these target groups has risen significantly.

What a concept - find what your target audience is interested in, then connect yourself to it. The recruiter's skin color is nearly a non - issue when this type of "selling the army" is taking place.  

Conversely, we here in Canada seem to believe that the ethnicity of the recruiter will attract more vis-mins - see the problem?


----------



## Stupor (13 Dec 2005)

I agree that placing quotas on visible-minority enrolment and valuing skin colour above capability is wrong. If your friend is more qualified than a female police officer, then he should have the job. However, that is not the argument here.

I am not calling on the Army to lower standards for visible minorities or females. I am only encouraging what I think is a good and harmless way to boost interest from under-represented groups. Personally, I would rather have a qualified candidate apply because he thinks of the Army as an inclusive institution from first-hand experience rather than because he thinks of it as a place to play with guns and get money, booze, fast cars and women (which are the main topics of rap music, no?).


----------



## geo (13 Dec 2005)

GO!!!!
would be interested in driving the Humvee, going to the Baseball, football & Basketball (+ hockey) games ... just to see how effective I'd be


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Geo, the US army identified an untapped recruiting pool in the urban, non - white demographic too.
> 
> So they identified what those people were interested in, and they found SUVs, Rap Music, Pro sports and money.
> 
> ...



Links? References? Stats? Pics?

I wonder how many white guys were in those special recruiting teams? Somehow I can't see a 30 year old white guy inspiring visible minority youth to join the Army just because he's driving a Humvee blaring Snoop Dog.


----------



## geo (13 Dec 2005)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Links? References? Stats? Pics?
> I wonder how many white guys were in those special recruiting teams? Somehow I can't see a 30 year old white guy inspiring visible minority youth to join the Army just because he's driving a Humvee blaring Snoop Dog.


1.... he'd be wearing ear plugs 

2. Does that mean I can't go to the Hockey & football games in a Humvee / G Wagon?


----------



## GO!!! (13 Dec 2005)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Links? References? Stats? Pics?
> 
> I wonder how many white guys were in those special recruiting teams? Somehow I can't see a 30 year old white guy inspiring visible minority youth to join the Army just because he's driving a Humvee blaring Snoop Dog.



As a middle aged white guy yourself - how would you know? 

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/C-fraud/04-US-gov/2005/05C4-04-23-05-military-recruiters-targeting-minority-teens.html

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2029.cfm

http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/10/17/army/index_np.html?x

http://www.usarec.army.mil/6thbde/photos.htm

http://www.usarec.army.mil/6thbde/Photographs%20Page%20Files/North%20Bay/Mega%20DEP%20015.jpg

The presence of "recruiters of color" in the US is meaningless, as a far greater proportion of that country is vis-min, and as such, so is their military. 

Over - representation of minorities is becoming a fact of life in the US military, leading to renewed calls for the draft.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Dec 2005)

So, the US Army identified that putting images, people and activities that young people of specific demographic groups could relate to was a successful recruiting tactic. But their success in doing so invalidates the presence of their visible minority recruiters simply because of that success. I still don't understand why that creates an argument that our own Recruiting System's attempt to initiate similar programs starting with selected recruiters (albeit on a much smaller scale) is inappropriate?


----------



## enfield (14 Dec 2005)

This policy assumes that the primary identifier of a person walking into a CFRC is their race or gender. It assumes that seeing a person of similar appearance will make the CF more attractive.
I disagree - I would suspect that even more than race or gender, potential recruits will notice if the recruiter is fit, motivated, professional, and embodies the qualities that the candidate expects from the military and believes are important. 

Are we also going to rig the CFRC's so that if a person of a one visible minority walks in, they talk to someone of the same minority?

Why are we trying to present an artificial image to the public? Why do we insist on representations that have nothing to do with the demographic reality of the CF? 

Hundreds (thousands?) of Native Canadians are currently serving in the US military. Did they go south and join there because the US recruiter was native? Nope - probably has a lot to do with a professional, aggressive reputation tho. 
I would suggest that the more we try to change to attract minority elements, the more we alienate everyone - most of all young males. 

At a most basic and superficial level (and one proven by the advertising industry) putting an attractive person behind the desk is probably the most important factor. Perhaps thats the best way to go...


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Dec 2005)

Where was it stated that the plan was based on a presumption of a primary identifier of race/gender? The initial message talks about reinforcing the existing (prediminantly white male) recruiting staff. The backgrouder talks about task tailored employment of volunteers programmed by the CFRC. 

http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/engraph/recruiterforaday/index_e.aspx



> "Recruiter for a Day" (RFD) is a volunteer program designed to reinforce the full-time CF recruiting team by drawing on other interested soldiers, sailors, airmen and women to assist in fulfilling the recruiting mission.





> Volunteers will be contacted by a CF Recruiting Centre when their assistance is required for a specific recruiting event or activity.



So, if placing some visible minority recruiters in CFRCs and at selected events "alienates" young white males, doesn't that mean that staffing CFRCs and events predominantely with white males also alienates visible minority applicants?

Isn't there likely a balance between the two supposed extremes? Perhaps that is what the Recruiting System is attempting to achieve. Of course, we don't have precise demographics stats on current CFRC staffing, or how that compares to each of their local areas. If a potential applicant is more comfortable speaking to somone they identify with on that first contact basis, why shouldn't we work on that; whether the applicant is a white male or a black woman?

Without more facts it's a rhetorical discussion.


----------



## geo (14 Dec 2005)

... and it becomes one of:
white bashing; or
vis minority bashing


----------



## GO!!! (15 Dec 2005)

Well, it's good to hear that affirmative action has been replaced with "reinforcement".

My unit is predominately white, male, and anglophone. I suppose we require "reinforcement" from women, francos and visible minorities so that the public won't realise what we are, after all, how shameful, and in need of fixing it must be for any trade to be indicative of the canadian public which is only 15% visible minorities.

I'm sure our recruiting numbers will surge once everyone who is'nt white sees a recruiter of the same color - after all - that's what they were waiting for - right? 

 :


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Dec 2005)

Ok troops,

this one is shut down for now unti coller heads prevail...PM me if you have a good one

dileas

tess


----------



## dimsum (20 Apr 2019)

> Depending on the week and whether employment equity (or EE) targets are being met, the Canadian Forces periodically closes some of its approximately 100 occupations or trades to any applicants but women...
> 
> ...and other members of EE groups...



More at link:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply?fbclid=IwAR2RlBWzz1HspcE48f-vn0Tlut09bA3Mb6h8DTE4iDqBDvE1nxDkWPCrq2k&utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app#Echobox=1555682676

Edit to add a bit of content from the article, rather than only a link.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2019)

I very sincerely hope someone challenges this as a violation of their Charter or Human rights.  And...to lie to applicants? 

_Sabourin agreed that in practice, it means that if a white male was applying for a job that was temporarily open only to EE candidates, he would be informed the occupation was full and other job possibilities discussed.

Asked if the man would be told the occupation was still open for members of EE groups, Sabourin said no. 
_


----------



## mariomike (20 Apr 2019)

Nothing new about Employment Equity,

From 2005,

Employment equity is only for those who qualify
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/37277.0.html
2 pages.

Sometimes referred to on here by its American term, "Affirmative Action",

2004,

Affirmative Action recruiting policies?
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/22619.100.html
5 pages.

For reference to the discussion,

Canadian Forces Employment Equity Regulations 
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-421/page-3.html
Date modified:  2019-04-10


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Apr 2019)

I'm not really sure what all the outrage is about; worked a lot of different short term contract jobs before joining and pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten a few of them if I wasn't a white male (because the guy doing the hiring was racist).  

Presuming this means the trade has hit it's recruiting target, but they will let EE candidates apply for beyond that. Might mean they exceed the training system capacity a bit, so some people wait a while longer in a few trades if they have hard caps on course loads but otherwise who cares?

As an added bonus, makes for some really great potlucks; had an awesome curried chill and some jerk chicken recently.

They've tried all kinds of things to try and diversify, maybe this will work.  Worse case not enough recruits are coming in to keep up with releases, and that's been status quo since before I got in (about 15 years ago).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure what all the outrage is about



A Canadian government organization denying someone possible employment, and lying about the reason why...how much *outrage* would there be if the story said "coloured applicants" in the sentences it says "male" or even better, "white male"?  

You're saying it is perfectly fine with you if they discriminate, but only against white males?


----------



## BeyondTheNow (20 Apr 2019)

It’s honestly not that surprising. Maybe it’s _a bit_ surprising that someone has actually confirmed what we’ve all known all a long, but otherwise, yeah, it’s not surprising.  :dunno:



> ... “There are no occupations that we restrict based on gender.”...Tattersall acknowledged, however, that “diversity is a consideration” – a significant one, especially near the end of the recruiting year when she said “We will look at diversity applicants first” – and that what the sheets indicate about Indigenous applicants is correct...



This sort of thing isn’t rare in many areas of public service. 

What bothers me more, however, are the CFAT and PCL issues mentioned.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Apr 2019)

There's way too much to be offended about, or on behalf of... you know, like a Reservist wanting a photo in uniform, or hair styles, or badges.....FREAKIN' BADGES!!
             anic:


So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For _over three decades_,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.

Forgive me if I don't get worked up today by DND doing something that has been legally mandated for 33 years.  However, should anyone wish to light torches and storm some castle, or start a harshly-worded petition, you can get some useful bits from "Canada, Justice Laws Website, 'Employment Equity Act (S.C. 1995, c. 44)',"  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.401/ -- it specifically mentions Canadian Forces, CSIS, and RCMP.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Apr 2019)

I'm with Journeyman.  If I understand the numbers right, the CAF can afford to be selective, and only takes a certain percentage of actual applicants each year - we have more people applying than we actually have seats for, based on the size of the training pipeline.

The article says they will lock specific applications down on a week-by-week basis.  I'd imagine this is done as an occupation reaches its annual quota, which is determined by a document called the Strategic Intake Plan.  If you've got 80% of your seats filled and know you have more than enough applicants to fill the other 20%, I don't see an issue with being a little more selective as you come to the end of the Fiscal Year to achieve some Government of Canada policies - policies that will arguably help the CAF in the long run by giving us a competitive advantage in terms of a diverse personnel pool.


----------



## mariomike (20 Apr 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> This sort of thing isn’t rare in many areas of public service.



True.

"I also explained that women and visible minorities, once qualified, are placed in their own group and that each class hired would require 50% from that group and 50% from the white male group."
Toronto Fire Watch - Spring 2009
Secretary Treasurer's Report 
http://www.torontofirefighters.org/OSS/images/firewatch/spring2009.pdf

Not for me to say what's fair or unfair. I joined the PRes and public service prior to the Employment Equity Act of 1986.


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Apr 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A Canadian government organization denying someone possible employment, and lying about the reason why...how much *outrage* would there be if the story said "coloured applicants" in the sentences it says "male" or even better, "white male"?
> 
> You're saying it is perfectly fine with you if they discriminate, but only against white males?



No one is being denied employment, there are lots of trades to apply to. What they are doing is trying to reserve some of the SIP slots for EE candidates so they can meet the actual legislation goals that have been in effect for over 30+ years.

The only thing that generally concerns me is when you get a recruit come in that doesn't speak either official language well enough to go through training. Had a few of them as an instructor, and while there was no issue with aptitude, intelligence or effort, was pretty frustrating to need a translator to go over some of the more complicated lessons when we hit the technical side of things.  Our policies assume that you are proficient with either french or english, so doesn't allow any ESL training unless you are a native french speaker.  Took a course failure, training review board and a lot of paperwork, but wasted about a year to get them on a six month language course, after which they were good to go.

