UN calls Canada racist for 'visible minorities' tag

[McG]

UN calls Canada racist for 'visible minorities' tag
Steven Edwards, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, March 08, 2007

UNITED NATIONS - Canada's use of the term "visible minorities" to identify people it considers susceptible to racial discrimination came under fire at the United Nations Wednesday - for being racist.

The world body's anti-racism watchdog says in a report on Ottawa's efforts to eliminate racial discrimination in Canada that the words might contravene an international treaty aimed at combating racism.

Members of the watchdog - the Geneva-based Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination - also questioned other terms used by the federal government, among them "ethnocultural communities."

...

Released Wednesday, the report presents the committee's findings after its members last month grilled a Canadian Heritage-led delegation on Canada's anti-racism policies.

All countries that have signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination must appear periodically before the committee to explain how they are respecting the treaty.

While the committee's recommendations are not legally binding, Ottawa says it is taking note.

"Constructive suggestions made by the committee may be useful to Canada in order to enhance its implementation of the convention," says Canadian Heritage spokeswoman Dominique Collin.

The committee's 16 members are mainly academics or former diplomats from around the world, but none is from Canada.

Ahead even of concerns they have raised in earlier years about the plight of First Nations peoples in Canada, committee members latched on to the government's use of the words "visible minorities' in numerous official documents.

"The committee is concerned that the use of the term ... may not be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the convention," says the report.

It adds Canada should "reflect further ... on the implications of the use of the term" - but it is mute on what wording Canada might adopt to replace it.

Canada's Employment Equity Act defines "visible minorities" as "persons, other than aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."

To the committee, highlighting a certain group does not appear to be consistent with Article One of the convention, which says racial discrimination occurs when equitable treatment is upset by "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin."

Speaking at the committee grilling of Canada last month, committee member Patrick Thornberry went further.

"The use of the term seemed to somehow indicate that 'whiteness' was the standard, all others differing from that being visible," says the British international law professor, according to UN note-takers.

Neither Thornberry nor other committee members responded to a request for an interview, saying through a secretary that the report speaks for itself.

Eliminating all forms of identification would raise the question: How can minorities be helped or protected if there is no definition of who they are?

"I don't think the committee members could have realized that Canada's use of the term 'visible minorities' is aimed at ensuring positive discrimination," says Martin Collacott, a former Canadian ambassador to a number of Asian and Middle Eastern countries, and currently senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think-tank.

"It is a form of discrimination, of course, but of reverse discrimination. While I would also argue against it, I think it's clear the UN assumes that it aims to discriminate against people."

...

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f469b36e-c587-40e7-98e5-3aa50a371318&k=23802

 

[career_radio-checker]

pardon my msn speak but... ROFL  :rofl:

It looks like the political correctness police are busting the politically correct.  ;D

 

[Journeyman]

It's perfectly logical. If you eliminate any terms to express the concept of "minority," there will be no minority, therefore removing any possible grounds for discrimination.  :

In the media today, the report was likely issued yesterday....on the anniversary of Aristotle's death. I'm sure the father of Aristotelian logic is rolling in his grave.

This report is just one more reason, on a very lengthy list, of why the UN should be bulldozed into the sea. 

 

[Dissident]

[me=Dissident]puts UN on ignore list[/me]

 

[GAP]

I think we should reflect deeply on this issue. As whites are now a minority, we need to change the definition of "visible minority". Problem solved.

Definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Reccesoldier]

:boring: Who cares...

It's the UN, I mean it's not like they're actually going to DO anything about it.  :boring:

 

[2 Cdo]

:boring: Who cares...

It's the UN, I mean it's not like they're actually going to DO anything about it.  :boring:

Exactly what I was thinking, a whole lot of hot air. :boring:

 

[McG]

It's perfectly logical. If you eliminate any terms to express the concept of "minority," there will be no minority, therefore removing any possible grounds for discrimination.  :

I don't think the concern is quite so simple.  While it is important to identify who may be subject to discrimination & offer protection from that, this is often not why the term is used.  Right from the article:

"I don't think the committee members could have realized that Canada's use of the term 'visible minorities' is aimed at ensuring positive discrimination," says Martin Collacott, a former Canadian ambassador to a number of Asian and Middle Eastern countries, and currently senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think-tank.

"It is a form of discrimination, of course, but of reverse discrimination. While I would also argue against it, I think it's clear the UN assumes that it aims to discriminate against people."

Therefore, the term is often used in Canada to facilitate the discrimination against an identifiable group.  Specifically, it is to discriminate against the current generation of non-"visible minorities”  in some misguided attempt to feel better about the discrimination that was undertaken by previous generations of non-"visible minorities.”

