PDA

View Full Version : Ban the Burqa?



arosar
14-05-2010, 07:53 PM
In Europe, both Belgium (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,692212,00.html) and France are planning to ban the full face covering Islamic veil. And now some Australian polie is calling for similar laws, albeit so far his seems to be a lone voice.

So, what do you guys think? Should Australia ban the burqa or other similar full face covering Islamic clothing?

For a good and thoughtful article on the issue, check out this article (http://dailybludge.com.au/2010/05/ban-the-burqa/) on The Daily Bludge.

AR

Kevin Bonham
14-05-2010, 08:11 PM
I voted "disagree", although my vote's really partly an "agree" and partly a "strongly disagree".

I think it is reasonable to ban the wearing of garments fully obscuring the face (whether it is a burqa or a motorbike helmet) inside stores, banks and public buildings because these garments can make it more difficult to identify and arrest criminals. An example that has come up is that of a male thief who is not in the least bit Islamic chosing the burqa so that his face is not captured on video. This argument is not really covered in the article linked to by AR.

I don't accept any of the other arguments against it. In particular, the arguments that the burqa should be banned because it represents opposition to western values of freedom are self-defeating. Freedom properly considered should include the freedom to choose to not be liberated, so long as you don't impose that choice on others.

However, coercing a woman to wear a burqa in public against her will, including by threat of personal and social ostracism, should be a serious crime attracting substantial jail terms.

CameronD
14-05-2010, 10:54 PM
I agree with Kevin

The full face covering should be outlawed in public places (dont say burque, say garments hiding a persons identity) but allowed on private property and religious relevent places.

I was at work and a lady wearing this came to me and handed everything to her very young son to give to me including the money. It was very intimidating.

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2010, 12:15 AM
I agree with Kevin

The full face covering should be outlawed in public places (dont say burque, say garments hiding a persons identity) but allowed on private property and religious relevent places.

I'm not sure you do agree with me because usually a ban on burqas does come in the form of a ban from all public places rather than a ban full-stop. I do not support a ban on the wearing of burqas on the street, in parks etc. Indeed such a ban could have the unpleasant impact of forcing some devout women who wear burqas to avoid going outside in public altogether. What I do support is banning burqas (or other full-face covering) inside buildings where theft is a major concern.

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2010, 02:17 AM
I'm not sure you do agree with me because usually a ban on burqas does come in the form of a ban from all public places rather than a ban full-stop. I do not support a ban on the wearing of burqas on the street, in parks etc. Indeed such a ban could have the unpleasant impact of forcing some devout women who wear burqas to avoid going outside in public altogether. What I do support is banning burqas (or other full-face covering) inside buildings where theft is a major concern.
How about public schools where identification of pupils is a major concern? What about private buildings--do banks and petrol stations have a right to insist that faces remain uncovered before entry, without being sued for religious discrimination?

I voted "disagree" because "ban" is too broad; what people wear on the street or in their own homes is no-one else's business.

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2010, 02:46 AM
How about public schools where identification of pupils is a major concern?

I support the right of each school, public or private, to make its own decisions about whether the burqa is allowed for pupils on school grounds based on this or other concerns. Even "plain clothes" schools are usually not completely unregulated and there are all kinds of perfectly valid reasons for a range of dress restrictions on them.


What about private buildings--do banks and petrol stations have a right to insist that faces remain uncovered before entry, without being sued for religious discrimination?

Absolutely. Already suggested as much. Actually, I support the rights of a private business to ban or not ban in this situation, and to do so without needing to apply for a discrimination exemption.


I voted "disagree" because "ban" is too broad; what people wear on the street or in their own homes is no-one else's business.

Agree totally.

Ian Murray
15-05-2010, 06:36 AM
As far as I'm aware school-age girls observing Islamic custom wear the hijab, covering the head but exposing the face. The burqa in schools is not a potential problem

ER
15-05-2010, 08:14 AM
I voted disagree since I am generally in favour of the individual's choice with minimal State interference.
On the other hand, it hasn't yet become clear to me if the burga is dictated by religious dogma or by male chauvinist domination forced upon women.
In gereral I am very suspicious of the validity as well of the necessity of laws, rules and regulations based upon sex.

Ian Murray
15-05-2010, 05:39 PM
A ban would be far too draconian a measure here. I've been living for 17 years in Mt Gravatt in Brisbane, which has a significant Muslim population (and a local mosque). In that time I would not have seen ten women wearing the burqa. Heaps of high-schoolers wearing the hajib.

Storm in a teacup

antichrist
15-05-2010, 05:51 PM
I have seen in Sydney and as stated earlier it would scare the horses. At a lebo cafe a woman in one could not understand Arabic and everyone laughed at her, she was a dye in blue aussie convert.

It is definitely unaustralian. If they can get away with barring in some Euro countries then maybe we can too. It is medieval - that is enough. I think modern liberal Muslims would apprec also not to be embarrassed. But not a real issue to be concerned about

Basil
15-05-2010, 05:54 PM
FFS, Max! Applying the same levels of respect and gravitas when grappling with the issues to all religions? Good-o! Riiiight.

antichrist
15-05-2010, 05:56 PM
I suppose if hippy religins can do drugs and nudeity it is anything goes

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2010, 08:49 PM
I voted disagree, as it's nobody's business what lady decides to wear.
The only half plausible reason for the ban is the issue of security, but any business/institution/organisation/building owner must have a right to refuse entry based on the dress code. Removing silly discrimination law is sufficient.
Everything else is just a puff of hot air.

antichrist
18-05-2010, 06:03 PM
But what about if chaps started wearing it for any number of reasons, even to hide from their wives/girlfriends etc. Would you sit opposite a guy wearing one during a chess comp. and not complain?

If girls can wear pants etc so anything goes.

antichrist
19-05-2010, 03:02 PM
drop the guy wearing one, if a female wore one whilst your opponent in chess would you object?

Basil
30-05-2010, 07:35 PM
Time To Ban The Burqa (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/sunday-times-columnist-liam-bartlett-discusses-a-heated-issue-the-burqa-ban/story-e6frg13u-1225872962764)?

ER
30-05-2010, 08:32 PM
Time To Ban The Burqa?


FOR obviously superficial reasons, I've always associated Belgium with expensive chocolates rather than political acts of bravery.
For someone who can only relate Belgium to expensive chocolates not a bad effort to promote a racist motion!

For a tiny country to be prepared to publicly reject this symbol of oppression gave me great hope that other open societies like ours could follow suit.
And not realising that by suggesting oppression of a symbol of oppression makes you no less an oppressor yourself doesn't improve the quality of your biased article!

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2010, 10:11 PM
Time To Ban The Burqa?

JaK nailed it. It really disappoints me that this Liam Bartlett can't see how basic the contradiction inherent in his article is. An open society is open to anything, and that includes the right to voluntarily choose membership of a cult that degrades you. An open society, as Popper put it, is one in which "individuals are confronted with personal decisions" and make them for themselves, not one in which the State makes those decisions for you and forces you to be free a la Kant if you appear not liberated enough.

Indeed, the writer invokes the rhetoric of the "open society" but then talks about "expecting the norms of our Christian-based society to be accepted and adhered to." In an open society anyone who expects any norms to be adhered to is asking for disappointment, except for the norms of avoiding violence, respecting property and allowing others to differ.

He then argues, in an astonishing non sequitur:


Those who argue it is all about personal religious freedoms also miss the point.

Society has long changed the rules around religious custom and ritual whenever it sees fit.

Indeed, because "society" has long not been open to personal religious freedom and still is not entirely open to it. He is arguing from established practice but without establishing that the established practice meets any relevant standard of religious freedom. Often it doesn't. And then there's this:


Public nudity, for example, is not condoned merely because some galah claims that stepping out of their clobber is the ultimate freedom. Many are obviously not comfortable with it in the Hay St Mall.

Public nudity is actually completely legal in some countries so rather than laws against nudity justifying laws against the burqa, laws against nudity should invite us to enquire how open our society really is. This is quite aside from the completely different basis of the laws in question: the burqa law is aimed at protecting the burqa wearer, while nudity laws are aimed at potential offence (or perhaps in the case of children, alarm) to others.

If people want to make arguments that allowing the burqa is inegalitarian that's one thing. But if they clothe those arguments in the language of liberty while in fact attacking free choice that's quite another. But I guess it's what we expect in a country so bereft of a clearly expressed libertarian political position. Bartlett metaphorically wishes Germaine Greer and Britney Spears would go wear a burqa but I cannot actually think of anything either has said that is politically as clueless or boring as Bartlett's own article, which is basically a nationalistic semi-reactionary trump-up of Australia's religious liberty cred to a level it doesn't deserve, accompanied by a suggestion that it be needlessly reduced still further. Grrr.


