The PC world still has one card it has to play against the white male …“Positive Discrimination” … yep we have already had “All Women” lists, and now we are to have “All Black” lists.
So why is that, if a white male said he wanted to do something that banned any female or non white male, he would go to jail, but women can insist on all women lists, and now blacks can insist on black only lists, but that’s not racist, somehow?
Interestingly if a white woman tried for some constituencies under these proposals, unless she was black she would be refused. However, maybe as a double jeopardy, black females would have twice the chance on an all black shortlist…. So twice the chance of another Dianne Abbott or Dawn Butler or Oona King … thrilling.
Interestingly, for most of the 19th century, Jews and Catholics were actively banned from certain occupations, including standing for parliament (a situation which has never applied to black people), but the only ‘positive’ discrimination they needed was the removal of the ban. They then made it on their own merits.
Blacks (and some women it seems), appear to need to be given protected jobs in order to get on …. Or maybe it’s just that they are not prepared to do the work that a white male generally has to (political advisers excepted), in order to get selected as a candidate MP e.g. 10 yrs as a councillor and maybe 20 yrs as a party activist?
Now, as discussed on this site, the whole non white population of the UK is only 8% according to the latest survey (2001), the ethnic mix in the UK is White 92.1% (English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) Black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, Mixed 1.2%, Other 1.6%
As there are a total of 646 MP's, then 8% of them is 51 cross party (not 51 labour only, as the story implies), so are we going to apply a ceiling on the number of non white MPs, restricting it to 51? What then, should Afro Caribbean’s be allowed to only have 13 MP's and 12 Indians and 11 Pakistani’s etc etc until everyone is happy?
Where does it end, proportional representation by list to ensure that every group got its chance, but what about sexual preference, 2.5% of the population is gay, are they part of lists or are they a separate ‘racial’ group?
Obviously the next logical step is to insist on lesbian only or homosexual only short lists for constituencies.
What a farce, its no wonder that active democracy is all but dead, when the majority who do not support these political laws, are ignored to favour a political elite who no longer care what the majority want.
How can I prove this well just look at law and order, prison, hanging, immigration, and state benefits, and then look at how the MP’s vote against the public's wishes.
So why is that, if a white male said he wanted to do something that banned any female or non white male, he would go to jail, but women can insist on all women lists, and now blacks can insist on black only lists, but that’s not racist, somehow?
Interestingly if a white woman tried for some constituencies under these proposals, unless she was black she would be refused. However, maybe as a double jeopardy, black females would have twice the chance on an all black shortlist…. So twice the chance of another Dianne Abbott or Dawn Butler or Oona King … thrilling.
Interestingly, for most of the 19th century, Jews and Catholics were actively banned from certain occupations, including standing for parliament (a situation which has never applied to black people), but the only ‘positive’ discrimination they needed was the removal of the ban. They then made it on their own merits.
Blacks (and some women it seems), appear to need to be given protected jobs in order to get on …. Or maybe it’s just that they are not prepared to do the work that a white male generally has to (political advisers excepted), in order to get selected as a candidate MP e.g. 10 yrs as a councillor and maybe 20 yrs as a party activist?
Now, as discussed on this site, the whole non white population of the UK is only 8% according to the latest survey (2001), the ethnic mix in the UK is White 92.1% (English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) Black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, Mixed 1.2%, Other 1.6%
As there are a total of 646 MP's, then 8% of them is 51 cross party (not 51 labour only, as the story implies), so are we going to apply a ceiling on the number of non white MPs, restricting it to 51? What then, should Afro Caribbean’s be allowed to only have 13 MP's and 12 Indians and 11 Pakistani’s etc etc until everyone is happy?
Where does it end, proportional representation by list to ensure that every group got its chance, but what about sexual preference, 2.5% of the population is gay, are they part of lists or are they a separate ‘racial’ group?
Obviously the next logical step is to insist on lesbian only or homosexual only short lists for constituencies.
What a farce, its no wonder that active democracy is all but dead, when the majority who do not support these political laws, are ignored to favour a political elite who no longer care what the majority want.
How can I prove this well just look at law and order, prison, hanging, immigration, and state benefits, and then look at how the MP’s vote against the public's wishes.
***************************************
This post is from the site No PC Views.
if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen.
You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (http://no-pc.blogspot.co.uk/)
Discrimination is Discrimination and politicians deciding that when they want to, they can change the rules is wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn fact it only weakens the arguments against discrimination generally if its seen that only white males are capable of being discrimators.