As long as they stick with the same baseline for the intake requirements though, works out in the wash, so not going to lose any sleep over this.  Also, CFRG success to date has been an overall increase of about 0.5%, so we aren't talking about a massive number of candidates being affected.


----------



## ballz (20 Apr 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> No one is being denied employment, there are lots of trades to apply to.



And women in the US weren't being denied employment in the US military, there were lots of "other" trades besides infantry.  :facepalm:



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For _over three decades_,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.
> 
> Forgive me if I don't get worked up today by DND doing something that has been legally mandated for 33 years.



I'm not a lawyer obviously but I'm not sure the Employment Equity Act gave the government legal authority to literally _deny applications based solely on race/gender_.

Proactive employment practices means a lot of things, including "recruitment in Aboriginal communities, job advertisements in a Chinese-language newspaper, or an apprentice program directed toward people with disabilities." Another huge part of it is reasonable accommodations, such as making buildings wheelchair accessible.

All of those things is in an entirely different league than literally refusing to look at a white male's application because he's a white male.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm with Journeyman.  If I understand the numbers right, the CAF can afford to be selective, and only takes a certain percentage of actual applicants each year - we have more people applying than we actually have seats for, based on the size of the training pipeline.



I'm not really sure how that statement in anyway justifies that we should be selective based on _race / gender._



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> policies that will arguably help the CAF in the long run by giving us a competitive advantage in terms of a diverse personnel pool.



That's a great theory but one hell of an assumption to base social re-engineering off of. I'll be the arsehole here with the glaringly obvious example, if we manage to make the infantry corps 50% women, without having increased its size because we're limited on that, it's going to be a weaker corps than it is currently is. 

Cue all the social justice warriors coming to tell me how biology isn't a real thing. Can't wait for it. Please take that particular tangent to another thread, thanks in advance.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Cue all the social justice warriors coming to tell me how biology isn't a real thing. Can't wait for it. Please take that particular tangent to another thread, thanks in advance.



That is a neat trick.  You have preemptively dismissed anyone who does not agree with you.  Nice.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For _over three decades_,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.
> 
> Forgive me if I don't get worked up today by DND doing something that has been legally mandated for 33 years.  However, should anyone wish to light torches and storm some castle, or start a harshly-worded petition, you can get some useful bits from "Canada, Justice Laws Website, 'Employment Equity Act (S.C. 1995, c. 44)',"  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.401/ -- it specifically mentions Canadian Forces, CSIS, and RCMP.



Bare with me some here;  I'm far from being even an amateur on law and legalities.

The EE Act purpose includes "treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences".

This seems to jive with that purpose [quotes from the NP article].

Scenario 1



> Other occupations, though, were still identified as those where “priority is given to EE applicants. Non-EE may apply.”



This seems to cross the line:

Scenario 2



> For instance, a sheet from July 26 last year clearly shows that spots in 17 jobs (ranging from armoured and artillery officers, ammunition technicians and medical techs to postal clerks) were designated EE and were then “accepting applications from females only”.



Does the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 also not have to be taken into consideration?

2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered

Discriminatory policy or practice

10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,

that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

***Applicant A is a white male, and wants to apply for Trade B.***

If Scenario 1 from above was the action applied, that seems to balance the requirements of both the EE and CHR Acts.

If Scenario 2 from above was the action applied, does that not take the EE Act purpose/requirements too far and infringe on the CHR Act?



> Sabourin agreed that in practice, it means that if a white male was applying for a job that was temporarily open only to EE candidates, he would be informed the occupation was full and other job possibilities discussed.



Why not tell the applicant the trade is "closed to male applicants"?  Are we not bound to be truthful?

Statement of Defence Ethics

Ethical Principles and Expected Behaviours

1. Respect the Dignity of All Persons

At all times and in all places, DND employees and CAF members shall respect human dignity and the value of every person by:
•Treating every person with respect and fairness.
•Working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency that encourages engagement, collaboration and respectful communication.

Specific Values and Expected Behaviours

1. Integrity

DND employees and CAF members shall serve the public interest by:
•Acting at all times with integrity, and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny; an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.
•Adhering to the highest ethical standards, communicating and acting with honesty, and avoiding deception.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Apr 2019)

>I'm not really sure what all the outrage is about

Private prejudice is not equivalent to institutional government prejudice.

With respect to means used to achieve quotas, there's a gulf of difference between "attraction" and "denial".


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For _over three decades_,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.



There's clearly a difference between "this trade isn't open to you because you're white" and "EE candidates go to the top of the pile".

Non-EE candidates in this case were told the trade was closed, which implied its closed to everyone. If CFRG wasn't trying to hide something, why wouldn't they process all candidates and let the EE Act do its job?

Another interesting tidbit:



> The CFAT – which has been frequently tested for bias and found to have none — as well as a personality traits test results in a score which is then used on a Priority Control Line by recruiters.
> 
> The PCL used to be what determined how applicants were prioritized, but now, as the sheets say, “PCL does not apply to EE applicants.”
> 
> ...



Its one thing to hire qualified EE candidates ahead of qualified non-EE candidates, its absolutely another to hire potentially unsuitable candidates just because they check an EE box. Why even bother having EE candidates write a CFAT and do the personality traits test? Just provide a job offer on the spot and ship them off to basic the next day. Don't even need to do a medical, that would just show some sort of bias towards non-EE candidates.  :facepalm:


----------



## ballz (20 Apr 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> That is a neat trick.  You have preemptively dismissed anyone who does not agree with you.  Nice.



Nope, you can find plenty of (locked) threads where I was willing to have the debate despite being slandered as a sexist. Still willing to have that debate, I just genuinely don't want *this* thread going down that path, I'd rather we just unlock one of the other ones so we can do the same song and dance for a week before locking it again.

This thread has its own important topic.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> That's a great theory but one hell of an assumption to base social re-engineering off of. I'll be the arsehole here with the glaringly obvious example, if we manage to make the infantry corps 50% women, without having increased its size because we're limited on that, it's going to be a weaker corps than it is currently is.



That example is unrealistic hyperbole.  Having taken part in seeing how the SIP is designed and managed, this simply wouldn't be the case.  The article quotes the official goals as females from 15 to 25% across the CAF, and other groups (Aboriginals and other visible minorities) up a percentage point or two.

I'm not privy to the exact nature of how this is being managed by CFRG, but I would imagine we are looking at occupations that have a couple dozen available vacancies for the fiscal year, and chose to specially manage their intake for a few weeks to try and get some targeted recruits into some of those vacancies.  We're not talking about reshaping the CAF to conform to some social experiment.

I do share an unease with Puckchaser about changing entry standards.  I can understand if person A and person B are both qualified, and EE is used as a selection measure for some of the intake, but I have trouble with taking someone who is unqualified over someone who is.  I guess I'd want to understand the impacts of this decision making and who is accepting this risk on behalf of the institution.  In some cases, it is likely worth it, and hence why it is being done.


----------



## Throwaway987 (20 Apr 2019)

EE seems reasonable when there’s two applicants of equal potential. What happens if the EE applicant is not equal?  

If we assume that EE and non-EE applicants have similar normal distributions of potential, won’t the smaller EE pool have a smaller pool of people at any potential cutoff level?

How much potential is the CAF willing to sacrifice to meet an EE target? 

What are the cognitive and/or physical requirements of CAF members? Do we just need bodies to fill the ranks? Are we happy with just the minimum? 

There may be long term risks to the organization if we don’t maximize the potential of our applicants. The CAF can’t hire externally so the applicants of today will one day be the senior officers and NCOs of the future. Every high potential member who doesn’t join or chooses to VR mid-career only makes the CAF gene pool shallower. 



Edit: Doesn’t EE assume that the lack of existing diversity/role-models is the major barrier to future EE applicants? 

What if a larger reason was the real or perceived low job quality of the CAF? i.e. Women and minorities aren’t joining the CAF because this profession doesn’t meet their expectations with respect to compensation, quality of life, cultural beliefs regarding the military, lack of patriotism, etc.

Given all the other threads about the CAF’s retention issues, is it possible that EE groups just have better employment prospects and simply choose other careers?


----------



## ballz (20 Apr 2019)

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> EE seems reasonable when there’s two applicants of equal potential. What happens if the EE applicant is not equal?
> 
> If we assume that EE and non-EE applicants have similar normal distributions of potential, won’t the smaller EE pool have a smaller pool of people at any potential cutoff level?
> 
> ...



Exactly. This idea that "they both meet the minimum requirements, therefore we can pick the one that fits our EE targets" is a flawed idea, particularly given just how low our entry requirements are. The truth is in a lot of tough trades, we are relying on the training system to weed out the ones that can't cut the mustard, because the minimum requirements don't. But, when you flood the pool with those who have just barely met the minimum requirements, instead of those who were selected because they were the best amongst a pool of "qualified" applicants, the training system inevitably ends up letting people through that it would not have normally.

All you've gotta do is look at what happened to the PLQ when they started throwing PRes Musicians on the same PLQs as combat arms. What squeaked through was a lower quality, and those who wanted to keep the standard high were ridiculed for failing too many candidates.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I do share an unease with Puckchaser about changing entry standards.  I can understand if person A and person B are both qualified, and EE is used as a selection measure for some of the intake, but I have trouble with taking someone who is unqualified over someone who is.



We don't know who is "qualified" at the recruiting point, they've still got a long road to go. If anything, the recruiting system has proved incapable in it's current form of predicting who will be a capable candidate due to the use of "minimum requirements" (which don't even include fitness) which is demonstrated by the 40-75% failure rates on some trades training.

Looking at two people who meet the minimum entry requirements as both equal candidates is literally dumbfounding.


----------



## ballz (20 Apr 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That example is unrealistic hyperbole.



It demonstrates the point. Somewhere, between 0% females and 100% females (or any other given demographic) in any given trade, there is undoubtedly an optimized mixed, and there are ends of the spectrum that would adversely affect it.

Randomly picking "25%" as a "target" and then trying to re-engineer it through literally denying demographics the opportunity to enter the trade seems like throwing shit at a wall and hoping it sticks.

It also completely destroys the whole premise of "equality of opportunity" in exchange for "equality of outcome" which doesn't take much scrutiny to see the flaws.


----------



## Throwaway987 (20 Apr 2019)

I totally agree with your concerns about “equality of outcome” for EE groups. I’d argue that lower standards for EE groups would cause more long term harm than any short term benefits in diversity optics.  

The decision to have separate entry standards for EE groups could in fact cause the very stereotypes that we are trying eliminate. e.g. CFAT waiver or differences in the average CFAT scores of EE vs non-EE groups

What if our lower standards for EE applicants leads to a subgroup of lower performing CAF members? 

Even the general awareness of different standards could lead to the negative perception or stereotyping of EE members. 

This would be the most unfortunate disservice to any currently serving EE member. EE members used to be rare and may have had to deal with discrimination. Now they may have to deal with this added stereotype as well. Yikes.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Apr 2019)

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> How much potential is the CAF willing to sacrifice to meet an EE target?



I think this is losing sight of the forest for the trees, and the article can be guilty of triggering a bit of a chicken little effect.  I'm willing to bet that this isn't a very high percentage of the overall annual intake.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> But, when you flood the pool with those who have just barely met the minimum requirements, instead of those who were selected because they were the best amongst a pool of "qualified" applicants, the training system inevitably ends up letting people through that it would not have normally.



Any proof that the percentage of CAF enrollments are people who "just barely meet the minimum requirements?"


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Any proof that the percentage of CAF enrollments are people who "just barely meet the minimum requirements?"



Been to CFLRS lately? Anecdotally we're recruiting people with mild autism and mental health conditions making them completely unfit for service...