But what about if chaps started wearing it for any number of reasons, even to hide from their wives/girlfriends etc. Would you sit opposite a guy wearing one during a chess comp. and not complain?

Your scenarios are almost as ridiculous as your analogies. That said, a chessplayer wearing a burqa, of either gender, would probably invite legitimate suspicion of cheating (concealed computer for example). There is also the question of whether it is reasonable to dress in a manner that may alarm or offend an opponent without clear religious reason. But in any case, banning someone wearing something to a chess comp isn't the same as banning them from wearing it on the street.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-05-2010, 10:50 AM
Many organisations in Europe do not want to let women in burqa in. They are afraid to do so because of discrimination laws.
The solution, of course, is not to ban the burqa, but to strike dawn stupid anti-discrimination law. Unfortunately, the same mentality that led to antidiscrimination laws leads to banning the burqa.

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2010, 02:22 AM
Many organisations in Europe do not want to let women in burqa in. They are afraid to do so because of discrimination laws.
The solution, of course, is not to ban the burqa, but to strike dawn stupid anti-discrimination law. Unfortunately, the same mentality that led to antidiscrimination laws leads to banning the burqa.
Well put.

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2010, 02:24 AM
Clearly these high-profile Arab women regard the burqa as oppressive. But the answer is not a ban on burqas but a ban on persecution for refusal.


Five female presenters have resigned from the Arabic news channel al-Jazeera (http://www.smh.com.au/world/aljazeera-presenters-exit-in-row-20100601-wvgh.html) after being accused of not dressing modestly enough.

The women complained about harassment from a senior editor, whom they accused of making ‘’offensive remarks’’ about their appearance.

The presenters — some of the best-known faces in the Middle East — quit after the channel refused to back them… The women caught up in the clash are Joumana Nammour [see video clip below], Lina Zahr al-Din, Jullinar Mousa, all from Lebanon, Luna al-Shibl, from Syria, and Nawfar Afli, from Tunisia.

The three countries are relatively liberal and the presenters appeared with heavy make-up and their hair uncovered — in contrast to some of Al-Jazeera’s other female presenters.

ZXHxS0vYDjo&feature=player_embedded

TheJoker
03-06-2010, 12:11 PM
But the answer is not a ban on burqas but a ban on persecution for refusal.


You seem to be sitting on both sides of the anti-discrimination fence. In one post you agree with Igor that business and people should be able to discrimnate against based on attire (i.e. wearing a Burqa). In the very next post you are calling for anti-discrimantion laws that prevent business from discriminating against people based on attire (i.e. Western attire and make-up).

Please make up your mind, should people and businesses be free to discrimante at will based on whatever criteria they see fit. Or should there be laws that prevent discrimination on certain grounds such as attire.

Or are you happy to have massive double standards, as long as it supports your ethnocentric position?

antichrist
03-06-2010, 05:42 PM
Many organisations in Europe do not want to let women in burqa in. They are afraid to do so because of discrimination laws.
The solution, of course, is not to ban the burqa, but to strike dawn stupid anti-discrimination law. Unfortunately, the same mentality that led to antidiscrimination laws leads to banning the burqa.

Would you agree with Hitler's discrimination laws against Jews?

They too were popular with some folk in their day. And across Europe the struggle against them were mostly led by left wing partisans (including good Jews) - certainly not the Catholic Church that was blessing the Nazi troops everywhere.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 05:44 PM
Would you agree with Hitler's discrimination laws against Jews?

You don't understand the difference between discrimination mandated by government and voluntary choice by private citizens/organisation.

antichrist
03-06-2010, 05:49 PM
You don't understand the difference between discrimination mandated by government and voluntary choice by private citizens/organisation.

But isn't it the same difference. You want to break down the anti-discimination laws so that the Govts can disciminate.

antichrist
03-06-2010, 06:02 PM
Hey Capt Underpants, if they banned the burqa you could improverise with those undies maybe -they would want to be clean but

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 06:03 PM
But isn't it the same difference. You want to break down the anti-discimination laws so that the Govts can disciminate.
Do you know what anti-discrimination laws are about?

TheJoker
03-06-2010, 06:12 PM
Igor,where do sit regards to Jono's remark about banning discrimination against women who wear Western clothing in Arab TV stations?

antichrist
03-06-2010, 06:33 PM
Do you know what anti-discrimination laws are about?

In general I do.

I don't agree with your same mentality line. In OZ Fred Nile is against discrimination laws and also against the burqa. He wants to ban mosques, Islamic schools the whole lot as well as the burqa.

antichrist
03-06-2010, 06:35 PM
Igor,where do sit regards to Jono's remark about banning discrimination against women who wear Western clothing in Arab TV stations?

And he has not answered if he would object (to arbitar or privately to himself) if his chess opponent wore a burqa. It is different when you have to be in close contact for a lengthy period.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 08:43 PM
In general I do.

I don't agree with your same mentality line. In OZ Fred Nile is against discrimination laws and also against the burqa. He wants to ban mosques, Islamic schools the whole lot as well as the burqa.
Judging by your posts I doubt you do.
Long ago I realised that logical discussion with you is impossible, don't expect a reply until you manage to put your thoughts in a coherent manner.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 08:53 PM
Igor,where do sit regards to Jono's remark about banning discrimination against women who wear Western clothing in Arab TV stations?
I don't listen to or watch al-jazeera as I don't view them as a source of reliable information or worthy commentaries. As a result I couldn't care less about their staff dress-code.
If they claim to be liberal, Jono's post exposes them as hypocrites.

TheJoker
04-06-2010, 10:37 AM
As a result I couldn't care less about their staff dress-code.

I am talking on principle. Do you agree with Jono that organisations should be banned from discriminating based on certain form of attire?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

TheJoker
04-06-2010, 11:24 AM
You seem to be sitting on both sides of the anti-discrimination fence. In one post you agree with Igor that business and people should be able to discrimnate against based on attire (i.e. wearing a Burqa). In the very next post you are calling for anti-discrimantion laws that prevent business from discriminating against people based on attire (i.e. Western attire and make-up).

Please make up your mind, should people and businesses be free to discrimante at will based on whatever criteria they see fit. Or should there be laws that prevent discrimination on certain grounds such as attire.

Or are you happy to have massive double standards, as long as it supports your ethnocentric position?

Hey Jono, going to respond this post, just curious?

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 02:00 PM
I am talking on principle. Do you agree with Jono that organisations should be banned from discriminating based on certain form of attire?

I wish you were as insistent with questions presented to you.
My position in regards to the right of organisation is crystal clear. If you feel the need for further clarification please ask.


A simple yes or no will suffice.

A bit childish, don't you think?

antichrist
04-06-2010, 03:04 PM
Judging by your posts I doubt you do.
Long ago I realised that logical discussion with you is impossible, don't expect a reply until you manage to put your thoughts in a coherent manner.

God must create people like me with some purpose. Wonder what it was?

Desmond
04-06-2010, 04:16 PM
God must create people like me with some purpose. Wonder what it was?
As a warning to others?

TheJoker
04-06-2010, 04:19 PM
I wish you were as insistent with questions presented to you.
My position in regards to the right of organisation is crystal clear. If you feel the need for further clarification please ask.

Well Jono's seemed crystal clear as well, but then he posted something totally contrary to his original position. I was wondering whether you agreed with his second post or not since you and him often hold very similar views.

I'll take it that you don't agree with Jono, would that be right?


A bit childish, don't you think?

No. Just trying to get a straight answer.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 04:36 PM
No. Just trying to get a straight answer.
Straight answer requires a straight question, doesn't it?
You assert Jono's position, but I am not convinced your assertion is correct. :owned:

TheJoker
04-06-2010, 04:46 PM
Straight answer requires a straight question, doesn't it?
You assert Jono's position, but I am not convinced your assertion is correct. :owned:

Ok I'll play your stupid game.

Should Al-jazeera be free to discriminate againsts its female reporters based on their non-traditional attire or should such discrimination be banned?

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 04:54 PM
Ok I'll play your stupid game.
If you want to play stupid games, you'll have to find another partner:lol:

TheJoker
04-06-2010, 05:25 PM
If you want to play stupid games, you'll have to find another partner:lol:

You're a wanker

Spiny Norman
04-06-2010, 05:40 PM
Do you agree with Jono that organisations should be banned from discriminating based on certain form of attire?
Non-government organisations ought to be free to discriminate as much as they like on any basis whatsoever that takes their fancy.

Government organisations, on the other hand, ought not to discriminate on any basis at all.

antichrist
04-06-2010, 06:53 PM
Non-government organisations ought to be free to discriminate as much as they like on any basis whatsoever that takes their fancy.

