Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )

[Gunnar]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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?

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

If you had bothered to even read the citations...

 

[CivU]

Reasoning is extrapolated from collected data...

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

 

[McG]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

>"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]

"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...