Positive Discrimination.

Bristol City Council have set aside a job (officially an extended training role) exclusively for ethnic minority candidates.

Today Harriet Harman has proposed to amend the Labour Party's rules to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women for cabinet positions.

Both of these ideas are rationalised on the grounds of guaranteeing proportionate representation for all groups in society. The idea is flawed on a number of levels, first of all it is hard not to notice that there are never plans for positive discrimination when white males are underrepresented, for example in medical schools.

Secondly the idea that there is something intrinsically awry if groups are not represented in proportion to their presence in the population. It isn't the case, men and women behave differently and different ethnic groups are just that different in their cultural capital, attitudes and social history.

Finally the harm caused by these sort of actions is much greater than any potential benefit. Seeing as only two candidates will get the Bristol job, it means that dozens of white applicants will feel that they have been denied a job, even though most of them would not have got the post anyway.

I Can't Be Bothered To Think Up A Title For This Post.

Feminists like to say things like:

Discrimination against men on the basis of gender is so unusual as to be non-existent, so what exactly will a men’s society do? To suggest that men need a specific space to be ‘men’ is ludicrous, when everywhere you turn you will find male-dominated spaces.”

I don't think men are routinely discriminated against, despite the best efforts of the femiloon movement. Then again I don't think women are routinely discriminated against either, because lets face it that were the case surely Women's Studies professors would be able to find more substantial examples of discrimination than this:

Carmen Siering, assistant professor of English and women's studies at Ball State University, said: "With just a moment of critical analysis, feminists can't be too happy about how the latest episode in the Twilight series, adapted from Stephenie Meyer's popular books, represents a young woman and her place in the modern world. In fact, the New film is really just more of the same, only worse."

Global Trendsetter.

Malaysia's Prime Minister has announced an end to the country's formal policy of discriminating in favour of ethnic Malays and against Chinese & Indians.

The affirmative action programme, launched in 1970, remains one of the most divisive aspects of Malaysia's multi-ethnic society.

It uniquely favours the Malay majority over the Chinese and Indian minorities.

Malays can buy homes at a discount and have privileged access to higher education and certain employment sectors, among other benefits.

In an interview for Singapore's Straits Times newspaper, Mr Najib said that ethnic quotas damaged his country's competitiveness and ran counter to global trends.

Not completely against global trends though.

Complainers Find Something New To Complain About.

I don't know why parents are complaining about this CBBC presenter, she seems 'armless enough to me.

I do remember once hearing an outraged woman on Points of View or something similar angrily demanding that the "Why Bird", be banned because she was voiced in a Welsh accent.

Labour To White Male Voters- You're Scum.

You have to hand it to Harriet Harperson, with a government that is deeply unpopular and struggling to maintain it's traditional bedrock support of white working class men most ministers would go out of their way to avoid antagonising them further. Not Harriet though:

Equality Minister Harriet Harman has defended controversial plans to encourage firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minorities job candidates.

The new Equalities Bill is also expected to force employers to disclose salary structures in a bid to make the pay gap between men and women more transparent.

Responding to criticism that the plans could discriminate against white men, Ms Harman said "you don't get progress if there isn't a bit of a push forward".

And sure enough the voters will give Labour a bit of a push forwards, over the cliff of electoral oblivion, in 2010. It goes without saying that no serious study of the 'gender pay gap' has concluded that it is caused by evil sexist employers, but facts don't actually matter.

Update: Anonymous in the comments raises the question, is Harperson a BNP mole?

Update: I've just watched the BBC news coverage of the story, basically they declared with zero evidence that ethnic minorities and women need help in the workplace and are being discriminated against. For balance they said that critics of the law had accused the government of 'political correctness', which is no doubt true but is hardly the central criticism is it? It's an old BBC trick to present the left's case as being factual and evidence based but to present the right as basing their positions on emotive gut reactions.

Persecution Fantasies.

In the group letter to the Guardian warning London's Oirish community about the sinister plans of the BNP to recruit them it states:

Only a generation ago, signs in British pubs and boarding houses reading: "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" - were not an uncommon sight.

Now by my reckoning generation is about 20-30 years and I very much doubt that these signs were around in the 1980s. In fact I doubt whether the signs were ever a common sight. Think about it, in a country with a large ethnically Irish population like Britain putting a sign like that in your window would be like painting a target an saying "Throw brick here". The sign has about as much basis in reality as the "No Irish Need Apply" signs that supposedly existed in the United States.