----------



## Infanteer (20 Apr 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Been to CFLRS lately? Anecdotally we're recruiting people with mild autism and mental health conditions making them completely unfit for service...



Are those exceptions, or the norm?  Are you taking isolated examples and extrapolating a general trend?  What percentage of recruits have developmental issues or mental heath conditions?  What's the failure rate at CFLRS?  Is it higher than historical norms?  Lower?  Why?

Before anyone tells me that the standard of recruit has dropped, I want to see proof.  I say this because "today's recruit is much poorer than when I went through" is probably one of the most common and inaccurate statement commonly made as a general fact by people who don't really have any proof to back the statement up.

While I haven't been to CFLRS lately, I've commanded soldiers who've come out of the pipeline, and the kids are all right.  This pipeline was, from my point of view, sound.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2019)

To be super honest, I don't think the proof you're asking for exists. Not because its true/false, but because that would require the CAF to do a deep-dive into its recruiting/training problems, more than just appointing some GBA+ advisers. 

Instead of lowering the bar (that proof exists, EE members skip the PCL created by CFAT and traits test), the CAF needs to find out why they are not an attractive option for EE candidates. Is it socially acceptable for a first generation Canadian not from Europe to be a military member? Do women feel like we've made strides to fix the "overblown" (IMHO) sexual harassment problem trumpeted by the media? Why is ALOY, or Black Bear not as popular as it could be?


----------



## ballz (20 Apr 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Any proof that the percentage of CAF enrollments are people who "just barely meet the minimum requirements?"



No but, as I stated the problem is the minimum requirements mean nothing which is part of the problem. Perhaps I'm taking attention away from my own point and should have worded it more like this:



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Exactly. This idea that "they both meet the minimum requirements, therefore we can pick the one that fits our EE targets" is a flawed idea, particularly given just how low our entry requirements are. The truth is in a lot of tough trades, we are relying on the training system to weed out the ones that can't cut the mustard, because the minimum requirements don't. But, when you flood the pool with people simply because they met the minimum requirements, instead of those who were selected because they were the best among a pool of "qualified" applicants, the training system inevitably ends up letting people through that it would not have normally.



As an example, the minimum requirements to be selected as an Infantry Officer under ROTP are what exactly? A high school diploma and a pulse? We aren't exactly good at screening people to ensure we're picking those who will be successful. Proof is in the failure rates.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Before anyone tells me that the standard of recruit has dropped, I want to see proof.  I say this because "today's recruit is much poorer than when I went through" is probably one of the most common and inaccurate statement commonly made as a general fact by people who don't really have any proof to back the statement up.



I am not arguing the standard of recruit has dropped. I'm arguing it will if you're going switch from selecting based on merit to based on "minimum requirements + diversity factor." Pretty hard to see how it could be possible that it wouldn't drop.

This idea that human resources are just nuts and bolts in a machine and as long as they are the right specs that's good enough is insane. Find a private company, where success matters, who hires the first person who shows up with a resume that meets the minimum requirements in the job ad. Minimum job requirements are a tool to filter out applications, they're not the basis of selection.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> No but, as I stated the problem is the minimum requirements mean nothing which is part of the problem....
> 
> As an example, the minimum requirements to be selected as an Infantry Officer under ROTP are what exactly? A high school diploma and a pulse?  We aren't exactly good at screening people to ensure we're picking those who will be successful. Proof is in the failure rates.



What should minimum requirements mean?  What do we need in recruits (not officer candidates) prior to entry?  The military is designed to be entry-level employment.  I don't know what you're expecting them to be able to do.  Remember, minimum entry requirements are only used to pick people to then enter a one to two year training pipeline.



> I am not arguing the standard of recruit has dropped. I'm arguing it will if you're going switch from selecting based on merit to based on "minimum requirements + diversity factor."



But that's not what happening - you're again resorting to hyberbole.  Read the article.  Its a policy that is being selectively applied to a relatively few number of occupations on a week-by-week basis.  Nowhere does it suggest that a large majority of recruited members are still selected by the standard meriting process (which you don't seem to have much faith in anyways).



> Find a private company, where success matters, who hires the first person who shows up with a resume that meets the minimum requirements in the job ad. Minimum job requirements are a tool to filter out applications, they're not the basis of selection.



McDonalds?  Hiring for entry level employment needn't be too onerous, as an effective training system can provide the desired employee.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> As an example, the minimum requirements to be selected as an Infantry Officer under ROTP are what exactly? A high school diploma and a pulse? We aren't exactly good at screening people to ensure we're picking those who will be successful. Proof is in the failure rates.



What's the failure rate?  What is the problem with those who don't succeed as potential infantry officers?

I ask because I talk to the Infantry School on a weekly basis and I have a good grasp of where the issues are.  When it comes to officers, you need to factor that a two-year training system exists between enrollment and OFP.  Two years is a lot of time to develop a candidate.

That being said, the Army would likely benefit from a screening board similar to what the Navy does.  Something like this is being discussed.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That being said, the Army would likely benefit from a screening board similar to what the Navy does.  Something like this is being discussed.



Will EE candidates get to skip the board like they do with recruiting?


----------



## Infanteer (20 Apr 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Will EE candidates get to skip the board like they do with recruiting?



Not too sure - I couldn't guess how the two policies would be managed.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Apr 2019)

Is there any feedback loop from the training system (and beyond) back to recruiting group to let them know how they did?  It would give an opportunity to reset the bar(s) and get better end result.


----------



## ballz (20 Apr 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What should minimum requirements mean?  What do we need in recruits (not officer candidates) prior to entry?  The military is designed to be entry-level employment.  I don't know what you're expecting them to be able to do.  Remember, minimum entry requirements are only used to pick people to then enter a one to two year training pipeline.



Minimum requirements should mean "we're not even going to look at your application if you don't have them." 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> But that's not what happening - you're again resorting to hyberbole.  Read the article.  Its a policy that is being selectively applied to a relatively few number of occupations on a week-by-week basis.  Nowhere does it suggest that a large majority of recruited members are still selected by the standard meriting process (which you don't seem to have much faith in anyways).



I understand what they are saying in the article. There are right and wrong ways of doing things, I think this is wrong, and so the fact that it is not pervasive (yet) doesn't mitigate the fact that it is the wrong direction.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> McDonalds?  Hiring for entry level employment needn't be too onerous, as an effective training system can provide the desired employee.



Even McDonald's or Tim Horton's, if they only have one vacancy at a store is going to look at more than one person and do an interview, just to see if there is anything blatantly off. In fact there is no high school diploma required but I guarantee you if a 17 year old without a high-school diploma and a 20 year-old that has one both apply, they're going with the 20 year old, not the application they received first.

I get where you're coming from that the CAF is entry level employment but I disagree with that. It's the entry level point of a career, such as applying to be a junior accountant or starting a first-year apprenticeship. That company is going to invest in you, your training is going to take longer than a one-day orientation, and they will most definitely *not* take the first person that walks in the door. This is quite different from McDonald's where they're going to give you a one-day orientation and if you're junk, they'll fire you by the end of the 30-day probation period. We are expecting "trained" people to be able to do a lot more than a "trained" McDonald's employee.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> What's the failure rate?  What is the problem with those who don't succeed as potential infantry officers?
> 
> I ask because I talk to the Infantry School on a weekly basis and I have a good grasp of where the issues are.  When it comes to officers, you need to factor that a two-year training system exists between enrollment and OFP.  Two years is a lot of time to develop a candidate.
> 
> That being said, the Army would likely benefit from a screening board similar to what the Navy does.  Something like this is being discussed.



It's been a while since I've seen the figures but last I saw was 1 in 13 recruited as Infantry O's actually become Infantry O's. The failure rate alone on DP1.1 alone, as you know, is right around 50%. There have been serials in the last 10 years that had over 75% failures. And it's not just failures, it's medical releases, it's OT's, etc. There is another thread where we discussed this and the lack of available stats seems ridiculous to be quite honest, and I often wonder if they actually track any of these things.

Two years? 15 weeks BMOQ, 10 week CAP, 13 weeks DP1.1, 13 weeks DP1.2? Even though one year is a relatively long time, those courses are more of a weeding out process than developing anyone. Obviously you learn a lot about stuff but that's different from "developing" on a personal level. I've been saying after DP1.2 it would be nice to have a 5th course, a no-fail course, where the instructors actually can focus on developing instead of weeding people out. A place for candidates who have now proven themselves to be *actually* tested, and fail at stuff, without repercussions. That's sort of the Battalion's job but the Battalion's


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Apr 2019)

Pretty interesting article and thread. Reaction seems split between _who $&%ing cares_ and _$#&*ing bullshit _  ;D

I'll come back to it at the end but this is a double standard of course. [warning:white man tears]. Because it's white males on the receiving end of the discrimination (?) it's not really viewed as a big deal, is it? "But it's a policy"  True. Can you imagine if a minority woman was lied to about a job and it given to a white male as a matter of policy? Even if it was just one case in 10'000? People would shit their pants while running over it.

Looking at this as a small picture you have a man and woman applying for a _very cool_ trade. The _very cool_ trade has spec pay, fast career progression and great posting spots. The guy is told the trade is closed and pushed towards a couple _mediocre_ trades instead. The woman enters the recruiting office, asks about the _very cool_ trade and she's green lighted to apply for it and gets it.

That doesn't seem fair or right to me.

That our recruiters lie (in a mealy mouth politician kind of way) is pretty shitty too. White males should be straight up told if and when they don't meet the criteria for the trade because of their gender and race. Lets see if they want to stick around and pick a different trade or tell the CAF to pound salt. We follow the policy, we should own it.

Agreed it probably doesn't have a big impact to the CAF.


When I read or hear about white supremacists I struggle to wrap my head around where and when they start believing the shit they do. What starts them on the path of being angry or feeling blighted and, I don't know, screwed over by other races. Maybe EE and affirmative action play a part, plant shit seeds that grow into shit trees.

Maybe the CAF needs to look at updated ways to attract women to join.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Pretty interesting article and thread. Reaction seems split between _who $&%ing cares_ and _$#&*ing bullshit _  ;D
> 
> I'll come back to it at the end but this is a double standard of course. [warning:white man tears]. Because it's white males on the receiving end of the discrimination (?) it's not really viewed as a big deal, is it? "But it's a policy"  True. Can you imagine if a minority woman was lied to about a job and it given to a white male as a matter of policy? Even if it was just one case in 10'000? People would shit their pants while running over it.
> 
> ...



This. Right. Here.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Apr 2019)

I don't know much about EE and recruiting, but what I do know is that two of the women I most trust in the world (one still serving, one formerly a CF Officer) have both reacted to this article today (more or less) along the following lines:

"Thanks, CFRG, for setting women and minorities back 30 years. Now, once again people will look at us and wonder if we made it on merit or EE..."

I realize that anecdote, is not evidence....


----------



## OceanBonfire (21 Apr 2019)

Sadly, some sees EE as a literal discrimination towards "white males" and hiring of the most incompetents from the diversity. In this day and age, affirmative action, whether strongly or lightly implemented in the public and/or private sector, still doesn't counter the prevalent discrimination in job hirings (French articles linked):

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/563586/etude-discrimination-embauche-montreal

https://journalmetro.com/actualites/national/81070/mieux-vaut-avoir-un-nom-quebecois-pour-trouver-un-emploi/

http://journalmetro.com/local/saint-laurent/actualites/726369/discrimination-a-lemploi-plus-de-100-cv-jamais-convoque/


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2019)

"Thanks, CFRG, for setting women and minorities back 30 years. Now, once again people will look at us and wonder if we made it on merit or EE..."

Basically that's a problem shared with everyone admitted to anything on some variation of "affirmative action" (eg. academically-demanding post-secondary education programs).