Government organisations, on the other hand, ought not to discriminate on any basis at all.

But come on Mr Norman, private institutions are taking over many functions that should be govt, social secuirty, health care, schools etc and so the discrimination disease is popping up everywhere. Even a lot of religiously sympathetic workers still don't want to go along with religious institutions rules but virtually have no choice, or go without job! That is real life

antichrist
04-06-2010, 06:55 PM
You're a wanker

I have often thought that about a lot of posters but never had the guts to say it - on my behalf the rest of you know how I feel about you.

Desmond
04-06-2010, 07:34 PM
Non-government organisations ought to be free to discriminate as much as they like on any basis whatsoever that takes their fancy.I disagree.


Government organisations, on the other hand, ought not to discriminate on any basis at all.Does this include things like jobs that you have to have a jobseeker card (I think that's what it is called), in other words be long-term unemployed, to apply?

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 08:09 PM
You're a wanker
Is a wanker the one who repeatedly asks the same question despite knowing the answer?
You are the one playing stupid games, as you know my opinion. All you are interested is forcing your assertion of Jono's post. Have a little patience, he might decide to enlighten you :hand:

Rincewind
04-06-2010, 08:16 PM
Is a wanker the one who repeatedly asks the same question despite knowing the answer?
You are the one playing stupid games, as you know my opinion. All you are interested is forcing your assertion of Jono's post. Have a little patience, he might decide to enlighten you :hand:

Yep. TheJoker has hit the nail on the head.

Kevin Bonham
04-06-2010, 08:39 PM
Poll on banning wearing of the burqa in public places here (http://umrresearch.com.au/doc/BurkhaFin25may2010.pdf) (PDF LINK) showing that banning the wearing of the burqa in public has strong popular support but that those who are young, university educated and/or non-religious are more evenly divided.

Desmond
04-06-2010, 08:44 PM
Is a wanker the one who repeatedly asks the same question despite knowing the answer?
You are the one playing stupid games, as you know my opinion. All you are interested is forcing your assertion of Jono's post. Have a little patience, he might decide to enlighten you :hand:
Well you are the one who told him to ask if he wasn't sure. Yet you don't answer.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 09:17 PM
Well you are the one who told him to ask if he wasn't sure. Yet you don't answer.
See post 19 and 32. Are they not clear enough?
And what do you think was the reason for repeatedly asking the same question?

Desmond
04-06-2010, 10:55 PM
See post 19 and 32. Are they not clear enough?
And what do you think was the reason for repeatedly asking the same question?
Yet in 35 you offer clarification if required. It seems to be. But you don't.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 04:17 AM
But come on Mr Norman, private institutions are taking over many functions that should be govt, social secuirty, health care, schools etc
I can only wish you were right.


and so the discrimination disease is popping up everywhere.
Historically, the government has been the biggest discriminator (the Democrats' Jim Crow laws, Labor's White Australia policy, South African apartheid.

With private institutions, "greed" usually prevails over bigotry. Businesses often undermined Jim Crow and Apartheid.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 04:18 AM
Should Al-jazeera be free to discriminate againsts its female reporters based on their non-traditional attire or should such discrimination be banned?
Yes. I disagree with them of course, but it's not my money.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 04:20 AM
Non-government organisations ought to be free to discriminate as much as they like on any basis whatsoever that takes their fancy.

Government organisations, on the other hand, ought not to discriminate on any basis at all.
Exactly :clap:

Leftards like The Joke fail to realize that unfair discrimination costs. Not only do they miss out on good employers and customers, they risk boycotts from non-bigots.

But while this matters for private organizations, it doesn't for government. Hence governments have historically been the worst offenders.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 04:28 AM
Would you agree with Hitler's discrimination laws against Jews?
See what I mean: government has been the worst offender in discrimination laws.


They too were popular with some folk in their day.
Yes, but this popularity never amounted to much until government enforced it. After all, German Jews were among the best doctors, businessmen and scientists.


And across Europe the struggle against them were mostly led by left wing partisans (including good Jews) —
Actually, many Jews joined the Fascist movements in Italy and Spain, which is because many Jews support left-wing movements for some reason, and fascism was historically a branch of leftism (http://article.nationalreview.com/347794/who-is-fascist/thomas-sowell) but it was antisemitic only in Germany (and in Italy only after Mussolini allied with Hitler).


certainly not the Catholic Church that was blessing the Nazi troops everywhere.
Crap. Hitler hated the future Pope Pius XII, calling him the Jew-loving cardinal. Later on, Pius saved more Jews than Schindler of List fame, as documented by Rabbi David Dalin in The Myth of Hitler's Pope (http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6800).

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 04:45 AM
You seem to be sitting on both sides of the anti-discrimination fence. In one post you agree with Igor that business and people should be able to discrimnate against based on attire (i.e. wearing a Burqa).
I do.


In the very next post you are calling for anti-discrimantion laws that prevent business from discriminating against people based on attire (i.e. Western attire and make-up).
No, I said laws against persecution. I.e. no beating or raping or "honour killings" of women who refuse, or keeping them locked up at home.


Please make up your mind, should people and businesses be free to discrimante at will based on whatever criteria they see fit.
Yes.


Or should there be laws that prevent discrimination on certain grounds such as attire.
No. There should be laws against forcing women to wear such attire, and a woman's lack of a burqa should not be a mitigating circumstance for anyone who commits violence against her.


Or are you happy to have massive double standards, as long as it supports your ethnocentric position?
I am not ethnocentric, being of a mixed ethnicity myself. I am centric in the western values of private property and freedom to do anything with it that doesn't impinge on other people's private property.

antichrist
05-06-2010, 04:30 PM
Originally Posted by antichrist
certainly not the Catholic Church that was blessing the Nazi troops everywhere.

Jono
Crap. Hitler hated the future Pope Pius XII, calling him the Jew-loving cardinal. Later on, Pius saved more Jews than Schindler of List fame, as documented by Rabbi David Dalin in The Myth of Hitler's Pope.
__________________
AC
We are not specifically talking about Hitler's attitude, but Catholic bishops blessing Nazi troops right across Catholic Europe - Croatia, Lithuania(?) Estonia etc. many photographs exist of such. The Prodos like yourself use them in literature against Catholicism - at least the early post WW2 prodos did.----------------------------------------
Jono
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
Would you agree with Hitler's discrimination laws against Jews?

Jono
See what I mean: government has been the worst offender in discrimination laws.

AC
But HItler's govt representing quite Catholic Germany was only saying what I was taught in Catholic schools - the Jews killed Christ etc and stated "let his blood be upon us and upon our children!" we all know the story, it is in your Bible so you should be an expert on it. And according Christians have been killing Jews ever since.Prof Wistrich(?) in his book titled: Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred traces anti-semitism back 2,000 years to early Christianity.

So essentially Hitler kept all his Christian baggage in persecuting Jews.

And getting back to the burqa - it was the Muslims who protected the Jews during the Spanish Inquisition. But now when Israel is going through it's facist stage it won't let anyone rescue the Muslims, Christians etc. Israel certainly has a short memory.

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2010, 07:28 PM
No, I said laws against persecution. I.e. no beating or raping or "honour killings" of women who refuse, or keeping them locked up at home.

I think some confusion arose because you wrote:

Clearly these high-profile Arab women regard the burqa as oppressive. But the answer is not a ban on burqas but a ban on persecution for refusal.

But it's far from clear that just banning violent persecution for refusal prevents harassment, offensive comments or sacking for refusal, and in the case of sacking specifically you would presumably support the broadcaster's right to hire and fire for whatever reason it liked or indeed for no reason at all.

Similarly, the long-standing Western illegality of assaults premised on race, gender or sexuality through the general illegality of assault full stop, was not alone sufficient to prevent employers hiring and firing for racist, sexist or sexuality based reasons. So in what way is what you suggest actually "the answer" to what a woman seeking to portray herself in a liberated way on Islamic-world television is up against?

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 01:47 AM
I think some confusion arose because you wrote:

Clearly these high-profile Arab women regard the burqa as oppressive. But the answer is not a ban on burqas but a ban on persecution for refusal.

But it's far from clear that just banning violent persecution for refusal prevents harassment, offensive comments or sacking for refusal, and in the case of sacking specifically you would presumably support the broadcaster's right to hire and fire for whatever reason it liked or indeed for no reason at all.
I do support private employers deciding who they want to hire, for whatever good or bad reasons, since it's their money.

But a woman owns herself. Thus she can decide to wear a burqa, or not, and violence against her is a crime against her private property rights, regardless of what she wears. But she has no right to employment in any particular company, since the company's private property rights include whom to hire. She also has no right to enter a privately owned property with a burqa if the owner won't allow it, for whatever reason.