It's also rather strange to see that whenever someone shows an example of these all too common signs it's always the same sign, in other words one sign was put up once some time in the 1950s and the left uses that to propagate a myth of racial oppression. Actually the letter writers don't even go so far as linking to the solitary genuine example and instead link to a book by the Sex Pistols frontman John Lydon. In a world where the fictional incarceration of two make believe stoners is evidence of the inherent racism of the USA this is actually a relatively high standard of proof.

The paternal side of my family came over from Ireland yet they appear not to have endless tales of oppression, it turns out that the oppressors chose to target only those whose children and grandchildren would find it quite useful to identify to a persecuted group. Whether this is because left wing politicians and their groupies are bare faced liars or because parents with a strong disposition towards cultural self pity are likely to produce little race hustlers I do not know. The ironic thing is the creation of a narrative of racial victimisation is almost exactly the same as what the BNP do gain recruits.

A Compassionate Conservative Shows His Compassion.

The always interesting Britain & America blog (note to self update blogroll soon), has a post about US immigration policy with respect to HIV carriers. A Conservative MEP, Charles Tannock, has complained about it thusly:

"If the new proposal becomes law it could mean that people who are HIV-positive are denied the chance to be reunited with family members and partners, or to work or study in America. The measures amount to an entrenchment of discrimination, in particular because they will disproportionately affect thousands of gay and bisexual people. I've raised this issue in a written parliamentary question to the EU Commission and Council because collectively they are likely to have considerable clout with the US authorities on this particular issue. The US is one of the only countries to place travel restrictions on people living with HIV and AIDS. America's policy places it alongside countries such as Saudi Arabia. It's unworthy of a country like America, with which we share common values of liberty and equality."

I don't have any strong views on the issue itself, although it isn't really the place of British politicians to lecture friendly countries on their immigration policies. There is a balance to be struck between liberty and public health and it may be an over reaction to restrict travel or it might not. It certainly seems a little bit pointless though in the context of the USA having few controls on illegal immigration from Latin America but I digress. The comment thread that subsequently unfolds is what interests me. Another MEP, Roger Helmer writes:

We really must get away from this concept of "indirect discrimination". The fact is that action against Aids is a legitimate public health measure. If it happens that a disproportionate number of Aids sufferers are homosexuals, that is no responsibility of the regulators, and no reason to dilute public health initiatives.

You might as well argue that our smoking ban in buildings is "indirect discrimination" against men, since more men than women smoke.

A reasonable point, one which you can either agree or disagree with, but it is well reasoned and cogently expressed. At which point another poster by the name of Justin Hinchcliffe who appears to be the Chairman of the Tottenham Conservative Association jumps in:

Sadly, and once again, Roger Helmer is showing his ignorance, lack of compassion and outright bigotry. He's a disgrace to not just the Conservative Party, but to the human race.

Er, OK. This must be one of those new fangled compassionate conservatives who believe that any disagreement over whether allowing carriers of an infectious disease into one's country is a reasonable risk to take becomes sub human.

Yet More Women & Prison

There seem to have been a steady trickle of arguments for the abolition of prison for women in recent months, here's another. This is not something I agree with if it means treating men and women differently for the same offence although there are some offfences that women are disproportionately likely to commit, compared to their small total contribution to crime levels, which should not result in custodial sentences. Television license evasion springs to mind as a prime example. David Wilson points out the high level of suicide for female prisoners compared to male prisoners, women make up 6% of the prison population but 12.5% of prison suicides. This despite the fact that men are more likely to commit suicide in general.

It is something worth being looked at, I suspect that a higher proportion of women than men who commit crime are in need of psychiatric help for the simple reason that serious crime is so much rarer for women that it is a more extreme form of behaviour. Individual inmates from groups (defined by sex, race, income or education level) with low incarceration rates are more likely to be disturbed than individuals from groups with high incarceration rates, because criminality is a more deviant behaviour from the cultural norms for the former group so the mentally unstable will make up a higher proportion of inmates from those groups.

In short women should not be treated differently from men in the criminal justice system however more attention paid to the mental stability of all prisoners could benefit female offenders to a greater extent than male offenders.

Equality Unequal.

Labour peer Baroness Corston has produced a report arguing that prison be abolished for most female offenders, because:

The report claims: "Women and men are different. Equal treatment of men and women does not result in equal outcomes."

The Guardianistas are on board with this proposal, which is odd because up until now I had gotten the distinct impression that the absence of equal outcomes was prima facie proof of unequal treatment. Silly me.