There's a related problem: through all phases of progression, people with lower aptitudes will tend to wash out at higher rates and top out at lower levels than people with higher aptitudes; if selection at each level isn't strictly by whatever relevant merit can be measured, resources are wasted and the candidate pool for advancement thins more rapidly as you move up the ladder.  (Again drawing from academics, some students who might do well in an average program struggle when admitted to a prestige program.)  I doubt the CF is dealing with large enough numbers of favoured entrants for this to be a problem (ie. the cost is bearable given the political exigencies) except where the total number of people in a particular specialty is small.

It's a failure of leadership to rely on "stick" (denial of entry) instead of "carrot" (attractive factors, including removal of unreasonable deterrents - eg. social prejudice is unreasonable, career expectations and hardships are not unreasonable). 

If women (in particular) are over-represented in some professions and occupations (eg. medicine, law, education) then by definition they will have to be under-represented in others.


----------



## mariomike (21 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm not a lawyer obviously but I'm not sure the Employment Equity Act gave the government legal authority to literally _deny applications based solely on race/gender_.



I'm not a lawyer either, obviously. But, I read this from Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,



> 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
> 
> (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.





			
				BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> It’s honestly not that surprising. Maybe it’s _a bit_ surprising that someone has actually confirmed what we’ve all known all a long, but otherwise, yeah, it’s not surprising.  :dunno:
> 
> This sort of thing isn’t rare in many areas of public service.



Well said, BTN. "...what we’ve all known all a long,"

It came as a bit of a surprise ( perhaps even a shock, to some ) when it was introduced over 30 years ago. 

But, I thought that would have worn off by now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Apr 2019)

Funny the most competent females I know despise any form of affirmative action. While there was a case for it 20 years ago, that does not exist today. Affirmative action create suspicion that anyone in that group got help/easy path to position they hold. It actually is now harms those groups.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (21 Apr 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Funny the most competent females I know despise any form of affirmative action. While there was a case for it 20 years ago, that does not exist today. Affirmative action create suspicion that anyone in that group got help/easy path to position they hold. It actually is now harms those groups.



Agreed. I’ve spoken more than once on this forum about where I stand on female representation/diversity in the workplace, and the fact that I support positions being filled by the best candidate for the position—period. If they happen to be something other than Caucasian and have whatever between their legs, then fine. I’m also quite confident that I didn’t make the cut because I have a vagina, so it doesn’t really bother me.

My point with my post is simply what I said—that it’s not surprising. While I applaud my fellow female colleagues and it’s nice to see some diversity, I don’t want to work with anyone who hasn’t earned their position by their own merit. That being said, I know what the reality is and I know what hiring practices are in place at certain times in many areas, especially in the public sector. As has been stated in earlier posts, this isn’t a new thing. 

A side note, however, is I feel that the title of this article was purposely worded the way it is to create division between the sexes. While yes, the article speaks of specific situations where women are the focus, it also speaks of ethnicity in general being the focus of certain initiatives.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (21 Apr 2019)

Spillage from another thread that touched on this issue.



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ChushiGangdruk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the challenge to my post.


			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I'm not legally a child nor am I in another line of work. Please, don't grant me any leniency, let me know how you really feel. I can't wait to hear how discrimination is okay as long as it's towards white males, and how diversity is great because you get a variety of viewpoints, unless of course those viewpoints don't align with your own then we should just go find another line of work.
> 
> If you can't see the difference between positive action and explicit, government-sanctioned discrimination towards a particular skin colour / gender, and you think everyone who can simply shouldn't be in the CAF, perhaps it's you who should join the other thread and speak up... rather than lipping off about it all over here to someone who is legally a child.




Actually, I see nothing discriminatory (legally speaking) about the practice raised in Ms. Blatchford's article.  Since the initials "EE" are featured as the secret code on the sheets that Ms. Blatchford's surreptitiously received let's look at the purpose of the Employment Equity Act.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.401/page-1.html#h-2


> Purpose of Act
> 2 The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
> ⦁	1995, c. 44, s. 2;
> ⦁	2017, c. 26, s. 19(E).



But surely it would be discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act?  Well, not necessarily.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/page-2.html#docCont


> Special programs
> ⦁	16 (1) It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program, plan or arrangement designed to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are suffered by, any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be based on or related to the prohibited grounds of discrimination, by improving opportunities respecting goods, services, facilities, accommodation or employment in relation to that group.



Now, that sounds like a bunch of lawyerly babblespeak, but I take it to mean that it is permitted to give an advantage or priority to a group if  it is based on reducing the effects of a prohibited grounds of discrimination for that group.  Seems that is what CFRG did.

But surely, the time has passed since enactment of the Employment Equity Act (33 years) that such "special programs" are no longer necessary?  You would hope so, but the Canadian Forces has never met the targets envisioned as reasonable.  What does the act consider a reasonable target measurement?

https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/equal-employment-opportunities-0


> The Commission’s Role
> The Canadian Human Rights Commission conducts audits to determine if employers are meeting their legal obligations to offer equal employment opportunities to four designated groups : women, Indigenous persons, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.
> In certain organizations, if representation of the four designated groups is lower than market availability in a specific industry, employers must implement practices that to demonstrate they are doing all they can to achieve equality in the workplace and fill gaps in representation.
> Above all, employment equity is a matter of dignity. It offers everyone an opportunity to work and contribute to society. At the same time, employers benefit from a diversified and competent workforce, one that promotes inclusion in the work place.



In the course of researching for this post (which began before the posts from the other thread), in various OAG audits, CF Ombudsman reports, CHRC reports and some of the latest government defence and security policy documents, a common "official" position of the CF over the years discuss the woes of meeting Employment Equity targets and in the last few years indicate (in various descriptions) that "special programs" will be instituted to help meet the goals, especially that of recruiting more women.  However, no specific details were provided as to how they would function.  My assumption is this temporary prioritization of women only applications for specific occupations is included in these latest CFRG administrative trivia.

The CF is not the only large government body to do so.  The other organization specifically mentioned on the Employment Equity Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) seemingly has been doing similar for decades.  I remembered stories from the late 1990s (?) and in my googling came across other reports from the 2000s and the early to mid 2010s with tales of individuals being told that if they were a white male don't bother applying because priority was being given to women and visible minorities.  On some other forums, the (unofficial) report is that women and visible minorities have to meet a lower score on their testing in order to get an employment interview.  I wasn't however able to find any "official" announcement of this RCMP policy.  If it does work that way, there must have been someone who officially complained as previously suggested in this thread.


> I very sincerely hope someone challenges this as a violation of their Charter or Human rights.  . . .



I looked through Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decisions to see if there were any complaints that touched on the points discussed here - none.  Similarly, I found nothing on any of the other court decision databases and a general google of the topic revealed no reports or discussion of anybody who officially challenged such a policy.  Either potential applicants to the RCMP are too lazy (unlikely) or the legal merits of such action would preclude anyone from being supported in their case by the CHRC or being successful in a venue other than the CHRT.  My search skills of case law may be (probably is) deficient so I would gladly be disabused of my assertion by someone with better search skills.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2019)

>if representation of the four designated groups is lower than market availability in a specific industry, employers must implement practices that to demonstrate they are doing all they can to achieve equality in the workplace and fill gaps in representation.

Must be a pain in the ass for the companies that pump septic tanks.


----------



## OceanBonfire (21 Apr 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> But surely, the time has passed since enactment of the Employment Equity Act (33 years) that such "special programs" are no longer necessary?  You would hope so, ...



Exactly this.

Bravo on all the research you've done there in the post.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2019)

A question for our medical profession folks.  Are there hiring practices in place so that men are scored higher then women to try and get a 50/50 balance in nursing?
A serious question....


----------



## Blackadder1916 (21 Apr 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A question for our medical profession folks.  Are there hiring practices in place so that men are scored higher then women to try and get a 50/50 balance in nursing?
> A serious question....



Are you referring to the CAF only or the profession of nursing in general?


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2019)

>A serious question....

Truly?  Surely it hasn't escaped everyone's notice that over-representation (of special groups) in jammy jobs is not an issue worthy of discussion.


----------



## mariomike (21 Apr 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I know what the reality is and I know what hiring practices are in place at certain times in many areas,  especially  in the public sector.



During my career in the municipal public sector, all of my work partners were white males. From the day I hired on, to the day I retired. 

It wasn't planned that way, it was due to seniority.

Although I never had an "EE" partner,  if the department had confidence in them, so did I. 

( 5'10" or taller with 20/20 vision was also required back then. Although those standards were relaxed around the time of EE, as also discriminatory. ) 

Seems funny to remember now, but when the first women starting coming on the job, some of the wives put up an awful fuss. 

Unlike police or fire stations, it was just the two of you alone together in a cozy little room ( fridge, stove, a table for two, a TV, and two couches ) on those 12-hour night shifts. If the bells didn't go off, _your time was your own_. 

So, under the circumstances, I can understand why some of the wives were concerned.

And of course, it was years before stations had female washrooms, showers and locker rooms.

So, I guess you could say, it took some getting used to.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Apr 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> During my career in the municipal public sector, all of my work partners were white males. From the day I hired on, to the day I retired.


What job was that?


----------



## mariomike (22 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What job was that?



See my profile.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Apr 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> See my profile.



Sorry just confused a little. You say "all of my work partners were white males. From the day I hired on, to the day I retired" but when we discussing working with females on this forum in the past didn't you say that one of your partners was a female? If I recall correctly she went on to be your boss or supervisor?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> That is a neat trick.  You have preemptively dismissed anyone who does not agree with you.  Nice.



You sound surprised. That door swings both ways around here.


----------



## Teager (22 Apr 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A question for our medical profession folks.  Are there hiring practices in place so that men are scored higher then women to try and get a 50/50 balance in nursing?
> A serious question....



My wife is graduating from her nursing program next month at the RPN level. There are 145 graduates and maybe 8 are male. So to go back to your question even if there was a practice in place for a 50/50 split it would still be a struggle to find enough qualified males as the majority of students taking nursing are still female.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2019)

Teager said:
			
		

> My wife is graduating from her nursing program next month at the RPN level. There are 145 graduates and maybe 8 are male. So to go back to your question even if there was a practice in place for a 50/50 split it would still be a struggle to find enough qualified males as the majority of students taking nursing are still female.



See what you did there, Teager?  You just made Bruce’s point. Males are a significant minority in nursing, but there is no EE for them, and no organization would stop recruiting female nurses to make up for the imbalance from a pool of candidates (male) that could not come close to supporting gender parity for years/decades. 

The mistaken concept that Equitable = Equal is unfortunately interpreted by many organizations, including the CAF, as a valid COA...except, it would seem, when dealing with occupations currently represented by a jake majority

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Infanteer (22 Apr 2019)

The answer to the question is pretty easy to find, and is written right in the law that Blackadder put up earlier:



> Purpose of Act
> 2 The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
> ⦁   1995, c. 44, s. 2;
> ⦁   2017, c. 26, s. 19(E).



There are no EE programs to make more male nurses because, according to the Act, there are no "conditions of disadvantage in employment" for that demographic.  Not to say its right or wrong, only pointing out the answer to the question.


----------



## mariomike (22 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> didn't you say that one of your partners was a female?



My _permanent_  partners were white males.

My permanent partner received a temporary six-month position as an Alternate Rating ( AR ) Superintendent  ( aka Supervisor ).

So, I talked it over with a female on the department that I knew socially. We submitted a request to be "married up" ( that was the common term for any temporary partnership ) for the duration of my permanent partner's AR.   

Being low seniority, she was on what was called "Swing". ie: A spare.

