Freedom from racism

[xtermin8or]

You see, you are in this precarious position of being required to reason and explain why some forms of racism are "fair" or, correctly, acceptable.

For me, racism cannot be acceptable. It just cannot while we wish to have an equal and free society. If you believe racism can be justified under certain conditions, then that is your prerogative, just don't expect that everyone will agree and be happy about it.

The true cost of these policies will only be seen in a number of years. Hopefully by then we will have a government with vision that wont keep repeating the same mistakes.

I have provided argument for my belief, all those arguing against me have only raised comments like " Discrimination is unfair period " come on okes argue the point with counter points, not just stating your belief, it takes us nowhere

 

[icyrus]

@ BobbyMac - I thought I pointed it out clearly, when I gave you the definition of the word - it means to distinguish, tell apart, and this can be done fairly and is at times even necessary

You are looking at the most convientent definition for your agenda, not the one that applies in this context.

discriminate |disˈkriməˌnāt| verb [ intrans. ]
1 recognize a distinction; differentiate : babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion. See note at distinguish . • [ trans. ] perceive or constitute the difference in or between : bats can discriminate a difference in echo delay of between 69 and 98 millionths of a second | features that discriminate this species from other gastropods.
2 make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, sex, or age : existing employment policies discriminate against women.

This startup family business, could look into partnerships with other businesses to achieve BEE status, and not lose their business. The problem is that businesses like these refuse to transform and so will have to suffer the consequences. Now I am not saying that they have to give up their business, or give half of the shares away, but they can find black businesses or business people they can team up with for mutual benefit

And what if there is no need for this partnership? Why introduce something that serves no purpose.

 

[Sneeky]

@ BobbyMac - I thought I pointed it out clearly, when I gave you the definition of the word - it means to distinguish, tell apart, and this can be done fairly and is at times even necessary

If you are white or have a white business the new regime deems it FAIR to DISTINGUISH you right out of the equation.
If it look like ****, smells like ****, it is ****.

 

[icyrus]

I have provided argument for my belief, all those arguing against me have only raised comments like " Discrimination is unfair period " come on okes argue the point with counter points, not just stating your belief, it takes us nowhere

You cannot prove a belief. You can just state it and give reason for why you think it is justified.

I would love to see how you would go about proving that racism is justifiable.

 

[Sneeky]

This startup family business, could look into partnerships with other businesses to achieve BEE status, and not lose their business. The problem is that businesses like these refuse to transform and so will have to suffer the consequences. Now I am not saying that they have to give up their business, or give half of the shares away, but they can find black businesses or business people they can team up with for mutual benefit

My friend, a family business should not have to transform anything, the business itself was started under the new regime, post appartheid, it is niche and it will close down because of BEE. That is how the new regime 'distinguish'.

 

[xtermin8or]

So then, XT, what is your definition of fair discrimination. I accept that blind bus drivers should not be discriminated against, but why white employees and white owned companies. Does that not by your own definitions constitute unfair discrimination?

According to the sufferers of apartheid, discrimination according to race clearly impaired peoples dignity. Yet, we are seeing the same discrimination according to race.

Ironically, however, this again impairs black peoples dignity, since it implies that they will not be able to make it in life without handouts.

Equity legislation in this country, aims to level the playing field, an attempt at giving people equal opportunities. Opportunities they could not take advantage of because of years of oppression.

AA and BEE is corrective action and does not punish white people, it is called equity ( look up what the word means ) so in South Africa everyone has an equal opportunity black and white

 

[xtermin8or]

You cannot prove a belief. You can just state it and give reason for why you think it is justified.

I would love to see how you would go about proving that racism is justifiable.

semantics - that is exactly what I have done

 

[icyrus]

Equity legislation in this country, aims to level the playing field, an attempt at giving people equal opportunities. Opportunities they could not take advantage of because of years of oppression.

AA and BEE is corrective action and does not punish white people, it is called equity ( look up what the word means ) so in South Africa everyone has an equal opportunity black and white

That is the dream, not anywhere near the reality. Please tell me you can at least see that, or else this is most pointless.

 

[xtermin8or]

My friend, a family business should not have to transform anything, the business itself was started under the new regime, post appartheid, it is niche and it will close down because of BEE. That is how the new regime 'distinguish'.

The fact that you said they were losing business to BEE compliant firms, means that they sat back refusing to transform, if they were the only ones in the country doing the business, they would still have business. So they refused to transform when they could, and now Black owned businesses are getting the clients.

Maybe the business owners should look at their own complacency and incompetence in running the business and think why they didn't adapt when they could.

change is difficult, but is necessary, whatever the circumstances

 

[icyrus]

The fact that you said they were losing business to BEE compliant firms, means that they sat back refusing to transform, if they were the only ones in the country doing the business, they would still have business. So they refused to transform when they could, and now Black owned businesses are getting the clients.

Maybe the business owners should look at their own complacency and incompetence in running the business and think why they didn't adapt when they could.

change is difficult, but is necessary, whatever the circumstances

What you are saying is that people should be employed, whether as new hires or replacements - based solely on the fact that they are black?

 

[xtermin8or]

That is the dream, not anywhere near the reality. Please tell me you can at least see that, or else this is most pointless.

This is sadly the reality in some companies, certain sectors of the private sector have decided to implement equity legislation more like window dressing than anything else, this is certainly not helpful and certainly not the intention of the legislation, so I believe an intensification of the monitoring system is necessary.