Similarly, the long-standing Western illegality of assaults premised on race, gender or sexuality through the general illegality of assault full stop,
But there is increasing Dhimmitude in our culture, where somehow a lack of a burqa is excused as a mitigating factor for violence against women. Consider Sarcofelis Hilaly (allowed in by Keating), as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics now tacitly supporting female genital mutilation (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html?nl=health&emc=healthupdateema3), but only a "ritual nick".


was not alone sufficient to prevent employers hiring and firing for racist, sexist or sexuality based reasons.
It wasn't, but as I showed, the government has been the worst offender in such discrimination.

TheJoker
07-06-2010, 01:33 PM
No, I said laws against persecution. I.e. no beating or raping or "honour killings" of women who refuse, or keeping them locked up at home.

I see, but the confusion was the story that followed your comment with Al-jazeera was talking about discrimination, not violent persecution.


No. There should be laws against forcing women to wear such attire, and a woman's lack of a burqa should not be a mitigating circumstance for anyone who commits violence against her.

I agree.

TheJoker
07-06-2010, 01:49 PM
Leftards like The Joke fail to realize that unfair discrimination costs. Not only do they miss out on good employers and customers, they risk boycotts from non-bigots.

If one's business is based on appealing to the mass market that may be true, but business strategy also often involves apppealing to small segments only. It is quite feasible that by discriminating against a segement, you might attract more of another segment and therefore be more profitable. Take Fernwood gyms as an example of how discrimination, can create a competitive advantage.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-06-2010, 01:57 PM
Straight answer requires a straight question, doesn't it?
You assert Jono's position, but I am not convinced your assertion is correct. :owned:
Ok I'll play your stupid game.
Should Al-jazeera be free to discriminate againsts its female reporters based on their non-traditional attire or should such discrimination be banned?

Will you have the decency to apologise? Simple yes or no will suffice.

TheJoker
07-06-2010, 02:10 PM
Will you have the decency to apologise? Simple yes or no will suffice.

No. Jono was straight with his answer you on the other hand were a prat.

Rincewind
07-06-2010, 02:27 PM
No. Jono was straight with his answer you on the other hand were a prat.

I would only question your use of the past tense. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2010, 02:49 PM
If one's business is based on appealing to the mass market that may be true, but business strategy also often involves apppealing to small segments only. It is quite feasible that by discriminating against a segement, you might attract more of another segment and therefore be more profitable. Take Fernwood gyms as an example of how discrimination, can create a competitive advantage.
If discrimination is going to be banned, then ban it consistently. But better is to remove anti-discrimination laws for private businesses so Fernwood can discriminate if it wants to, and suffer the consequences (or not). There is no place for government to tell private business who to serve or hire.

TheJoker
07-06-2010, 03:51 PM
But better is to remove anti-discrimination laws for private businesses so Fernwood can discriminate if it wants to, and suffer the consequences (or not). There is no place for government to tell private business who to serve or hire.

I think the community, through government has every right to determine the sought of businesses they want operating their community. For example, I doubt anybody would want drug dealers to be permitted to sell drugs to school kids. Yet it violates nobodies private property rights. I wouldn't want arms dealer's selling assualt rifles to religious fundamentalists, but again it doesn't violate anybodies private property rights. These are extreme examples, but I believe it is also in our overall interest as a community to prohibit unfair discrimination.

antichrist
07-06-2010, 04:31 PM
I think the community, through government has every right to determine the sought of businesses they want operating their community. For example, I doubt anybody would want drug dealers to be permitted to sell drugs to school kids. Yet it violates nobodies private property rights. I wouldn't want arms dealer's selling assualt rifles to religious fundamentalists, but again it doesn't violate anybodies private property rights. These are extreme examples, but I believe it is also in our overall interest as a community to prohibit unfair discrimination.

Just as we prohibit wife-bashing and even wife killing would you believe, even if it is on private property and the hushand and wife agree, and even if it is okayed in any holy books.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-06-2010, 05:21 PM
No. Jono was straight with his answer you on the other hand were a prat.
As I expected. Hiding behind anonymous nick is very courageous when spiting abuse. Welcome to the intellectual company of RW and AC.

Rincewind
07-06-2010, 05:26 PM
Welcome to the intellectual company of RW and AC.

What a twaddler! I believe there would be very few people on this board who don't know my real name. Same goes for AC. We can't help it if you're to thick to work out the obvious.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-06-2010, 05:29 PM
What a twaddler! I believe there would be very few people on this board who don't know my real name. Same goes for AC. We can't help it if you're to thick to work out the obvious.
The post was to say that The Joker sank to your level.

Rincewind
07-06-2010, 05:48 PM
The post was to say that The Joker sank to your level.

Seems a very strange way to say that. You seem to imply that AC and I are somehow "hiding behind anonymity". Whatever you mean by that.

Regarding online anonymity, TheJoker has some reputation in this forum as a long standing poster. As such it is not comparable to a sock puppet that an otherwise known identity might sign up with to abuse a long time poster anonymously. TheJoker maintains anonymity for reasons which are none of our business. However they obviously don't include abusing you as a primarily motive as he seems to abuse you very rarely (and other posters almost never) and in the past has shown what I would call "the patience of a saint" towards your egocentric and prattish behaviour.

Basil
07-06-2010, 05:59 PM
Igor, you have my sympathies. My suggestion is that you move on.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 09:21 AM
Seems a very strange way to say that. You seem to imply that AC and I are somehow "hiding behind anonymity". Whatever you mean by that.

No, I meant you have the level of reasoning and logical comprehension.

However, A/C didn't resort to personal abuse towards other posters on the forum.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 09:22 AM
Igor, you have my sympathies. My suggestion is that you move on.
You are right.

Rincewind
08-06-2010, 09:47 AM
However, A/C didn't resort to personal abuse towards other posters on the forum.

Oh, unlike you?

TheJoker
08-06-2010, 12:39 PM
As I expected. Hiding behind anonymous nick is very courageous when spiting abuse. Welcome to the intellectual company of RW and AC.

What difference would it make if you knew my name?

BTW why didn't you include Jono in that group he dishes out more personal insults than the three of us combined.

Desmond
08-06-2010, 04:13 PM
Those who avocate any reason to not hire someone, does this also hold true for firing someone who is currently employed?

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 05:18 PM
Those who avocate any reason to not hire someone, does this also hold true for firing someone who is currently employed?
Ideally that should be stipulated in the employment contract.
Also assuming the person was hired in the first place, something must've changed.
But generally employee should not be the only on who can terminate the contract, employer must be able to fire as well.

Rincewind
08-06-2010, 05:25 PM
Ideally that should be stipulated in the employment contract.
Also assuming the person was hired in the first place, something must've changed.
But generally employee should not be the only on who can terminate the contract, employer must be able to fire as well.

Yet another dodge from the telfon poster.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 05:31 PM
Yet another dodge from the telfon poster.
All you've been able to post on this thread are some laughable attempts of personal attacks. As usually, no substance on the issue.

Desmond
08-06-2010, 07:08 PM
Ideally that should be stipulated in the employment contract.
Also assuming the person was hired in the first place, something must've changed.
But generally employee should not be the only on who can terminate the contract, employer must be able to fire as well.
Yes well currently employers need to have a decent reason to fire someone.

Would you do away with that and allow employer to fire on the strength of any reason they saw fit (including racist, sexist etc reasons)?

Rincewind
08-06-2010, 07:22 PM
All you've been able to post on this thread are some laughable attempts of personal attacks. As usually, no substance on the issue.

That's rich coming from the queen of the dodge. I can't remember a direct question you have ever answered.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 07:32 PM
Would you do away with that and allow employer to fire on the strength of any reason they saw fit (including racist, sexist etc reasons)?
Yes.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 07:35 PM
I can't remember a direct question you have ever answered.
You might have to see a neurologist then.:hand:

Desmond
08-06-2010, 07:40 PM
Yes.
Wow really? Takes all sorts I spose.

Rincewind
08-06-2010, 08:38 PM
Would you do away with that and allow employer to fire on the strength of any reason they saw fit (including racist, sexist etc reasons)?
Yes.

I thought the dinosaurs really being giant lizards due to the water canopy was the stupidest thing you've said. But you have really outdone yourself this time.

:clap:

Basil
08-06-2010, 08:52 PM
Barry, a quick review of the last two pages has you dogging Igor with insults and insinuations - all unprovoked and not retaliated against. Even in discussions that don't involve you. I'd like to suggest you move on.

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2010, 09:01 PM
Yes.

But am I right in assuming you would not allow an employer to fire for a specific reason if the employer had agreed a contract with the worker stating they would not fire for that reason?

And also, that if I found out an employer had fired a worker for a racist or sexist reason, and that I boycotted that employer's business permanently and stood outside their door with a sign insulting that employer for their action, you would uphold and defend my right to do so?