To complicate matters, I hadn't worked "the cars" since 1980. ( It would be similar to a City paramedic permanently assigned to the Marine Unit, temporarily going back on the street. A "fish out of water", so to speak. )

That is how much confidence I had in her. I was happy to let her take the lead.

My partnership with my permanent partner resumed when his AR terminated. 

Working with her was a wonderful experience. I was sorry when it ended. But, also relieved to return to my regular duty station. 



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If I recall correctly she went on to be your boss or supervisor?



When she became an AR herself, she became my supervisor for a short time. 

Unlike "the cars", where supervisors who were going nowhere were permanently assigned to crews on the same schedule and District, AR's ( like her ) that they had their eyes on tended to be fast-tracked through HQ, Communications, Education, Special Operations ( ETF, ESU/MPU, HUSAR, CBRNE, PSU, ERU ) Logistics, etc... etc... All sorts of programs.

This way, they could check some of the "been there, done that" boxes when it came time to apply for a permanent promotion.

Since you asked...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Apr 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The answer to the question is pretty easy to find, and is written right in the law that Blackadder put up earlier:
> 
> There are no EE programs to make more male nurses because, according to the Act, there are no "conditions of disadvantage in employment" for that demographic.  Not to say its right or wrong, only pointing out the answer to the question.



Thank you.

However, the answer is much more basic than  "conditions of disadvantage in employment".  The Act isn't applied by occupation but by employer.  If it is was, then the argument would be "why are there not 25% (the rough overall CF target for female representation) women as infantry officers, or armoured, or pilots, or any of the pointy end types who are the first in line for the higher level command positions" instead of the CF trying to reach the goal by counting all the nurses, logisticians, supply techs, clerks, etc.  However that question has been asked in some of the regular audits of EE.  

So, if one was to seriously discuss male nurse representation in the work force then it should legitimately be a discussion about gender representation in hospitals or the health care industry generally.  At that point the Employment Equity Act become moot because with a few rare exceptions (CF Health Services being one, don't know if there are any DVA hospitals anymore) that industry segment is not a federally regulated industry and thus is not subject to the Act.

(edited to add)

Oh, by the way, I don't know what exact percentage of CF Nursing Officers are male but (even way back when I was serving) "Mister Sisters" did not have a particularly great disadvantage due to their gender.  While at one time (long. long ago - I'm getting old) there may have been some obvious discrimination on the part of some of the nursing leadership sisterhood (and appropriate stick by other male members of the Mess) men often ended up in desirable positions (however, there wasn't a whole lot of senior rank positions for nurses).  Probably the only "jammy go" that they were excluded from was the midwifery exchange position with the Brits.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2019)

>conditions of disadvantage in employment

What are the conditions of disadvantage in employment in the CF?  Lack of population-proportionate representation is not one.  If there any remaining rules/regulations obstructing disadvantaged groups, remove them.  If there is still social bias (against members of disadvantaged groups), leaders must deal with it.  If occupational requirements (standards) to be met exist that are not bona fide and have the effect of screening out members of disadvantaged groups, remove or alter them to reflect properly what people must be able to do for the job.

None of those is fixed with quotas at the entry gate.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Apr 2019)

So after 30 years of this EE plan we're sitting at what, 15%?

Is it effective or archaic at this point?



Rereading the article, under certain circumstances an indigenous member from the far north can join the CAF without even bothering to do the CFAT, or they have to write it but they don't have to pass. Is representation that important?

Under our current government I wonder we will do in order to reach that 25% mark.


----------



## ballz (22 Apr 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Spillage from another thread that touched on this issue.
> 
> I'll grant you some leeway as you are still (legally) a child and have a little time to develop into a thinking adult, but if you believe that expressing such opinions will endear you to the average military member or those who frequent this site, then you may be disappointed.  On reflection, I wonder if you actually read the link in Loach's post or analysed the responses in that thread.  Perhaps you could explain (in the other thread, to keep it on topic) why this is "a joke of a thinly veiled, politically motivated, PC culture lie".
> 
> ...



Law does not constitute morality and while there's been a few mentions of whether or not it's legal, I think this argument is about whether or not it *should* be legal on the basis of whether this action is moral or not. If someone can provide me an argument as to how morally correct it is to discriminate against a race/gender/etc, than by all means, I'm all ears. But simply regurgitating laws are not really arguments, particularly given your very bold assertions in the other thread that those of whose disagree should find another line of work.

Although I do find this contradiction a bit fun...

"The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for _reasons unrelated to ability_ and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences."

This current practice is literally denying white males employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability.


----------



## Ostrozac (22 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So after 30 years of this EE plan we're sitting at what, 15%?
> 
> Is it effective or archaic at this point?



Well, arguably the Canadian Forces as an institution hasn’t really been trying to obey the legislation in question, the Employment Equity Act, and for years has been filing it among other laws that receive lip service but not full compliance (The Official Languages Act is another — has anybody actually served in a Bilingual Unit that actually used two languages in the workplace?) An actual honest effort to obey the law, including investing resources and changing internal policy, is probably a required step before declaring that the direction given by Parliament is impossible to achieve.

To be frank, it would probably be easier to meet the letter and intent of the EE Act with conscription/selective service, but instead we will have to figure out how to do it (or at least make an honest attempt) through our existing recruiting system.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Apr 2019)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> An actual honest effort to obey the law, including investing resources and changing internal policy, is probably a required step before declaring that the direction given by Parliament is impossible to achieve.



Culture eats strategy for breakfast.  Cultural change is what's needed - laws, regulations and policies are irrelevant until that happens.

It's been more than three decades since CREW and WINTER...


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2019)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> To be frank, it would probably be easier to meet the letter and intent of the EE Act with conscription/selective service, but instead we will have to figure out how to do it (or at least make an honest attempt) through our existing recruiting system.



The CAF is exempt from some federal equity acts, and even articles of the Charter of Rights. We turn people away due to medical disabilities all the time. Why are we not able to say "This is the recruiting standard, once you meet it, you get boarded along with everyone else". I personally feel board files should be stripped of any identifying factors for race/gender/sex/religion to give a completely "colour-blind" selection process.

We're such a small military with limited resources, but we're hamstringing ourselves by taking less than ideal candidates to fill quotas.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Apr 2019)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Well, arguably the Canadian Forces as an institution hasn’t really been trying to obey the legislation in question, the Employment Equity Act, and for years has been filing it among other laws that receive lip service but not full compliance (The Official Languages Act is another — has anybody actually served in a Bilingual Unit that actually used two languages in the workplace?) An actual honest effort to obey the law, including investing resources and changing internal policy, is probably a required step before declaring that the direction given by Parliament is impossible to achieve.
> 
> To be frank, it would probably be easier to meet the letter and intent of the EE Act with conscription/selective service, but instead we will have to figure out how to do it (or at least make an honest attempt) through our existing recruiting system.



I Have: HMCS/NCSM DONNACONNA. And all pipes and orders were in both languages. Nothing submitted for unit consumption (Routine Orders, papers, any communication, was not allowed until both versions were available). 

Heck! We even deployed on training week-end with that philosophy, turning many heads with pipes alongside such as "Special sea duty men and cable party close up - hands to station for leaving harbour - assume damage control condition yankee / specialistes de la manoeuvre et equipe des chaines a vos postes - equipage aux postes d'appareillage / condition de limitation d'avaries Yankee"   ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Apr 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The CAF is exempt from some federal equity acts, and even articles of the Charter of Rights. We turn people away due to medical disabilities all the time. Why are we not able to say "This is the recruiting standard, once you meet it, you get boarded along with everyone else". I personally feel board files should be stripped of any identifying factors for race/gender/sex/religion to give a completely "colour-blind" selection process.
> 
> We're such a small military with limited resources, but we're hamstringing ourselves by taking less than ideal candidates to fill quotas.



Puckchaser: There are NO exception for the Military for any of the articles of the Canadian Charter of Rights - which is the one that forms part of the Constitution Act. The military wanted to have such exceptions but Trudeau senior refused to grant any.

The CF capacity for excluding people with medical disabilities from serving is actually part of the accepted limitation of right that is permitted under the Charter for limitations that are "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". And even that is under attack, as many people are pushing for the CF to accept that people with physical disability can be useful in some positions that don't require full physical capacity and therefore, should be accommodated.


----------



## Ostrozac (22 Apr 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I Have: HMCS/NCSM DONNACONNA. And all pipes and orders were in both languages. Nothing submitted for unit consumption (Routine Orders, papers, any communication, was not allowed until both versions were available).



Interesting. My experience with multiple units in Ottawa, as well as nominally Bilingual Units in Kingston and Gagetown, was quite different. Even in my current (Ottawa) unit, while Routine Orders are bilingual, our SOP’s are not. I wonder if DONNACONNA is more a reflection on the bilingual nature of Montrealers rather than of the Canadian Forces.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Puckchaser: There are NO exception for the Military for any of the articles of the Canadian Charter of Rights - which is the one that forms part of the Constitution Act. The military wanted to have such exceptions but Trudeau senior refused to grant any.



I'd ask you then to go exercise your Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Peaceful Assembly on something that doesn't toe the current CAF policy. You only have to look at the "Proud Boys" incident, CAF members who were doxxed and never identified themselves as CAF members had administrative action taken against them for counter-protesting.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Apr 2019)

Proud Boys are a hate group.  Are you sure that's the hill you want to die on?


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Proud Boys are a hate group.  Are you sure that's the hill you want to die on?



Its an example, and do you know its a hate group or just going off what the media/Southern Poverty Law Center says it is? What kind of "hate group" sues someone for libel? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-proudboys/founder-of-proud-boys-sues-over-being-labeled-hate-group-idUSKCN1PU032 

You're also missing the point. A private citizen in Canada can assemble peacefully with whatever group they want. A CAF member cannot.


----------



## ballz (22 Apr 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its an example, and do you know its a hate group or just going off what the media/Southern Poverty Law Center says it is? What kind of "hate group" sues someone for libel? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-proudboys/founder-of-proud-boys-sues-over-being-labeled-hate-group-idUSKCN1PU032
> 
> You're also missing the point. A private citizen in Canada can assemble peacefully with whatever group they want. A CAF member cannot.



I'm not sure you're on target on this one... the Charter is to protect you from legal consequences... those members did not face legal consequences. They faced administrative action for conduct. I'm pretty sure any employer who has clear guidelines on ethics/values/conduct etc has similar recourse available to them for employees who do not align with their values and can, just like we did, issue employee's warnings for their conduct and potentially fire them, etc., if it can be shown that their off-duty conduct is relateable to their on-duty conduct. There's lots of law around this but that's the general idea.

I have zero issues with issuing remedial measures to someone for being part of a hate group or openly associating with them, etc (don't know anything about Proud Boys to be honest) (EDIT: because I think freedom of association is important, and your employer should be able to disassociate with you without legal consequences... the fact that you lost your job is a social consequences of exercising your freedom of expression or right to peaceful assembly).  However, I do fear that policies like the ones our CFRGs are using are only going to create more members for such groups. It's sad to see the government talking about how white nationalism is a growing threat and wondering how to combat it while at the same time deliberately discriminating against white males.


----------



## mariomike (22 Apr 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Proud Boys are a hate group.



That may be up for debate. But, they aren't the Bowery Boys  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#Events



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure any employer who has clear guidelines on ethics/values/conduct etc has similar recourse available to them for employees who do not align with their values and can, just like we did, issue employee's warnings for their conduct and potentially fire them, etc., if it can be shown that their off-duty conduct is relateable to their on-duty conduct. There's lots of law around this but that's the general idea.



The Canadian HR Reporter,
https://www.hrreporter.com/columnist/employment-law/archive/2013/04/22/professional-conduct-outside-of-profession/
How far should high standards of professional conduct apply when employees are off duty?
"Recently, an Ontario arbitrator upheld the dismissal of a Toronto paramedic after his judgment was called into question due to off-duty conduct." 