 

[Journeyman]

I don't think the concern is quite so simple.  While it is important to identify who may be subject to discrimination & offer protection from that, this is often not why the term is used.  Right from the article:Therefore, the term is often used in Canada to facilitate the discrimination against an identifiable group.  Specifically, it is to discriminate against the current generation of non-"visible minorities”  in some misguided attempt to feel better about the discrimination that was undertaken by previous generations of non-"visible minorities.”

I guess we're interpretting Collacott's comments differently. I believe he's using "discriminate" in the form of 'to differentiate' - - ie: Canada uses "visible minorities" to identify a group to be targetted for special treatment, policies, hiring practices, whatever...which Collacott notes he also disagrees with; regardless of the intent, this system provides an inherent negative discrimination against those not considered a minority (eg - white, anglo males), as opposed to treating everyone as equals.

I also guess that either of our readings of Collacott are, as mentioned, irrelevant - - it's a UN report.

 

[Reccesoldier]

I don't think the concern is quite so simple.  While it is important to identify who may be subject to discrimination & offer protection from that, this is often not why the term is used.  Right from the article:Therefore, the term is often used in Canada to facilitate the discrimination against an identifiable group.  Specifically, it is to discriminate against the current generation of non-"visible minorities”  in some misguided attempt to feel better about the discrimination that was undertaken by previous generations of non-"visible minorities.”

I can't wait till the UN gets ahold of this line of the CCRF then...

Equality Rights

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.(5)

Talk about "discrimination against an identifiable group" the only group that this subsection does not by inference include is white, christian canadians of eastern european origin.

I can see it now... UN DECLARES CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS RACIST!

 

[CougarKing]

This report is just one more reason, on a very lengthy list, of why the UN should be bulldozed into the sea. 

Well Journeyman,

Then what do you suggest replacing it with? hmm...

Have in mind that none of those "diplomats" on that panel that made that inconsiderate "racist" remark are from Canada so they have no idea how our laws work and how minorities are treated in this country.

I don't think the UN should be abolished, but reformed. But that's already the subject of another thread of hundreds of other forums.

 

[Journeyman]

Well Journeyman,
Then what do you suggest replacing it with? hmm...

A massive smoking crater

....for all the reasons in spelled out in "hundreds of other forums."

 

[eerickso]

Is the term racist? Who knows?
Is the term meaningless? Definitely.

 

[eerickso]

Canada's Employment Equity Act defines "visible minorities" as "persons, other than aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."

Then what do you suggest replacing it with? hmm...

How about this: Non-Caucasian and Non-Aboriginal

Can I get a job at the UN now?

 

[a_majoor]

Then what do you suggest replacing it with? hmm...

Start here:
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/41-A-New-World-View.html
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/33-About-Turn!-Time-to-Revise-Canadas-Foreign-Policy-Part-2.html
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/32-About-Turn!-Time-to-Revise-Canadas-Foreign-Policy.html

(edit to fix link)

 

[Reccesoldier]

A massive smoking crater

....for all the reasons in spelled out in "hundreds of other forums."

:rofl:

 

[MediTech]

What is the UN going to do to punish us?  Write us an angry letter telling us that if we don't stop being "racist" that we can expect to receive several more angry letters?  I don't see why the UN thinks it can tell us how to conduct our business when they are full of racists and are a bunch of incompetent fools.

What are we to call them?  Invisible minorities? 

 

[CougarKing]

A massive smoking crater

:rofl:

Alright, let's fill the crater with water and have meetings of world leaders in swimsuits (eww! for most of them) in the "World Crater Organization".

Oh well...it was worth a shot saying. hehehe...

 

[mudrecceman]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/08/canada-minorities.html

Canada should reconsider using the term "visible minorities" to define people facing discrimination, a United Nations anti-racism watchdog reports, suggesting the phrase itself is discriminatory.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination released a report Wednesday on how Canada is living up to an international treaty aimed at eliminating racism.

While Ottawa is praised for some initiatives — including the establishment of a number of committees to fight discrimination and the toughening up of legislation against hate crimes — a number of concerns are raised relating to other issues.

Among those is the use of the term "visible minorities," which the committee says "may not be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the Convention."

The convention is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which says distinction based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is discriminatory.

It calls on Canada to "reflect further" on the use of the term visible minorities.

More On Link.


So, if not the term the UN is picking at here, then what WOULD the PC term be?  How far does being PC go to where it becomes absurd or overkill?

Thoughts?

 

[CougarKing]

MRM,

This topic is already being discussed in this other thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/58421/post-538936.html#new

Perhaps it's time for a thread merge?