Rincewind
08-06-2010, 09:02 PM
Even in discussions that don't involve you. I'd like to suggest you move on.

Suggestion noted. However the Igoramus has on countless occasions called into question my logic and reasoning while at the same time expressing the most ludicrous opinions. Now maybe he really is a fascist (or a Victorian times mill owner) but how can anyone think that summary dismissal on racist or sexist grounds should be allowed? How can anyone with a primary school education or better think that dinosaurs could have possibly been just giant reptiles that got bigger. That's not even getting into the whole water canopy-green house effect can of worms. The guy is a first class twaddler and deserves everything he has received.

However in deference to your wishes I'll give his sorry arse a rest - in this thread at least.

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2010, 09:07 PM
Barry, a quick review of the last two pages has you dogging Igor with insults and insinuations - all unprovoked and not retaliated against.

#69 does on my reading count against "not retaliated against".

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 09:13 PM
But am I right in assuming you would not allow an employer to fire for a specific reason if the employer had agreed a contract with the worker stating they would not fire for that reason?

Correct. Good contract should ideally stipulate the valid reasons for firing and penalties for breaking the contract.


And also, that if I found out an employer had fired a worker for a racist or sexist reason, and that I boycotted that employer's business permanently and stood outside their door with a sign insulting that employer for their action, you would uphold and defend my right to do so?
You have the right to do so (as long as not on their property, of course).
Company with dubious employment practice can suffer a reputation loss, which serve as a natural restrain.

Before discussing further I'd like to see some hypothetical example. If someone is fired for a racist reason, why (s)he was hired in the first place?

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 09:22 PM
Suggestion noted. However the Igoramus has on countless occasions called into question my logic and reasoning
For a good reason.
I didn't question your decency, which is unnecessary given constant rudeness and name calling.



Now maybe he really is a fascist (or a Victorian times mill owner) but how can anyone think that summary dismissal on racist or sexist grounds should be allowed?

A child in kindergarten would obviously have a better understanding of basic economic principles.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 09:26 PM
Barry, a quick review of the last two pages has you dogging Igor with insults and insinuations - all unprovoked and not retaliated against. Even in discussions that don't involve you. I'd like to suggest you move on.
To be honest I don't pay much attention to this little twerp, he can keep yapping.

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2010, 09:26 PM
Before discussing further I'd like to see some hypothetical example. If someone is fired for a racist reason, why (s)he was hired in the first place?

A hypothetical example might be as follows. The employer has a given position available but the only competent applicant is of race X. The employer dislikes race X but needs the position filled, so they hire the applicant anyway. Two months later the employer finds out that another person of his own race wants the same position. The employer therefore fires the original applicant to replace him with a person of the preferred race.

A problem that more commonly arises is when people are fired not for race or gender but for lifestyle related or political reasons. For instance an employer hires a single woman and then fires her when she becomes pregnant. An employer hires a person without knowing their sexuality then fires them on finding out they are gay. An employer hires a person without knowing his political views then fires him on reading of his creationist views in threads on www.chesschat.org.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 09:36 PM
A hypothetical example might be as follows. The employer has a given position available but the only competent applicant is of race X. The employer dislikes race X but needs the position filled, so they hire the applicant anyway. Two months later the employer finds out that another person of his own race wants the same position. The employer therefore fires the original applicant to replace him with a person of the preferred race.

A problem that more commonly arises is when people are fired not for race or gender but for lifestyle related or political reasons. For instance an employer hires a single woman and then fires her when she becomes pregnant. An employer hires a person without knowing their sexuality then fires them on finding out they are gay. An employer hires a person without knowing his political views then fires him on reading of his creationist views in threads on www.chesschat.org.

I think it would be wrong for employer to fire for those reason, however (s)he should have the right to so.
Suppose you run a business and find that you dislike some employee so much (even without valid reason) that you can't work with him. So it's either fire him or close down the shop. What would you do?

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2010, 09:45 PM
Suppose you run a business and find that you dislike some employee so much (even without valid reason) that you can't work with him. So it's either fire him or close down the shop. What would you do?

If I dislike someone that intensely without a valid reason then I deserve to be out of business. I'd only be unable to work with someone if I had a valid reason for disliking them. For instance if that person had professionally defamed me.

But in any case the options given are not exhaustive. Explaining the situation to the employee and offering him a termination payment would be an alternative.

antichrist
08-06-2010, 09:52 PM
I can't think of any possible reason why anybody would not want to work with me. Esp of someone with an Isaeli background. Actually I have worked for Orthodox Jews many years ago, and no problem there. And I have had Zionists work for me and no problem again, we discuss everything and sort of come to an understanding.

TheJoker
08-06-2010, 10:48 PM
Consider the situation when an employer hires someone and doesn't realise he/she is of a particular religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and then unilaterally terminates that contract of employment once they find out. Given that the contract of employment is to perform a specific job unless the person unable to fulfil that contract then should the employer have the right to terminate that contract?

Mischa
08-06-2010, 11:37 PM
I voted disagree, as it's nobody's business what lady decides to wear.
The only half plausible reason for the ban is the issue of security, but any business/institution/organisation/building owner must have a right to refuse entry based on the dress code. Removing silly discrimination law is sufficient.
Everything else is just a puff of hot air.


You are making a huge assumption that it is her choice and not one that is forced upon her.
Perhaps the question should be more about individual liberties and rights free of persecution based on religious/sexist grounds ( at least).

Igor_Goldenberg
09-06-2010, 10:29 AM
You are making a huge assumption that it is her choice and not one that is forced upon her.
Perhaps the question should be more about individual liberties and rights free of persecution based on religious/sexist grounds ( at least).
Are you suggesting banning the burqa just in case it's not her choice?
There are already laws against force, applying them is sufficient without outright banning.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-06-2010, 10:48 AM
If I dislike someone that intensely without a valid reason then I deserve to be out of business. I'd only be unable to work with someone if I had a valid reason for disliking them. For instance if that person had professionally defamed me.

Bigoted businessman will find it much harder to succeed and more likely to go out of business. However, you are free to go if you dislike your boss. If you dislike your employee, are you stuck with him?


But in any case the options given are not exhaustive. Explaining the situation to the employee and offering him a termination payment would be an alternative.

Firing at will does not take away the right for proper notification and just termination package. Ideally it should be stipulated in the contract.


There are more problem with anti-discrimination law.

1. Suppose you dislike your employee because he is a combination of lazy ass and a smart politician who always tries to shift blame. You'll have trouble proving your case (remember, he is a scheming bastard!), especially in front of anti-discrimination commission that is often biased against employers.
If he is also of some racial, sexual or any other minority, you are doomed.

2. You have two applicant. One of them is heterosexual white male and another is Aboriginal lesbian. They both seem to have suitable qualification. However, you don't know whether they will work out or turn out to be an example above. It's your business and you also have a family to support, so money do matter.
You can do one of three things:
a. Hire Aboriginal lesbian to further the case of equality.
b. Hire heterosexual white male (lesser risk if he does not work out).
c. Offer Aboriginal lesbian substantially lower salary (as a premium of risk).

I think most employers will choose option b, some (of a gambling type) might try option c, very few would risk going with version a.

Aboriginal lesbian ends up losing in most cases, primarily because of anti-discrimination law.

arosar
09-06-2010, 11:51 AM
2. You have two applicant. One of them is heterosexual white male and another is Aboriginal lesbian. They both seem to have suitable qualification. However, you don't know whether they will work out or turn out to be an example above. It's your business and you also have a family to support, so money do matter.
You can do one of three things:
a. Hire Aboriginal lesbian to further the case of equality.
b. Hire heterosexual white male (lesser risk if he does not work out).
c. Offer Aboriginal lesbian substantially lower salary (as a premium of risk).

Iggy, maaaaaate, you gotta know I'm cool with you. But when you create this sort of scenario, no wonder Rincey has a good go. Quick question for you mate. How is race and sexuality relevant to job performance?

Cheers mate.

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
09-06-2010, 12:17 PM
Iggy, maaaaaate, you gotta know I'm cool with you. But when you create this sort of scenario, no wonder Rincey has a good go. Quick question for you mate. How is race and sexuality relevant to job performance?

Cheers mate.

AR
Performance is not relevant.
The risk of unfair dismissal case is.

antichrist
09-06-2010, 12:37 PM
Igor, what about when the lesbian Aborigine becomes a leftard Palistinian supporter who refuses to shave her armpits and gets tatoos everywhere?

Well Igor, I actually appreciate diversity - I find that they appreciate the chance to be given a go and work damn well - esp ex-cons. I also find that they are more mature because they already have had to deal with problems in life at the personal level.