Didn't break any laws. Just inappropriate off-duty behavior.

In addition to the above, there are other cases like the Hydro One guy at Exhibition Place. Fired and re-hired. 
Jian Ghomeshi let go by the CBC. 
We had guys fired where I worked for, "Unacceptable sexist tweets."

Also, even if the union gets your job back, these are things future employers may find out during your background check.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Apr 2019)

Follow up video from Christie Blatchford:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=9MyGBs3WMUE


----------



## TCM621 (25 Apr 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Are those exceptions, or the norm?  Are you taking isolated examples and extrapolating a general trend?  What percentage of recruits have developmental issues or mental heath conditions?  What's the failure rate at CFLRS?  Is it higher than historical norms?  Lower?  Why?
> 
> Before anyone tells me that the standard of recruit has dropped, I want to see proof.  I say this because "today's recruit is much poorer than when I went through" is probably one of the most common and inaccurate statement commonly made as a general fact by people who don't really have any proof to back the statement up.
> 
> While I haven't been to CFLRS lately, I've commanded soldiers who've come out of the pipeline, and the kids are all right.  This pipeline was, from my point of view, sound.



The proof is warrior platoon or what every they call it now. The proof is 1st generation immigrants who struggle to understand one of the official languages. That isn't even to say that these kinds of people couldn't be strong, valuable candidates if they addressed those issues, just that are not strong candidates at that time. Warrior platoon is a good example of that, I know lots of people who shed the weight and got fit on warrior platoon but those people were being paid and holding up a position. 

Maybe that is a symptom of the CAFs inability to recruit rather than EE targets but no one to my knowledge is doing those studies. No one wants to accidentally come up with a result that could be see as sexist, racist, etc. There are some trades where certain traits must be present to be successful, regardless of what the polite answer is. Rather than ignore it we need to address it head on. if we want to increase the women in the military, we will have to generate 3 to 4 times the interest in the Infantry to find the amount of women who can physically perform the job. If we want to increase representation of the number of new Canadians, we need to find away to address issues like language which is an issue for many new Canadians. Too much EE stuff is someone on high waving a wand and saying "thou shall recruit more X" without address the real issues they may face. Women can be strong and new Immigrants can have impeccable English but those people are not as high represented in those populations as they are in the Canadian born male category. The further down the intersectional ladder you go the more difficult it get to find appropriate applicants. Recent south-east Asian female immigrants, may be a very difficult demographic to find physically strong people with strong english skills, for example.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Apr 2019)

Dealt with the language issue while working as an instructor.  It was super frustrating to have a few people that didn't speak either official language well enough to understand the core trade training but the policies specifically didn't allow us to send them on an ESL course.  Took more than six months, failing a career course, TRB and a lot of fighting to get common sense to apply.

Otherwise they were good candidates; motivated, smart and happy, but just didn't understand enough english to get through the training. Not their fault, not our fault, but the same system that recruited them didn't give us the tools to get them the language training needed.  As far as I know, after that finally got done, they did a six/nine month go and came back to successfully complete the course.  Was pretty frustrating for everyone.

As an aside, some of them wouldn't have qualified for EE (white males that didn't speak english/french well), but CFRG was usually prefaced or followed by swear words for a while.


----------



## eastern (5 May 2019)

I was seriously considering of joining the Canadian forces, but I came across this article this morning, which is now making me doubt my decision:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply

I have several questions:

1. is this true, or just fake news?
2. doesn't Canada have laws protecting against gender discrimination?
3. why would processing time take less if you are female or minority than if you are a white male?

i want this to be fake with all my heart!
please let me know!


----------



## dimsum (5 May 2019)

eastern said:
			
		

> I was seriously considering of joining the Canadian forces, but I came across this article this morning, which is now making me doubt my decision:
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply
> 
> ...



For context, why would this make you doubt your decision?


----------



## BeyondTheNow (5 May 2019)

eastern said:
			
		

> I was seriously considering of joining the Canadian forces, but I came across this article this morning, which is now making me doubt my decision:
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply
> 
> ...



You need to read the article carefully, word for word, beginning to end.

Then you need to read this thread carefully to its current point. Then once you’ve done so, you need to figure out whether or not—if you’re indeed a qualified candidate—that you still feel anything you’ve learned would negatively impact your decision to apply.


----------



## Furniture (6 May 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> For context, why would this make you doubt your decision?



Perhaps rather than questioning why somebody feels this way, the CAF should be looking into how they can prevent people from feeling this way while still recruiting from the target groups. 

If I was looking to join at this time, being told I'm not wanted until they can't find somebody from a special group(that I'm excluded from based on race, and gender) would be rather off-putting. 

For those on the outside I imagine it creates the impression that promotion once in the CAF will also be influenced by the same criteria. Those of us that are already in know that isn't the case, but do potential recruits know that?


----------



## mariomike (6 May 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> If I was looking to join at this time, being told I'm not wanted until they can't find somebody from a special group(that I'm excluded from based on race, and gender) would be rather off-putting.



Nothing new about Employment Equity. Canada's Employment Equity Act ( EEA ) became law in 1986.

Nothing new about the discussion, either,

From 2005,

Employment equity is only for those who qualify
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/37277.0.html
2 pages.

Sometimes referred to on here by its American term, "Affirmative Action",

From 2004,

Affirmative Action recruiting policies?
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/22619.100.html
5 pages.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (6 May 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> If I was looking to join at this time, being told I'm not wanted until they can't find somebody from a special group(that I'm excluded from based on race, and gender) would be rather off-putting.



I strongly disagree with certain recruiting practices and/or how specific targets are being initiated during periods involving CAF or otherwise. Your statement, however, implies CAF is exercising all of these initiatives 100% of the time and that's simply not the case.

There's no reason why the OP, or anyone else for that matter, feels they shouldn't apply. If the article hadn't have come out, would it have made a difference for these potential applicants? No. These practises were taking place regardless. And again, CAF is nowhere near the only government organization implementing these types of practices, in Canada or otherwise. Nor are they the only public service sector doing so. 

If someone wants to apply, apply. If theyre a good candidate they'll be successful, period. But no one should be feeding into the sentiment of, "Oh, soandso took my job/spot because they're..." That only worsens the issues.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 May 2019)

eastern said:
			
		

> I was seriously considering of joining the Canadian forces, but I came across this article this morning, which is now making me doubt my decision:
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply
> 
> ...



So you were considering joining the CAF but came across an article so came to this unofficial forum to register and ask whether this is fake news or not? Why would you believe us other the accredited journalist?


----------



## Furniture (6 May 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree with certain recruiting practices and/or how specific targets are being initiated during periods involving CAF or otherwise. Your statement, however, implies CAF is exercising all of these initiatives 100% of the time and that's simply not the case.
> 
> There's no reason why the OP, or anyone else for that matter, feels they shouldn't apply. If the article hadn't have come out, would it have made a difference for these potential applicants? No. These practises were taking place regardless. And again, CAF is nowhere near the only government organization implementing these types of practices, in Canada or otherwise. Nor are they the only public service sector doing so.
> 
> If someone wants to apply, apply. If theyre a good candidate they'll be successful, period. But no one should be feeding into the sentiment of, "Oh, soandso took my job/spot because they're..." That only worsens the issues.



My statement says I would feel as though I would be at a disatvantage when applying, and that would make me question whether or not it would be worth applying. The person applying doesn't know when these practices are being applied, so as an outsider it would feel as though they are always in effect. That's an obvious flaw in the CAF strategy that needs to be addressed. Transparency is important not only for the person applying, but for the organization they are applying to join as well. 

I'm sure you're aware that discussion boards are for expressing opinions, and my opinion is that these practices that have been brough to the light by the article in the National Post are wrong, and should be addressed. That's not feeding a sentiment that "Oh, soandso took my job/spot because they're...", it's pointing out that the current practice is damageing the image of the CAF as a potential employer no matter your age/race/gender/religion/sexuality/etc..


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Nothing new about Employment Equity. Canada's Employment Equity Act ( EEA ) became law in 1986.
> 
> Nothing new about the discussion, either,
> 
> ...



What is new, however, is a senior officer confirming in the preceding news article that if a white male applied to a trade designated "EE/female applicants only", the CFRC staff would lie to him and tell him the trade was closed.  Effectively "white males can't apply to certain trades".  That is discrimination veiled under the purpose of the EE Act.

I'd say that is still pretty "new".


----------



## TCM621 (6 May 2019)

On the other hand, my daughter wants to go to med school. I can't afford med school, so I am pushing the CAF option. If they want to keep these EE standards going for about 3 years or so, my wallet will thank them. ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> My statement says I would feel as though I would be at a disatvantage when applying, and that would make me question whether or not it would be worth applying. The person applying doesn't know when these practices are being applied, so as an outsider it would feel as though they are always in effect.



This;  what will a white male who is aware of these practices revealed in the article think if he is told "_the trade(s) you are applying for are closed right now_"?  Maybe they are actually closed, but maybe they are only closed to _him_  because he is a male.  



> That's an obvious flaw in the CAF strategy that needs to be addressed. Transparency is important not only for the person applying, but for the organization they are applying to join as well.



I suggest not only is it important, it is policy (heck, it's an AF on our PERs).   http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/defence-ethics.page

The DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics
The DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics, part of the DEP, sets a standard of expected behaviours for _*all personnel in DND and the CAF*_. The principles, values and expected behaviours it contains apply to DND and its employees and to the CAF and its members.

Statement of Defence Ethics
The Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have a special responsibility for the defence of Canada, its people and its parliamentary democracy. Discharging this responsibility requires, among other things, a commitment by DND and its employees, and the CAF and its members, to apply the highest ethical standards in all decisions and actions, whether at home or abroad.

Ethical Principles and Expected Behaviours

1. Respect the Dignity of All Persons

At all times and in all places, DND employees and CAF members shall respect human dignity and the value of every person by:
- Treating every person with respect and fairness.
- Valuing diversity and the benefit of combining the unique qualities and strengths inherent in a diverse workforce.
- Helping to create and maintain safe and healthy workplaces that are free from harassment and discrimination.
- Working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency that encourages engagement, collaboration and respectful communication.

Specific Values and Expected Behaviours

1. Integrity

DND employees and CAF members shall serve the public interest by:
- Acting at all times with integrity, and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny; an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.
- Adhering to the highest ethical standards, communicating and acting with honesty, and avoiding deception.

The article several pages back in the thread demonstrates we are not practicing what we preach.  Of all of the discussion over the "females only" article, I am most astonished that people are "ok" with the fact that we are lying to applicants.  What would the CAF do to a CAF member who had lied on their application, or was caught during the recruiting process?  What would forum members say to an applicant who came on here and posted he/she had lied to the recruiters?

Outright lying to people now and some think "oh, that's okay".   :not-again:


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 May 2019)

It's not detailed in the article, but they could have a few extra positions above the strategic intake plan (SIP) levels and be willing to 'overrecruit' a trade to hit some EE targets.

Given that white males is still the majority of the CAF, don't see how anyone is being disadvantaged. Competitive candidates will still get offers.

As an aside, I think an underlying belief in meritocracy is harmful. It's not realistic, and like everywhere else, the CAF is not a meritocracy, so we shouldn't pretend it is, and get surprised by things like this. Even determining what merit is is pretty subjective, so it's an impossible standard.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Given that white males is still the majority of the CAF, don't see how anyone is being disadvantaged. Competitive candidates will still get offers.