Thankfully there are many companies who have implemented the system properly.

 

[xtermin8or]

What you are saying is that people should be employed, whether as new hires or replacements - based solely on the fact that they are black?

They should be hired based on their qualifications, with preference being given to those from Previously Disadvantaged Groups, this is what the act says.

 

[kilo39]

This is sadly the reality in some companies, certain sectors of the private sector have decided to implement equity legislation more like window dressing than anything else, this is certainly not helpful and certainly not the intention of the legislation, so I believe an intensification of the monitoring system is necessary.

Thankfully there are many companies who have implemented the system properly.

You guys sound just like the nats. Tear up all that "black book" material and maybe business and overseas investment would have a better view of the country (oh but that would be difficult with a prez who thinks anti-crime campaigns are racist.)

 

[icyrus]

They should be hired based on their qualifications, with preference being given to those from Previously Disadvantaged Groups, this is what the act says.

Now what if the company is not growing at the time. It is what it is, should it replace is current staff for the sake of being black enough?

I am starting to think this is a lost cause. I can not abide racism and you could justify the holocaust.

 

[Sneeky]

The fact that you said they were losing business to BEE compliant firms, means that they sat back refusing to transform, if they were the only ones in the country doing the business, they would still have business. So they refused to transform when they could, and now Black owned businesses are getting the clients.

Maybe the business owners should look at their own complacency and incompetence in running the business and think why they didn't adapt when they could.

change is difficult, but is necessary, whatever the circumstances

The point is extermin8tor is that they refused nothing.
Refused to give away a portion of the business or diversify into areas which made no sense to incorporate a new partner maybe.

The point is they should not have to transform anything, why should they?
I can see the reasoning behind big corporates and listed companys having to 'TRANSFORM', but one man band operations, please man, thats just blatant abuse of policy and racism. The international companies seem to agree with this stance and it amounts to expropriation or moneygrabbing.

THE ITALIAN owners of two granite firms are suing SA for €266m, arguing that laws which force firms to sell stakes to black investors violated international investment treaties, the investors’ lawyer said on Friday.

The action marks the first legal action alleging that SA’s mining charter, which seeks to boost involvement of blacks in a sector that excluded them during apartheid, amounts to expropriation.

Had this policy not been so unilaterally forced down from government on their suppliers and the suppliers suppliers inturn, this would not happen, but in the euphoria that is BEE, BBEEE, Transformation and distinguishing as you put it, the policy is unfair.

 

[Sneeky]

They should be hired based on their qualifications, with preference being given to those from Previously Disadvantaged Groups, this is what the act says.

If you find that the ones with higher qualifications are white, best you look a bit harder until you find a suitable candidate to dolly up your BEE footprint, or you to will loose your business.
So in short, throw the qualifications out the window, save time and hire the non white person, that is the reality.

 

[Sneeky]

Maybe the business owners should look at their own complacency and incompetence in running the business and think why they didn't adapt when they could.

The company turns over a healthy profit through hard work and effort, it took a few years but it does now, hardly incompitent.
Under 50 employees you should not have to comply with anything. (I think that is the guideline and the compliment is 3)

 

[xtermin8or]

Now what if the company is not growing at the time. It is what it is, should it replace is current staff for the sake of being black enough?

I am starting to think this is a lost cause. I can not abide racism and you could justify the holocaust.

Equity legislation is not racism, it is corrective action, and the average white person is not being punished or opressed, as the employment figures and distribution of wealth in the country very clearly show.

as for the holocaust, Hitler truly believed that he was saving Germany from socio-economic doom, as he himself said

Perhaps we are inhumane! But if we save Germany, we have accomplished the greatest deed in the world

Just Kidding okes

 

[Bageloo]

Discrimination, by definition, is always unfair. Period.

Coat it in honey all you want. It is unfair by all definitions.

Discrimination is not always unfair. There is what is called positive discrimination which refers to measures that specifically favour a particular category of people in order to make up for their consistent under-representation in society. Such discriminiation, by definition is fair. Affirmative Action and BEE fits this definition very well despite what the like of Bobby, Skeptik, Marine1, Getafix, Alan85 to name just a few would like us to believe.

Another example of discrimination that is very fair is the parking bays at the shopping mall that are reserved for the paraplegics. Those bays are wider and closer to the entrance and are specifically reserved for people who are handicapped. An able-bodied person who insists on parking on those bays ahead of a paraplegic would be labelled an as&hole by most of the sensible human beings here even though that is discrimination against able bodied people.

 

[BobbyMac]

Discrimination is not always unfair. There is what is called positive discrimination which refers to measures that specifically favour a particular category of people in order to make up for their consistent under-representation in society. Such discriminiation, by definition is fair. Affirmative Action and BEE fits this definition very well despite what the like of Bobby, Skeptik, Marine1, Getafix, Alan85 to name just a few would like us to believe.

Obviously you only consider one side of the picture then. If positive discrimination benefits one group of people, for example on a racial basis, then obviously it negatively impacts everyone else, hence what is considered fair for one is not fair for the others - thereby creating a contradiction in terminology. Fair discrimination is a contradiction of terms.

Discrimination, by definition, is unfair. How would you ever define discrimination to always be fair to everyone involved? It's simply not possible.