Otherwise you can bods who just want to satisfy Centrelink job requirements and can't wait to be put off.

Spiny Norman
09-06-2010, 06:58 PM
Consider the situation when an employer hires someone and doesn't realise he/she is of a particular religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and then unilaterally terminates that contract of employment once they find out. Given that the contract of employment is to perform a specific job unless the person unable to fulfil that contract then should the employer have the right to terminate that contract?
Yes.

Given that the employee can terminate their employment (with appropriate notice) for any reason that takes their fancy, why can't the employer?

TheJoker
10-06-2010, 10:47 AM
Yes.

Given that the employee can terminate their employment (with appropriate notice) for any reason that takes their fancy, why can't the employer?

I think the difference is the employee is an individual and therefore has a different set of rights to the employer which is an organisation.

TheJoker
10-06-2010, 10:56 AM
Performance is not relevant.
The risk of unfair dismissal case is.

Got any evidence to suggest that option (a) represents a higher risk of an unfair dismissal case?

How are anti-discrimination laws relevant, given that they equally apply to discriminating against someone for being a white heterosexual male?

Desmond
10-06-2010, 11:12 AM
I think the difference is the employee is an individual and therefore has a different set of rights to the employer which is an organisation.There also is a massive difference in the effect terminating the job has on the employee as an individual as contrasted with the employer as an organisation. Many organisations would be employing multiple people to do the same or similar jobs. Say if you are employing 10 painters. The loss of one while it has an impact is not necessarily devastating as other can fill the gap in the immediate term. Contrast with an employee who has 1 job. End that job and you end most if not all income.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 12:05 PM
There also is a massive difference in the effect terminating the job has on the employee as an individual as contrasted with the employer as an organisation. Many organisations would be employing multiple people to do the same or similar jobs. Say if you are employing 10 painters. The loss of one while it has an impact is not necessarily devastating as other can fill the gap in the immediate term. Contrast with an employee who has 1 job. End that job and you end most if not all income.

It depends on:
1. the company size.

Large company with 10 painters will easily cope with one of them leaving, especially if he is ordinary. A smaller company will have it very tough when a skilled professional leave. It takes time (and effort!) to find a replacement, plus it takes time for the new person to get familiar with the task and up to speed.

2. Employee skills and profession.
Airline pilot will have trouble finding a job with similar remuneration outside the field (his skills are very specific), and there aren't too many airlines to find alternative employment.
A skilled carpenter in a metropolitan area won't struggle as much.

The main point - it's a two way street. The pilot definitely needs a stricter contract (and ideally generous unemployment insurance if possible) then a carpenter.
Small business will be less likely to agree for a strict binding contract - too much risk.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 12:08 PM
Got any evidence to suggest that option (a) represents a higher risk of an unfair dismissal case?

How are anti-discrimination laws relevant, given that they equally apply to discriminating against someone for being a white heterosexual male?
Is it a joke?
Care to site successful anti-discrimination suit from white heterosexual male (on that basis)?

TheJoker
10-06-2010, 01:09 PM
Care to site successful anti-discrimination suit from white heterosexual male (on that basis)?

I don't know of any of hand, but I doubt there are many cases of discrimination on that basis. I am all of the above, and the only time I've ever felt discriminated against is when I have been subject to racial discrimination overseas.

Let's assume you are right and option (a) represents a higher risk of an unfair dismissal case due to anti-discrimination legislation and the provides a disincentive to employ the person. Wouldn't the employer also consider the risk of an anti-discrimination case for not hiring the person and therefore this would act as an incentive to hire the person.

What sought of risk are we talking about here, what percentage of employees lodge unwarranted anti-discrimination suits. I'd assume it is insignificant, I doubt anyone who wasn't predjudice would even take that risk into account.

I'd say if you consider hiring an Aboriginal Lesbian to be significant risk, then you are probably right, since you already seem to be exhibiting the type of predjudice that results in real discrimination.

Desmond
10-06-2010, 01:16 PM
It depends on:
1. the company size.

Large company with 10 painters will easily cope with one of them leaving, especially if he is ordinary. A smaller company will have it very tough when a skilled professional leave. It takes time (and effort!) to find a replacement, plus it takes time for the new person to get familiar with the task and up to speed.

2. Employee skills and profession.
Airline pilot will have trouble finding a job with similar remuneration outside the field (his skills are very specific), and there aren't too many airlines to find alternative employment.
A skilled carpenter in a metropolitan area won't struggle as much.

The main point - it's a two way street. The pilot definitely needs a stricter contract (and ideally generous unemployment insurance if possible) then a carpenter.
Small business will be less likely to agree for a strict binding contract - too much risk.Re skilled workers leaving, yes many of my customers have this problem. Take someone on, train and invest in them, and then 9-12 months later they piss off to a competitor who offers them an extra $10k. Solution, outsource to a larger company who does have the ability to offer the skilled worker an attractive package to retain them. I don't think trying to nail them down with extensive contracts is really a viable option.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 01:54 PM
Let's assume you are right and option (a) represents a higher risk of an unfair dismissal case due to anti-discrimination legislation and the provides a disincentive to employ the person. Wouldn't the employer also consider the risk of an anti-discrimination case for not hiring the person and therefore this would act as an incentive to hire the person.

The risk of anti-discrimination case for not hiring is much lower then in the case of firing.



What sought of risk are we talking about here, what percentage of employees lodge unwarranted anti-discrimination suits. I'd assume it is insignificant, I doubt anyone who wasn't predjudice would even take that risk into account.

Anyone who had a first-hand experience in running business, especially the small one, is aware of such risk.


I'd say if you consider hiring an Aboriginal Lesbian to be significant risk, then you are probably right, since you already seem to be exhibiting the type of predjudice that results in real discrimination.

No wonder lefties are usually the first to scream racism.
They are also more likely to be economically clueless.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 01:56 PM
Re skilled workers leaving, yes many of my customers have this problem. Take someone on, train and invest in them, and then 9-12 months later they piss off to a competitor who offers them an extra $10k. Solution, outsource to a larger company who does have the ability to offer the skilled worker an attractive package to retain them. I don't think trying to nail them down with extensive contracts is really a viable option.
I don't think it's even legally possible.

Desmond
10-06-2010, 02:38 PM
I don't think it's even legally possible.
I've seen clauses in contracts like "cannot work for competitor for x time after employment ends". I don't know if it's enforcable or not.

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2010, 03:16 PM
You are making a huge assumption that it is her choice and not one that is forced upon her.

Perhaps the question should be more about individual liberties and rights free of persecution based on religious/sexist grounds ( at least).
If you had read the thread properly, you would have realized that we had already discussed cases of force v choice. I.e. it is not the burqa that should be banned, but coercion of someone to wear it. By coercion, I mean threats of violence. But who are we to tell a woman that a burqa in itself is proof of force; if she wants to wear the silly thing, she should be allowed to wear it.

arosar
10-06-2010, 03:27 PM
I've seen clauses in contracts like "cannot work for competitor for x time after employment ends". I don't know if it's enforcable or not.

You're talking about a restraint clause and yes, it's enforceable. But it has to be 'reasonable', meaning that it can only be used under very specific circumstances, types of employment, time periods, industries, geographic areas, etc, etc.

I don't know if restraint clauses are common in blue collar work, such as painting, but they'd certainly be common in 'knowledge industries'.

AR

antichrist
10-06-2010, 03:33 PM
Igor, if you employed a Jew coz you wanted a Jew, fair enough nothing wrong with that. But that Jew then converts to a Jews for Jesus leaving you literally and figuratively crossed. and the rest of the crew are Ultra Orthodox Jews and are real upset.

what do you do?

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 04:02 PM
Igor, if you employed a Jew coz you wanted a Jew, fair enough nothing wrong with that. But that Jew then converts to a Jews for Jesus leaving you literally and figuratively crossed. and the rest of the crew are Ultra Orthodox Jews and are real upset.

what do you do?
Ask the mods to create a special thread for you obsessions with anti-Semitism. I an not interested in indulging you.

arosar
10-06-2010, 04:06 PM
Ask the mods to create a special thread for you obsessions with anti-Semitism. I an not interested in indulging you.

C'mon mate. That's a bit rich. Everyone else has indulged you.

It's a fair hypothetical. So what do you do?

And btw, Helen Thomas, who has since retired, is actually of Lebo heritage.

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 04:17 PM
C'mon mate. That's a bit rich. Everyone else has indulged you.
As indulged in repeatedly (at least for the last five year I visited the forum) vilifying particular group?



And btw, Helen Thomas, who has since retired, is actually of Lebo heritage.
AR
And the point is?

arosar
10-06-2010, 04:25 PM
And the point is?

No point...just sayin'.

Now can you please answer A/C's question? Thanks muchly.