Tell that to the unknown number of male applicants since this...'program'... was put into place that didn't even get the opportunity to compete for the trades and careers in the CAF they really had their heart set on, and only reason why?  Because of their sex.  Oh, and were flat-out lied to by the recruiting staff.

You can't fix a wrong that one group was/may be experiencing by transferring it to another group.  That doesn't fix the problem;  2 'wrongs' don't make a 'right'.

Direct question for you;  what is your opinion, knowing the expectations of all serving CAF members IAW our Defence Ethics Program, of recruiting staff outright lying to CAF applicants?


----------



## mariomike (6 May 2019)

An interesting ten pages.

This post received 1,200 Mil-Points, so is perhaps worth a second look,



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> There's way too much to be offended about, or on behalf of... you know, like a Reservist wanting a photo in uniform, or hair styles, or badges.....FREAKIN' BADGES!!
> anic:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2019)

Also worth a second look.  From the Canadian Human Rights Act.

2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered

Discriminatory policy or practice

10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,

that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The EE Act is not the only one that needs consideration.



> “priority is given to EE applicants. Non-EE may apply.”



No issues, balances the requirements of EE and the CHR Acts.  



> “accepting applications from females only”.


  Oversteps the purpose of the EE Act, and contrary to the para's of the CHR Acts above.  We should be doing the "priority given...non-EE may apply" option to all trades that are targeted for EE applicants.  

And, of course, we should not be lying to people.   :


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 May 2019)

My opinion is that there isn't enough information available to make any determination on what is actually going on and what the facts are, so I'm not going to get upset about it.

It depends on how the program was rolled out. If unqualified people got pushed ahead of highly rated applicants because of a tick in the box, that would be wrong, but it's obviously not that black and white (no pun intended). If two files near the cut off are scored the same, and an EE factor prioritizes one file over the other, don't think that's a a big deal. That's really no different then something like bilingualism or the old exemption on the PT test being the determining factors on two files going for promotion, as they relate to the organizational goals.  In this case the GoC says the CAF should better reflect the makeup of the Canadian population, so if they can do that while still getting qualified people in the door, why not? No real difference than the bilingualism goal at the GoC level and how that impacts promotion.

If they follow up with some actual details, or show that this made a significant difference to a large number of applicants, then that'd be different. Right now there isn't even one person they can identify in any way as being disadvantaged, or that anyone got in that shouldn't have as a result of this policy.

I can see why some people would be upset, but also think a lot of it is driven by the CAF being a meritocracy, when it's not (and no where is).


----------



## mariomike (6 May 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> From the Canadian Human Rights Act.



The Canadian Human Rights Commission,



> The Commission also works with federally regulated employers to ensure compliance with the Employment Equity Act.
> https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/our-work





> How to File a Complaint
> 
> If you believe you have experienced discrimination, you may be able to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
> https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/how-file-compliant


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2019)

Not sure what your point is MM, sorry.

I'll add this one into the thread.

CANFORGEN 057/19 CMP 035/19 212048Z MAR 19
DAOD 5516-5 / CF MIL PERS INSTR 02/19, LEARNING DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION DURING RECRUITING, TRAINING AND EDUCATION
UNCLASSIFIED

1.	THE PURPOSE OF THIS CANFORGEN IS TO ANNOUNCE THE RELEASE OF DAOD 5516-5 AND CF MIL PERS INSTR 02/19 THAT ACCOMPANY IT. THIS DAOD APPLIES TO CAF APPLICANTS, CAF MEMBERS UNDERGOING SELECTION PROCESSES AND CAF MEMBERS RECEIVING TRAINING (INCLUDING SECOND LANGUAGE OR FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRAINING) OR EDUCATION AT RMC, RMC SAINT-JEAN, A CIVILIAN INSTITUTION, OR ANY OTHER CAF APPROVED INSTITUTION

2.	RESEARCH AND INCREASED AWARENESS IN RECENT YEARS HAVE RESULTED IN A RISE IN THE DIAGNOSIS AND REPORTING OF LEARNING DISABILITIES (LDS). RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT LDS ARE LIFELONG AND INNATE, HOWEVER, INDIVIDUALS WITH LDS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE INCREASING SUCCESS IN THEIR EDUCATION AND CAREERS

3.	THE DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH LDS IS A LEGAL OBLIGATION UNDER THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT. SUBJECT TO UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, THE CAF MUST ACCOMMODATE CAF APPLICANTS AND CAF MEMBERS WITH LDS TO THE POINT OF UNDUE HARDSHIP. ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS MUST BE ASSESSED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SUCH FACTORS AS UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE, COST, AND HEALTH AND SAFETY

4.	THIS DAOD ALONG WITH THE CF MIL PERS INSTR ASSIST COMMANDING OFFICERS AND CAF PERSONNEL IN UNDERSTANDING THEIR OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ACCOMMODATING LDS. KEY POINTS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 
A.	CAF APPLICANTS AND CAF MEMBERS ARE TO BE ENCOURAGED TO DISCLOSE IF THEY HAVE, OR SUSPECT THEY MAY HAVE A LD IN ORDER TO ENABLE ACCOMMODATION IAW THIS DAOD,
B.	THE ASSESSMENT OF A LD MAY ONLY BE CONDUCTED BY A QUALIFIED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL,
C.	A LD IS NOT SPECIFICALLY A MEDICAL ISSUE UNLESS MEDICATION IS PRESCRIBED OR IS AS THE RESULT OF AN ILLNESS OR INJURY, AND,
D.	SPECIFIC SUGGESTED ACCOMMODATION MEASURES ARE PROVIDED

5.	COMMANDING OFFICERS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE A WORKPLACE FREE FROM HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION AND THAT HUMAN DIGNITY IS RESPECTED. ALL LEVELS OF PERSONNEL WITHIN THE CAF MUST ASSUME A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUPPORTING INDIVIDUALS WITH A LD, OTHERWISE SUCCESSFUL SUPPORT AND INTEGRATION WILL NOT BE REALIZED

6.	FOR ASSISTANCE IN THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF THIS DAOD, COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT DHRD, OR DPGR 4 FOR THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF THE CF MIL PERS INSTR XX/19

7.	DND 4458-E LEARNING DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION REQUEST FORM CAN BE FOUND IN THE DND FORMS CATALOGUE

8.	DAOD 5516-5 CAN BE ACCESSED AT THE FOLLOWING LINK: HTTPS://WWW.CANADA.CA/EN/DEPARTMENT-NATIONAL-DEFENCE/ CORPORATE/POLICIES-STANDARDS/DEFENCE-ADMINISTRATIVE-ORDERS- DIRECTIVES.HTML

This one I've zero issue with, personally.  We've likely been recruiting people with LD for a long time;  I know at least one mbr I worked with who was pretty open that he had a LD and it had some effect on his ability to carry out his duties (an Instructor at the time). 

The parts I've highlighted in yellow are important aspects of this policy, IMO.

I do note, thought, this CANFORFEN identifies the CAFs responsibilities include the Charter, CHR and EE Act.


----------



## Furniture (6 May 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> My opinion is that there isn't enough information available to make any determination on what is actually going on and what the facts are, so I'm not going to get upset about it.
> 
> It depends on how the program was rolled out. If unqualified people got pushed ahead of highly rated applicants because of a tick in the box, that would be wrong, but it's obviously not that black and white (no pun intended). If two files near the cut off are scored the same, and an EE factor prioritizes one file over the other, don't think that's a a big deal. That's really no different then something like bilingualism or the old exemption on the PT test being the determining factors on two files going for promotion, as they relate to the organizational goals.  In this case the GoC says the CAF should better reflect the makeup of the Canadian population, so if they can do that while still getting qualified people in the door, why not? No real difference than the bilingualism goal at the GoC level and how that impacts promotion.
> 
> ...



I'll  just address the two points highlighted. 

1) Pers involved with recruiting have said they lie to applicants about job availability based on gender/race. That's not the action of an organization that thinks it is doing the right thing. If the CAF thought they were doing the right thing they would clearly advise the applicant that based on the EE targets they can't hire them until the quota has been met. 

Example "We aren't hiring right now" vs 'We can't hire you right now because you're a white male, come back in a few weeks/months when we can't find someone else for the job"

2) The examples of a second language or level of physical fitness are not at all the same as race and gender.  If I really want those extra points on my PER I can hit the gym and pick up Rosetta Stone. I can't make myself a woman, or a minority... That fact you can't see the difference between discriminating between people based on learned skill, and race/gender is a bit is a touch worrying.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 May 2019)

[quote author=Furniture] 

1) Pers involved with recruiting have said they lie to applicants...
[/quote]

This is enough to tell me that the CAF should re-examine the policy.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 May 2019)

2) Fair point, poor example.

1)  Also still not clear how having to wait for a trade to open up or consider other options is harmful. Someone else having access to an extra slot doesn't inherently mean you are somehow disadvantaged.

In any case, still not any real details to the actual program, and we did a piss poor job explaining it in the MRL.  It's a pretty sensitive area, and they are creating issues by not being open about it. This isn't something they pulled out of the air though, as it's been GoC policy for decades and not unique to DND (or the GoC).


----------



## ballz (6 May 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> 1)  Also still not clear how having to wait for a trade to open up or consider other options is harmful. Someone else having access to an extra slot doesn't inherently mean you are somehow disadvantaged.



Let's just call a spade a spade, you're deliberately doing everything you can to not answer to the very straightforward question about lying, which clearly has enough information available to comment on. Your comment is not in anyway relevant to whether or not we should be lying to recruits about it. 

As for the crap in yellow... in the US, the argument was that women didn't need to be allowed to apply for the infantry because there were plenty of other jobs in the Army / Marines that they were allowed to do .They weren't being disadvantaged or harmed by having that opportunity denied to them based on their gender, because there were lots of other open jobs. No big deal, right? You're agreeing with that position then? Sure sounds like it... otherwise, you're a hypocrite.



I can deal with support for this stuff if people want to make an argument for this based on how it will make us a more effective fighting force, or something other than "discrimination is okay," then there's a worthy debate to be had. But if they're going to literally make the exact same arguments that society used to oppress women, minorities, etc, and pretend it's not just as wrong to do it now to white men as it was back then to do it to women, minorities, etc, then they are just as unethical as all those old rich white males they despise so much.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 May 2019)

The problem with Employment Equity is that it's very name implies, you know, equity. If candidate A is a better pick for trade X than candidate Z in every category other than a melanin deficiency and externally deployed reproductive gear, in what definition of the word is that equity (the quality of being fair and impartial)?


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 May 2019)

Canadian Armed Forces preach ethics and integrity but our recruiters lie to applicants.


----------



## Throwaway987 (6 May 2019)

There’s a lot of talk about how EE is commonplace and appropriate. 

If what the recruiting group is doing is appropriate, acceptable, and in line with CAF ethics and values, why is this article or our EE policies scandalous? 

Shouldn’t we be proud these institutional values and serve to publicize them as widely as possible? We should have our public affairs officers work with the CBC to produce a number of feel good articles and get credit for our hard work.


----------



## Loachman (6 May 2019)

Reflecting societal make-up within the CF is laudable. It would be nice, especially if "visible minorities" took up their fair share of the load.

Take steps to attract them, along with women, and remove any cultural or other unreasonable/unfair (beyond valid standards) obstacles that may exist for them, and then step back. Recognize that different people make different life choices, and don't force the issue - and, especially, do not place artificial obstacles in others' ways or, even more, do not lie to people.

