If I may...
It has already been stated, ad nauseam, that you are wrong about quotas and are wrong about qualification parameters. Furry, it's your country. The least you could do is educate yourself on your own laws.
And the very least you can do is look at the timing of the post. I admit that I was incorrect regarding quotas.
However I disagree with the fact that our equal opportunities policies do not amount to AA. Lets go back to this and you can explain where I am wrong.
"The term affirmative action refers to policies that take race, ethnicity, or gender into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity."
"The Equal Pay Act 1970 (EPA) (amended 1983)" - Takes into account gender
The Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) 1975 (amended 1986) - Again takes gender into account.
Race Relations Act 1976 and Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
The Race Relations Act 1976 makes it unlawful to discriminate against anyone on grounds of race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origin. It applies to jobs, training, housing, education and the provision of goods, facilities and services.
The amended Act also imposes positive duties on many public authorities to promote racial equality.
The Employment equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
This offers protection for workers from discrimination and harassment at work on grounds of religion or belief. It covers all aspects of the employment relationship, including recruitment, pay, working conditions, training, promotion, dismissal and references.
Please explain how they do not fit the given definition. If you disagree with the given definition then please provide your own and valid reasons why the one given is wrong.
Calling someone by a certain commonly referred-to label is not racist. Using a title in a derogatory manner isn't racist. Being racist is racist. The problem with using labels that are commonly perceived as offensive is that when you use such labels, people "assume" you are racist. If you are not racist, then you would more than likely make a sincere effort not to be perceived as racist, and would thus not use labels that are perceived as racist.
I think that's pretty simple.
Fair enough, but who actually decided that African Americans (and other minorities that fall under this) were offended by being called Black? Or Coloured? Was it the minorities themselves? Or was it by a white group? If so with reference to the minorities affected by this?
If white people can make a choice of what is offensive for a completely unrelated group then anyone can make a choice of what is offensive for a certain group.
[sarcasm]As such I hereby state that the term Blonde is henchforth to be percieved as discriminatory towards light haired people. They shall hence forth be known as Chickity Chickty Wa Was.
[/sarcasm]
Still are? Furry, even with all the evidence presented, you still claim caucasions are oppressed? Segregation is real, the impacts are real, the KKK is real, skinheads are real. Racism is real. Grossly caucasion-dominated upper management is real. The huge disparity in incomes is real. Middle-aged
African Americans, Hispanics, Asians and women are still dealing with the physical ramifications of the fear imposed by blatant racism/sexism. Affirmative action is not about,
"bringing the man down," it's about striving for equality. Something that clearly doesn't presently exist.
If you actually took the time to read my post and not scan read it then you would realise that I actually said SOME, not all SOME. Therefore the fact that you say "Segregation is real, the impacts are real, the KKK is real, skinheads are real. Racism is real. Grossly caucasion-dominated upper management is real. The huge disparity in incomes is real." Makes no difference to the fact that SOME Caucasions are oppressed.
I also at no point deny that others are oppressed. I simply question the blinkered view held by many that Caucasions cannot be oppressed as they are the origional oppressors. 2 Wrongs doesn't make a right, the fact that we(white males) did commit so many wrongs doesn't make it acceptable for wrongs to be commited against them.
Furry, it seems to me you're far too invested in your stance. I'm willing to continue these discussions but, somewhere along the way, I would like to think you aren't just trying to win a debate.
I would ike to continue them, not from the point of trying to win a debate but from the point of view of sharing opinions and reasoning.
I personally believe strongly in what I am saying as I personally believe that in the not too distant future the white male will be oppressed, and any attempt to stop it will be met with cries of racism/sexism/ageism etc.