AR

antichrist
10-06-2010, 04:38 PM
Ask the mods to create a special thread for you obsessions with anti-Semitism. I an not interested in indulging you.

Igor, that was not anti-Semitism. I was just playing on the fact that the other day a Jew For Jesus told me that they have converted 350,000 Israeli Jews to Jews for Jesus. (also that Ultra Orthox Jews are physically confronting the prosletisers in the streets making it unsafe for them)

As I have mentioned elsewhere it puts the whole equasion for when God is supposed to return or whatever scenario out of kilter. I don't know if these bods what they are playing with.

Maybe God is like on a yo yo string - and everytime the prophesy is almost fulfilled He is half way down here, but when those Jews converted to Jesus He hung on to the string and got pulled back up to Heaven again.

Hope he does not suffer from motion sickness or ear pressure problems we have in aeroplanes.

antichrist
10-06-2010, 04:43 PM
Igor, about possible anti-Semitism it is not that just me.

I have been bashed up at demo-ing against the Pope by my own Lebo Christian fello countrymen.

I try not to discriminate or favour what I would be doing if I ignored one group.

Though I must admit with a lot of Israeli fascist actions it is tempting to become anti-Jew but am so successful resisting.

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2010, 04:49 PM
C'mon mate. That's a bit rich. Everyone else has indulged you.
Crap; it was clearly Jew-baiting from a known Israel-hater (just the modern form of antisemite).


It's a fair hypothetical. So what do you do?
It's hard to believe it was a real question: the principles already laid out here should make it clear what the answer would be.

antichrist
10-06-2010, 05:01 PM
Crap; it was clearly Jew-baiting from a known Israel-hater (just the modern form of antisemite).


.

And Jono what term should reasonable-minded Jews who support Palestinian rights be calling extremist Zionist Jews who accuse them of being "self-hating Jew", and much worse that I currently forget?

As stated yesterday a Jewish mate of mine here was in anti-Israel demo on Saturday.

Extreme Zionist Jews most unfortunately have badly polluted the Jewish good name. Arrogance can hold up so long, and it's time is rapidly coming to an end.

TheJoker
10-06-2010, 05:05 PM
Anyone who had a first-hand experience in running business, especially the small one, is aware of such risk.

Aware probably, a major concern in the sourcing of staff, I'd say no. Perhaps its biased by work environment but my branch consist of 3 Anglos (Oz, UK, US), 3 Chinese (Malaysia, HK, PRC), 2 Indians, 1 Cambodian, 1 Russian, 1 Vietnamese. According to your alarmism that would represent as massive risk in terms of racial discrimination cases. In reality that's just bollocks


lefties are usually the first to scream racism.


Ask the mods to create a special thread for you obsessions with anti-Semitism.

:hmm:

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 05:09 PM
No point...just sayin'.

Now can you please answer A/C's question? Thanks muchly.

AR
OK. Suppose a/c runs a busines. Let's assume he only employs antisemitic atheists regulary attending Hamas rallies; suppose one of them embraces Buddism, stops attending Hamas rallies and accepts Israel's right to exist;
That would create some tensions in a previously closely-knit collective.
In this case a/c can fire him, no problem.

antichrist
10-06-2010, 05:12 PM
OK. Suppose a/c runs a busines. Let's assume he only employs antisemitic atheists regulary attending Hamas rallies; suppose one of them embraces Buddism, stops attending Hamas rallies and accepts Israel's right to exist;
That would create some tensions in a previously closely-knit collective.
In this case a/c can fire him, no problem.

Sorry Igor, but your premises dont add up. If are atheist would not be attending Hamas rallys as it is a religious group. During anti nuke days I kept away from Christian anti nuke rallies.

I did apprec your effort though and please try again.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 05:13 PM
Sorry Igor, but your premises dont add up. If are atheist would not be attending Hamas rallys
There were quite a few last week around the world.

Spiny Norman
10-06-2010, 07:05 PM
I think the difference is the employee is an individual and therefore has a different set of rights to the employer which is an organisation.
That is true, in so far as (in the legal sense) employees are natural persons, whereas companies are just persons. But it gets more murky when you consider that many employers are not companies but are partnerships (i.e. a partnership of natural persons).

TheJoker
11-06-2010, 10:42 AM
That is true, in so far as (in the legal sense) employees are natural persons, whereas companies are just persons. But it gets more murky when you consider that many employers are not companies but are partnerships (i.e. a partnership of natural persons).

It get even murkier if you consider employees usually have a greater right to the cashflows of the organisation than equity holders (i.e. law usually requires employees to be paid first). Question can then be made as to why it is the equity holders that have all the decision making power given that in many modern businesses the human capital is more valuable than the financial capital. I think its only fair that the reason for denying that person access to future cashflows of the organisation, should be that they are not adequetely contributing to the generation of those cahsflows, or other serious misconduct.

antichrist
11-06-2010, 08:30 PM
There were quite a few last week around the world.

Of course. But you also remember that Israel fostered Hamas as an opposition to PLO, os it is also partly Israel's deliquent baby.

It also happens to be democratically elected Govt of Palestine - and isn't Israel always raving about being the only democratically govt in the Middle East. What a load of popcock! Then Israel would not respect such a govt - why does other countries have to suck up to Israel for everything - when all Israel have done received stolen goods and took more first hand.

I can't wait for a Turkish warship to escort another shipload of aid direct to Gaza - Israel will be pissweak when it comes to someone who also may have modern weapons. Take the weapons off those commanders the other day and they were tossed in the ocean - Israeli commandos have been proven gutless a few times before too even when having superior firepower.

Often big bullies are gutless when met with someone their own size. Have seen it personally a few times actually. The Skull (Ross May) in Sydney he was one - that neo Nazi guy.

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2010, 03:44 PM
It also happens to be democratically elected Govt of Palestine - and isn't Israel always raving about being the only democratically govt in the Middle East.
Hamas maimed and killed opponents, unlike Israeli governments.


I can't wait for a Turkish warship to escort another shipload of aid direct to Gaza - Israel will be pissweak when it comes to someone who also may have modern weapons.
Remains to be seen. Israel can warn the Turks, and it's doubtful whether they would try an invasion if Israel attacked any ship that tried to break the blockade to ship "aid" (i.e. weapons) to the terrorists.


Take the weapons off those commanders the other day and they were tossed in the ocean
By these "peace activists"; yeah, we know.


- Israeli commandos have been proven gutless a few times before too even when having superior firepower.
Rubbish: they have been forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs in a futile effort to appease Western antisemites.


The Skull (Ross May) in Sydney he was one - that neo Nazi guy.
You'd probably get on well with him; both of you hate Jews.

antichrist
13-06-2010, 05:10 PM
Originally Posted by antichrist
The Skull (Ross May) in Sydney he was one - that neo Nazi guy.

Jono
You'd probably get on well with him; both of you hate Jews.

AC
Now JOno, first of all can I ask you to edit out the remarks in your above post that I have quoted here. Because they are simply not true. I hate injustice which just happens to be carried out by very arrogant people. Not all Jews are arrogant, I have stated many times some are the best in the world. There are plenty of Israeli Jewish groups who fight very hard for Palestinian rights and get abused by extremist Jews. HOw could I turn my back on them when they are sticking up for others and copping flax from their own people for doing so. Even on this board I have seen such hatred.

I can look my Jewish friends in the eye with a clear conscious.

Albert Einstein in 1955 (?) said something like "Israel (or Jews) will be judged on how they treat their Arab minority. Well unfortunately they failed the test very badly.

antichrist
13-06-2010, 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by antichrist
It also happens to be democratically elected Govt of Palestine - and isn't Israel always raving about being the only democratically govt in the Middle East.

Jono
Hamas maimed and killed opponents, unlike Israeli governments.

AC
Israel have never stopped killing opponents. Who bombed the King David hotel with the poms in it? Who bombed the US warship killing many about 30 years ago (and they were supposed to be friends)? Who has killed thousands of Palestinians who are freedom fighters just trying to get their territory back?

Why don't you pick on the Germans instead who caused most of the recent trouble? Germans for what I gather, for umpteens less reason than the Palestinians have, were 1000,000 more terrible to the Jews than the Palestinians have been. Where is the Torah eye for an eye?? Israel have only hunted down a few handful of Nazi leaders. Why Israel not go and wipe out Germany instead of innocent people just trying to get their land back.

antichrist
13-06-2010, 05:25 PM
Originally Posted by antichrist
I can't wait for a Turkish warship to escort another shipload of aid direct to Gaza - Israel will be pissweak when it comes to someone who also may have modern weapons.

Jono
Remains to be seen. Israel can warn the Turks, and it's doubtful whether they would try an invasion if Israel attacked any ship that tried to break the blockade to ship "aid" (i.e. weapons) to the terrorists.