Everybody who wants to join should be able to compete fairly, and those with the best potential should be selected on that basis alone.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (6 May 2019)

Umm, okay. Let’s get off our soap-boxes about “Recruiters” and “recruiting” being unethical and liars and whatever else. We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things are being done and said on ALL levels, regarding ANY number of situations from ALL ranks in ALL of CAF. There isn’t one area that’s immune. We ALL preach ethics and whatever else right from the get-go and usually within 5 minutes (sarcasm) after each lecture about it we see or hear something that shouldn’t be happening or we don’t agree with. Then there are the MANY members who are trying, and trying hard, to change said situations and stop them from reoccurring, and I don’t think this Recruiting situation will be any different. 

Recruiters aren’t coming up with this stuff on their own, we know it’s coming from the top tier down. Clearly, continuous adjustments and reevaluating need to keep taking place, but enough with grouping “Recruiters” as one big corrupt entity.


----------



## Throwaway987 (6 May 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Recruiters aren’t coming up with this stuff on their own, we know it’s coming from the top tier down.



Isn’t this exactly what we’re all frustrated about? The disappointing realization that we work for an ugly self-serving organization? That individuals everywhere are trying to reconcile their personal values against a workplace full of lip service and hypocrisy?

Edit: I think we’re using “recruiters” as a generic term for the organization that has chosen to implement these questionable policies. We’re not bashing the poor Sgt who’s biting his tongue so he can put his kids through school. The front line worker has no power or authority to influence the topic of discussion (besides acting as a whistleblower).


----------



## ballz (6 May 2019)

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> Isn’t this exactly what we’re all frustrated about? The disappointing realization that we work for an ugly self-serving organization? That individuals everywhere are trying to reconcile their personal values against a workplace full of lip service and hypocrisy?



Indeed. Don't really understand how that would be lost on anyone, I don't see any indication that people are blaming the individuals working at recruiting centres for this...


----------



## BeyondTheNow (6 May 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Indeed. Don't really understand how that would be lost on anyone, I don't see any indication that people are blaming the individuals working at recruiting centres for this...



Except the multiple instances in this thread where posters haven’t differentiated, they’ve simply stated ‘Recruiting’ or ‘recruiters’ in blatant, blanket fashion. I fully understand and feel the frustration. But it’s important to keep things in perspective, and just as I have with other trades, make sure (especially new and non-member) readers are understanding that there needs to be a clear separation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2019)

If a recruiter was the one who told a male applicant "the trade is closed, sorry", does it absolve them of their part because "it was a direction from higher?

Serious question;  I'm curious what people think.



			
				BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things are being done and said on ALL levels, regarding ANY number of situations from ALL ranks in ALL of CAF. There isn’t one area that’s immune. We ALL preach ethics and whatever else right from the get-go and usually within 5 minutes (sarcasm) after each lecture about it we see or hear something that shouldn’t be happening or we don’t agree with.



BTN:

I'd be careful claiming the entire CAF is full of unethical behaviour, in all ranks, commands and situations, etc, especially given your relatively limited exposure and experience to the CAF as a whole at this point in your career.  I don't know where you are currently posted, but I can happily state my Squadron and Wing isn't rife with ethical conflict and abuse.   :2c:


----------



## BeyondTheNow (6 May 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If a recruiter was the one who told a male applicant "the trade is closed, sorry", does it absolve them of their part because "it was a direction from higher?
> 
> Serious question;  I'm curious what people think.
> 
> ...



I’m glad you’re part of an excellent posting, and many members are. However, I’m confident in my statement that no area is entirely immune. It only takes a very little effort of find evidence of this at different times, regardless of thorough screenings and training and PERs/PDRs and whatever else. It happens. It’s unfortunate, but it does. Which also brings me to the other point I raised of the many CAF members who are working hard to ensure more and more situations remain positive as much as possible.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Which also brings me to the other point I raised of the many CAF members who are working hard to ensure more and more situations remain positive as much as possible.



I'd say that more so now than ever, members (especially junior members) are more comfortable raising concerns about situations they are uncomfortable or unsure of.  I see this as a positive change, regardless of the minor growing pains that might come with it.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (6 May 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd say that more so now than ever, members (especially junior members) are more comfortable raising concerns about situations they are uncomfortable or unsure of.  I see this as a positive change, regardless of the minor growing pains that might come with it.



Agreed.


----------



## Throwaway987 (6 May 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If a recruiter was the one who told a male applicant "the trade is closed, sorry", does it absolve them of their part because "it was a direction from higher?



What’s the recruiter (or any of us) to do though? Is it a manifestly unlawful order? Is he going to rock the boat and risk his career over this issue? He has very few viable options to voice his concerns. Perhaps this is why threads like this are so cathartic. 

I’d argue that it would be short sighted to fault the individual recruiter since this is more of a system issue rather than an individual issue.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd say that more so now than ever, members (especially junior members) are more comfortable raising concerns about situations they are uncomfortable or unsure of.  I see this as a positive change, regardless of the minor growing pains that might come with it.



Isn’t this the true irony and/or success of the CAF ethics program? We have empowered our employees to advocate for what they believe is right even when it is against the goals of the organization. 

If the whistleblower who leaked these documents is caught, should they be praised or punished?


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 May 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Umm, okay. Let’s get off our soap-boxes about “Recruiters” and “recruiting” being unethical and liars and whatever else. We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things are being done and said on ALL levels, regarding ANY number of situations from ALL ranks in ALL of CAF.



Respectfully, you're confusing a soap box with the high ground. I'm not lying to someone's face. I make a habit of telling the truth regardless how uncomfortable that truth is, in point of fact.

The fact unethical stuff happens in other areas of the CAF, while true, doesn't absolve recruiters of championing a lie.

Recruiters are the first point of contact in the CAF for many applicants. That they'll lie (or mislead them if that feels more comfortable) says a lot about the CAF.

Sorry but recruiters don't get a pass from me because they're just following orders. The ethical thing to do here is to be upfront and honest with applicants, full stop.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 May 2019)

That right there.

I don't mind you screwing me so much, as long as you tell me you're screwing me.


----------



## Furniture (7 May 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Except the multiple instances in this thread where posters haven’t differentiated, they’ve simply stated ‘Recruiting’ or ‘recruiters’ in blatant, blanket fashion. I fully understand and feel the frustration. But it’s important to keep things in perspective, and just as I have with other trades, make sure (especially new and non-member) readers are understanding that there needs to be a clear separation.



I said recruiters, and I stand by it based on what the recruiter is quoted as having said in the article. If even the recruiter(s) find it distasteful enough to go to the media about it, I think it's fair to point it out again. 

It's bad enough that recruiters lying is a "joke" commonly known about joining the military. Those of us already in know the truth, recruiters are often doing the best they can with the limited knowledge they have of all the occupations in the CAF. I know my recruiter didn't know anything about my trade apart from the fact we do weather, and some sail on ships. (He was a MARS officer) 

If the recruiter sitting across the desk from the applicant doesn't know that the trade is locked out for EE applicants only, and tells a non-EE person that they need to apply for somethign else, it's not the recruiters fault. 

If the recruiter sits across the desk from an applicant and lies to their face about a trade being closed, regardless of whether or not it's the direction from on high, it's wrong and the recruiter isn't blameless.  

We expect our leaders to do the right thing, not simply 'follow orders". A bad PER or two, and a posting back to an in-trade position is about the worst a recruiter would encounter for being honest. They aren't going to be kicked out for telling the truth... Imagine the National Post/Globe and Mail headlines over that. 

Lastly, while I applaud your concern for the image of recruiters, and the CAF, circiling the wagons while jumping to the defence of bad decisions isn't going to help the CAF in the long run.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 May 2019)

>We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things

The ethics modules I received on my (reserve) courses never taught that unethical behaviour was excused if I could point to some unethical behaviour elsewhere.

The proper and liberal COA has already been identified: explain to applicants (or any aspirant to anything - promotion, appointment, etc) exactly why they are being denied entry to <whatever>, so that they have complete information with which to make their decisions.  When you give a person incomplete, inaccurate, or false information and it influences his decision, you have inflected his decision with your own prejudices and oversights.  Don't allow anyone or any policy to lie or obfuscate, starting from the top.  And allow no "exigency" to intrude: if disclosing information might lead to a Charter challenge, the GoC and the rest of us should welcome the opportunity to settle a question in law.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (7 May 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things
> 
> The ethics modules I received on my (reserve) courses never taught that unethical behaviour was excused if I could point to some unethical behaviour elsewhere.
> 
> The proper and liberal COA has already been identified: explain to applicants (or any aspirant to anything - promotion, appointment, etc) exactly why they are being denied entry to <whatever>, so that they have complete information with which to make their decisions.  When you give a person incomplete, inaccurate, or false information and it influences his decision, you have inflected his decision with your own prejudices and oversights.  Don't allow anyone or any policy to lie or obfuscate, starting from the top.  And allow no "exigency" to intrude: if disclosing information might lead to a Charter challenge, the GoC and the rest of us should welcome the opportunity to settle a question in law.



Not once did I ever state blatant, unethical behaviour should be excused through means of misdirection, or otherwise. My point with that post was bringing home the fact that, whether intentional or not, an entire trade was/is being painted with the same negative brush at various times which is not fair, nor accurate. Additionally backing up my point in that post, with all the issues CAF is facing even on a basic level at the moment, I haven’t read any posts indicating, or implying to any degree, that an entire trade, or division or whathaveyou is responsible. Persons or perhaps chains at a stated level? Yes. But not an entire area.

No one here can speak for how *every*single*CAF*recruiter conducts their interactions with applicants, period. While that article opened an entire can of worms, I’m quite certain that there are Recruiters out there who have never straight-up lied to any hopefuls. Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I think many deserve the benefit of the doubt here. I personally don’t envy their positions. They essentially have to be sales people, and with that comes all the crap that comes with sales. (Anyone who’s been in a sales position knows what it can be like.)

Again, I’m not excusing anything. I’ve made my stance on the issues raised by that article pretty clear and I don’t advocate for any type of questionable means by which to get applicants through the doors. But I personally believe that (most) Recruiters are trying the best they can with what they have. Also, as stated by me earlier, clearly more evaluating in many areas is needed—at least by how it’s being viewed by outsiders and those not doing the job.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (7 May 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Respectfully, you're confusing a soap box with the high ground...



You’re correct. I had two trains of thought going on at the time. ‘Lead with one train, but ended up going with the other...


----------



## Navy_Pete (7 May 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Let's just call a spade a spade, you're deliberately doing everything you can to not answer to the very straightforward question about lying, which clearly has enough information available to comment on. Your comment is not in anyway relevant to whether or not we should be lying to recruits about it.
> 
> As for the crap in yellow... in the US, the argument was that women didn't need to be allowed to apply for the infantry because there were plenty of other jobs in the Army / Marines that they were allowed to do .They weren't being disadvantaged or harmed by having that opportunity denied to them based on their gender, because there were lots of other open jobs. No big deal, right? You're agreeing with that position then? Sure sounds like it... otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
> 
> ...



So it's crystal, the lying about it is wrong. If CFRG is going to do this, be up front about it.  I doubt that kind of details filters down to the recruiter levels, and is probably something someone comes up with on a spreadsheet that pushes the outputs down. I think it's a pretty poor position to put the front line recruiters in, but expecting them to lie is dirty pool, and a cowardly way to approach it. 

So what's the actual policy?  Are we talking about having 50 positions open to anyone, with an additional few extra positions that they are holding for EE candidates? 500 open positions? More? I have no idea what the order of magnitude we are talking about, because it's a black box.

Bottom line if you are a strong candidate you'll still get in.  But you are basically cold calling the CAF when you stop in, so you may need to wait if you want to be considered for a specific trade.  If you are unwilling to wait, or are a borderline candidate that doesn't make the cut, don't think that's because you are the wrong colour.

In any case, don't have anything else to add unless some new info comes up, so will leave it at that.  :cheers:


----------

