This isn't racist?
- Thread starter garinda
- Start date
I agree with your points; however (there's always an "however" isn't there
), in my opinion, whatever the law states about equality seems to apply only in the, for want of a better word, philosophical sense. I seem to remember that in the Poll Tax debate someone mentioned that a pensioner living on a small fixed income would pay the same tax as the Duke of Westminster (that's the guy who owns London isn't it
). There are levels and degrees of equality that don't seem to be addressed by the "all men
are created equal" bs. And if some feel the need to form a group of like minded individuals, as long as they do not actively promote hatred, and as long as they don't ask for public funding, then I don't have a problem with it. I don't care what color they are. What seems to be at issue here is not the exclusivity of a small group of women, but the larger question of how Britain has been changed to the disadvantage of native Britons. In a democracy this question should be addressed by parliament following the wishes of the majority expressed in a democratic election. Your government doesn't seem to be doing this, and for the life of me, I can't see why.
As far as I can remember, and it's been a while, it's above the Load of Mischief, or where the Load used to be.If above the canal bridge is top end then yes I am
I agree with your points; however (there's always an "however" isn't there
My beef is that such groups are receiving public funding, and that technically what they are doing, i.e. hosting events that aren't open to all races, is unlawful.
Support organisations, for groups of similar ethnicity, might help some in the short-term.
Personally I've always been more in favour of integration, rather than creating and living in self-imposed ghettos.
Perhaps a letter to 'uman rights asking them to take the case on for you would bear fruit?
(I could hardly type that for laughing).
Perhaps a letter to 'uman rights asking them to take the case on for you would bear fruit?
(I could hardly type that for laughing).
Perhaps I should ask Cherie Blair to take the case.
Perhaps I should ask Cherie Blair to take the case.
If you do make sure you get legal aid, don't go private.
Yes there was, it was the Antley and as you say it is long gone now. And as you also point out christian schools are not allowed to refuse pupils from a different religion (if there are places to spare and applicants live in the catchment area).
I didn't realize that you had Aboriginal people in the UK?
Which reminds me: someone who is now a good friend of mine once asked me about the condition of the First Nations people in England. Puzzled, I had to respond: In England, people like me are the First Nations. Maybe some folks still regard immigrants as "settlers" (that's what the First Nations here call the rest of us). It's a lot different over here. The majority of Canadians are from somewhere else, or descended from people who were from somewhere else. The Canadians most prone to maintaining their original identity, and making sure that immigrants fit in to their way of thinking, are the Quebecois. They have been here the longest, and form a tight knit, homogenous group.
However, I have to admit that if I were still in England, I would be of the opinion that new arrivals should fit in or eff off. Over here, we are still creating our national identity. You guys have one that has been crafted over centuries, and it seems only reasonable that you are unwilling to give it up.
Semantically, their definition doesn't make sense. It implies that if you put a Brit, a Canadian, a Pole, a Chinaman, an Irishman etc in a room they would each be an ethnic minority even though each ethnic group is equally represented.
Of course one could also infer that it means "British" ethnic group could be eventually classed as an ethnic minority if the sum of all the other ethnic groups' populations exceed its own.
Is that true? I know they can prioritise certain religions, as I was told at about this time last year not to bother wasting a choice on my lad's secondary school application form by going for one particular school, because he had minimal chance for getting in as he's not baptised a Catholic.
Probably something to do with the fact that discrimination is only seen by the bleaters as being something that only happens against those of a different culture & colour. As your boy's white, British, Christian (I assume protestant), well that's just your problem & you've got to get on with it, seems to be the attitude.
Now, had they said it against someone who speaks differently or has a skin tone different to white, there would've been outrage one would assume & every type of equalities enforcer would be out in support of the poor offended.
I may be wrong & way of the mark, but as a Brit abroad, looking in to Uk today that's how it appears to be to me.
No doubt the BBC would get Rajesh Mirchandani on the case
So you reckon if a black british born boys protestant parents had applied for the same catholic school and got a refusal there would have been all types of "equalities enforcers" out in support?...in your own words you are looking at this as a Brit abroad.. it shows ..you are out of touch mate.
It strikes me that all this is not really racist.. it's more like "exclusionist"..or "exclusionism"
'Black, and minority ethnic ladies only'.
People are being excluded because of their race.
Therefore it's racist.
Same as when they state 'No idiots'.
When they exclude you from things.
Could be true.. plenty of idots in the fashion and arts game seems to get on with no problems... but if you ain't gay you have no chance.. exclusionism is rife in all parts of the work place and society.. seems you pick and choose.Same as when they state 'No idiots'.
When they exclude you from things.
Could be true.. plenty of idots in the fashion and arts game seems to get on with no problems... but if you ain't gay you have no chance.. exclusionism is rife in all parts of the work place and society.. seems you pick and choose.
No point trying to reason with you.
Obviously drunk.
There are laws which mean jobs can't be advertised that discriminate along lines of sexual orientation.
Just as they are laws which mean race discrimination is unlawful.
Though some in Accrington seem able to ignore those.
Go to sleep.
You might not be quite so blinkered when sober.
Could be true.. plenty of idots in the fashion and arts game seems to get on with no problems... but if you ain't gay you have no chance.. exclusionism is rife in all parts of the work place and society.. seems you pick and choose.
As stated earlier, all those London boarding houses in the fifties and sixties, which had signs in their windows saying 'No blacks', weren't racist in your eyes, I suppose?
They were merely 'excluding' certain people.
Nothing at all to do with race.
Could be true.. plenty of idots in the fashion and arts game seems to get on with no problems... but if you ain't gay you have no chance.. exclusionism is rife in all parts of the work place and society.. seems you pick and choose.
Oh yeah.
I forgot.
Some discrimination is perfectly alright in your book....when you've had a few.
Homophobia being one such thing.
You really should stop yourself from posting when you've had a drink.
The odds of you winning a debate are tiny at the best of times.
When you're pished, those odds go down to nil.