AC
why do you have to distort aid into weapons? And if weapons so what? There have been freedom fighters of different ilks for thousands of years what is so different about today? Israel bombed thousands of buildings in Gaza and now refuses to let in the cement to repair them. Great Nazis Israel has become. Turkey, like many other countries was shocked by the Israeli invasions of Lebanon and Gaza - the world has changed and Israel can't quite get away with Gestapo tactics like it could before.

antichrist
13-06-2010, 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
Take the weapons off those commanders the other day and they were tossed in the ocean

JOno
By these "peace activists"; yeah, we know.

AC
If Israel did not raid their ship in international waters they would have just been justice activists - but once the illegal Israeli raid was on they just grabbed whatever they could. Why has the world got to kowtow to fascist Israel - Chosen People bulldust - tell us another one.

antichrist
13-06-2010, 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
- Israeli commandos have been proven gutless a few times before too even when having superior firepower.

Jono
Rubbish: they have been forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs in a futile effort to appease Western antisemites.

AC
What do you mean one hand behind their back. Israel have used fighter planes with bombs on people with no air defense or anti-aircraft guns.
And used cluster bombs from far away. But when they had to go "hand to hand" through the suburbs of Beirut (though they had superior rifles) they chickened out. Palestinian rockets could not hit a country poophouse - about 20 people at most in 10 years. Israel kills thousands in a few days. But still they cannot break the will of people fighting for their homeland. What a disgrace to international Jewry Israel has become. One hundred years ago they could have held their head up.

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2010, 01:12 PM
What do you mean one hand behind their back.
Any other country would go in all guns blazing against an enemy that fires rockets at this country's people, and shouts their aim of annihilating said country. They would eliminate this threat, just as the Allies did in WW2, and Israel did in the 6-day War.


Israel have used fighter planes with bombs on people with no air defense or anti-aircraft guns.
When? Pity they don't use them on places that shoot rockets.


And used cluster bombs from far away. But when they had to go "hand to hand" through the suburbs of Beirut (though they had superior rifles) they chickened out.
An example of fighting with one hand behind their backs. If the Allies were confronted with Nazi armed resistance in a suburb, they would have levelled any house from which a shot was fired.


Palestinian rockets could not hit a country poophouse - about 20 people at most in 10 years. Israel kills thousands in a few days.
What, you also believe the Jenin massacre hoax?


But still they cannot break the will of people fighting for their homeland.
There was no such nation as Arab Palestine.


What a disgrace to international Jewry Israel has become.
For wanting to live in peace.

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2010, 12:31 AM
This Is Rare Courage (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/mona-charen/2010/06/18/this-is-rare-courage/)
By Mona Charen, 18 June 2010



Like other major liberal outlets, The [NY] Times has been utterly derelict in reporting about another aspect of life among American Muslims — honor killing.

When it comes to the brutal slayings of young Muslim women by their fathers, brothers, or husbands, The Times gets squeamish.

As Ms. Hirsi Ali relates, this misplaced sensitivity arises from the cult of multiculturalism, which would rather tolerate egregious crimes against women than offend Third World sensibilities. When the Said sisters, 19-year-old Amina and 17-year-old Sarah, were shot and killed by their father, Yaser Said, in a suburb of Dallas in late 2007, the story was buried. Though the father had been enraged by his elder daughter's refusal to submit to an arranged marriage and by news that both girls had been secretly dating non-Muslim boys, the few stories about the case were careful to dismiss suggestions of honor killing. The Times failed to cover the story. (It was mentioned, briefly, in an opinion piece.)

Hirsi Ali offers many more examples of honor killings here in America that have received scant or, in many cases, euphemistic coverage. Fearful of stereotyping Muslims, journalists often characterize these crimes as ordinary domestic violence. Five months after the Said girls' murders, an Afghan immigrant in Henrietta, N.Y., stabbed his 19-year-old sister to death because she frequented clubs and wore "immodest" clothing. In January 2008, a Pakistani immigrant living in Jonesboro, Ga., murdered his 25-year-old daughter by strangling her with the cord from an iron when she announced that she wanted to divorce her (arranged) husband.

Hirsi Ali, a refugee in every sense from the Muslim world, pleads for Western feminists to ride to the rescue of the hundreds of millions of Muslim women and girls who are abused, mutilated, sold, traded, beaten, and hidden away in the Muslim world. "But the more pressing business is what feminists can do now to prevent an alien culture of oppression from taking root in the West … This is what Americans can learn from Europe's experience with Muslim immigration: we simply cannot compromise our own principles by tolerating honor killing, female genital mutilation, and other such practices."


Kevin Bonham
19-06-2010, 02:53 AM
In my view, in those western nations where the sentence for murder is not automatically life without parole (or execution, which is a different story), there's a case for bracketing honour killings alongside hate crimes as types of murder deserving longer sentences because of the complete unacceptability of the pretext for murder and the need to strongly discourage such a pretext. But I don't think that would sit well with Jono's view that singling out particular murders (eg under hate crimes law) isn't on.

Not that it will matter. I can say all I like that the whole honour killing thing is an illiberal, despicable and sexist abomination and that any religious figure who endorses it is vile and should be charged with incitement, but that won't stop Jono calling me politically correct whenever an attitude I have concerning Islam is disagreeable to him. :P

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2010, 07:47 AM
In my view, in those western nations where the sentence for murder is not automatically life without parole (or execution, which is a different story), there's a case for bracketing honour killings alongside hate crimes as types of murder deserving longer sentences because of the complete unacceptability of the pretext for murder and the need to strongly discourage such a pretext. But I don't think that would sit well with Jono's view that singling out particular murders (eg under hate crimes law) isn't on.
It wouldn't, not that I disagree with the vileness of "honour" killings. I also think there are degrees of vileness of murder, but not that some victims are more important than others. Gay leftist columnist Andrew Sullivan admitted (New Republic Online, 2 April 2001):


The same politics lies behind the media's tendency to extensively cover ‘hate crimes’ against blacks, while ignoring black ‘non-hate crimes’ against whites (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams122607.php3). What we are seeing, I fear, is a logical consequence of the culture that hate-crimes rhetoric promotes. Some deaths—if they affect a politically protected class—are worth more than others. Other deaths, those that do not fit a politically correct profile, are left to oblivion. The leading gay rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign—which has raised oodles of cash exploiting the horror of Shepard’s murder (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1)—has said nothing whatsoever about the Dirkhising case (http://covenantnews.com/dirkhising.htm) [or the Mary Stachowicz case (http://americansfortruth.com/news/matthew-shepard-vs-mary-stachowicz-why-did-ap-hype-one-murder-victim-and-ignore-the-other.html)—Jono].


Not that it will matter. I can say all I like that the whole honour killing thing is an illiberal, despicable and sexist abomination and that any religious figure who endorses it is vile and should be charged with incitement,
I agree that they should be charged, including Sarcofelis Hilaly, allowed into Australia by Keating.


but that won't stop Jono calling me politically correct whenever an attitude I have concerning Islam is disagreeable to him. :P
Not in this case.

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2010, 11:37 PM
Syrian minister bans burqas in schools (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3921550,00.html)
Higher education minister prohibits face veils, saying they negate academic values

antichrist
20-07-2010, 11:47 PM
I agree that they should be charged, including Sarcofelis Hilaly, allowed into Australia by Keating. - Jono

Is that the sheik of leaving the meat out for cats fame?

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2010, 11:53 PM
I agree that they should be charged, including Sarcofelis Hilaly, allowed into Australia by Keating. - Jono

Is that the sheik of leaving the meat out for cats fame?
Yes, from Greek σαρξ σαρκο– flesh, and the root of feline. A somewhat inelegant Greek-Latin hybrid.

arosar
25-11-2010, 11:32 PM
Take a look at this: say no to burqas (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/complaint-lodged-over-burqa-mural-20101125-18967.html).

Youse got a problem with this mural? Seems to me this bloke is just making a political statement no different to any other political statement. And on his private property.

I can't understand what this woman's whinin' about.

AR

antichrist
26-11-2010, 07:05 AM
Take a look at this: say no to burqas (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/complaint-lodged-over-burqa-mural-20101125-18967.html).

Youse got a problem with this mural? Seems to me this bloke is just making a political statement no different to any other political statement. And on his private property.

I can't understand what this woman's whinin' about.

AR

AR, it is a stage that some go though of identity, politics and culture. That is not when enforced by the male as some may be. Of course it is un-Australian for whatever that is worth. And when I was young they would have definitely frightened the horses, taking that into account, it is no wonder that the humans get turned off as well.

Find me odd if you like, but I even find them a bit seductive. Takes all types.