For anyone who can cope with a re-run of the discrimination debate, Dave Hill asks the following:
"OK, answer me this. If I object to the government allowing publicly-funded Catholic adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples (which I would) should I not also object to my local authority allowing Orthodox Jews to have the municipal swimming pool to themselves during Sunday afternoons (which I don't)?"
My answer is thus:
Sorry Dave, you can't have it both ways.
Everyone pays the same rates or council tax. Therefore, everyone has the same rights to use council facilities. End of story. If the Orthodox Jews want to build their own swimming pool for their own purposes, then fine. (Except of course on the Labour party's agenda it would not be fine, since they'd be offering goods and services to the public but discriminating on religious grounds (rather like the B&Bs that seek to exclude gays, as other B&Bs used to exclude Irish and Blacks)).
It comes back to what I said a couple of days ago about respect for the right to hold beliefs (which everyone should have) and respect for those beliefs themselves (not the same thing). Or to put it another way: the Jews (and everyone else) have the right to their beliefs, but they don't have the right to expect the rest of us to pay for them.
The question of scale often confuses people: "it's only one day, what does it matter". But once you allow that sort of concession, where does it begin and end? I think we have to try and be principled, and consistent, with regard to discrimination.
Ms B thinks that we shouldn't trouble ourselves because we are concerned with a 'religion'. But answer this: suppose a revival of the Dutch Reform Church wished to exclude coloured people on Sundays (or any other days, or just to have an hour's whites-only time a week). Any takers? Thought not.
I think it is compelling that we insist that those seeking public funds do not discriminate on objectionable grounds (race, religion, skin colour, sexual orientation). The tricky area is how much discrimination do we allow in the private sphere, but that doesn't arise here in the case of your municipal pool.
Dave also asks, quite rightly: "On the other hand, if you were to take the principle to its logical conclusion with regard to state or local authority funding, wouldn't you also have to withdraw tax support from all faith schools and so on? As an ideal I can see the attractions (even though I'm no Dawkins on religion) but would it really benefit society in reality?"
Don't know until you try ... But yes, it does require that. I acknowledge that often children at religious schools are better behaved than their counterparts at state schools. But I don't believe that religion is necessary for ethics, or that the better results of the religious schools somehow derive from the religious aspects. Anyway, if you had a whites-only school that happened to be performing better than multicultural schools, few would be arguing for its retention.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Dear, darling P-Ump. My point was that no one is making a fuss about over-65 swimming sessions, lessons-only swimming sessions or even women-only (which in fact amounts to "no men"! Shock horror!) swimming sessions. A "no-blacks" swimming session would be a very different thing, as would a "no gays" swimming session or indeed a "no Jews" one.
There is a qualitative difference between positive and negative discrimination, even though the word "discrimination" does not distinguish either positive or negative and any inclusive action necessarily excludes someone else, just as every coin has a front and a back.
Shame the pool can't hold everyone at once! What a party that would be.
Good Lord, finding myself on the wrong end of the whips in Baroque Dungeons ... Actually, I'm quite enjoying it ... keep that cat o' nine intellectual tails thrashing, you iron maiden.
In the meantime, I will have to think about this 'positive' and 'negative' distinction. I wonder if it will prove more workable than every other distinction I've tried. Here's hoping, at all events. But "no Jews" being qualitatively different from "no non-Jews"? Not so clear ...
I'm afraid that a bout of the sniffles will preclude much more of a response now. I have just been to the Inland Revenue, which has a sign: "State of Readiness: High Alert". In my case it would read: "Passing out".
I don't know about the pool party. Don't want to swim with old people or children, their noses run.
P-Ump, you are right, I think, and sorry Ms Baroque but I respectfully disagree. There is no such thing as "positive discrimination". Yes, "women only" simply means "no men" - so what's the difference with "no blacks/gays/Jews"? If we want to be consistent then all discrimination is not allowed. I even object to student and OAP discounts. I know that seems pretty radical but why should I pay full price when I work my ass off fulltime with hardly time left for a swim where a student with time on his/her hands too lazy to get a job to pay for a swim gets to pay less? Anyhoo, I'm drifting off the subject slightly. Sorry. Get carried away sometimes.
Anonymous, I notice you haven't even said who you are.
Positive discrimination does, or did exist, and without it women would still be hovering near the glass floor, darling. And people of colour. Lift attendant, what a pinnacle of aspiration that would be. Back in the seventies many people thought positive discrimination was a valuable means of making the workplace, etc, more fair and more reflective of the society we actually live in.
So, yes Virginia - there IS such a thing as positive discrimination. Whether you likes it or ain't.
Also, sorry to hit you with facts here, but here is a dictionary definition of "discrimination":
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another : discrimination between right and wrong | young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations. • the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste : those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination.
Essentially, it means being able to see what's what. In other words, we all discriminate between things all day long. This parking space, that parking space. This person will get the job done fast, that person will do a better job. This dress doesn't go with those shoes. Those eggs are stale. That person isn't telling the truth.
If a person (even of very little discrimination, I might add) can tell the difference between some EGGS, how the hell you gonna ban discrimination of people???
People have all different kinds of needs, desires and abilities - each one of us is a mixed bag and different from the others. I myself feel painfully different from other people much of the time. Lord knows. So, first of all, it is impossible not to discriminate among them. And if you say One Size Fits All, well, like the tights at Accessorize it will fit no one. SOME discrimination is neccessary.
What we need to endeavour to do for the good and happiness of all is to make sure we do not discriminate AGAINST groups of people (& groups usually are only "groups" in the first place because of some arbitrary distinction, such as sexual orientation or skin colour, or country of origin, as opposed to say IQ level or vegetarianism) to their detriment.
I should stress also that "Equal Opportunities" does not mean "treat everyone exactly the same" - it means "make it so the opportunity is equal for everybody." That means ramps for wheelchair users, flexible working times for mothers and carers, cheaper admission for those on fixed incomes - including students, in practice; it means looking at unconventional applications laterally, it means no Jim Crow (for want of a better term) laws.
Banning gay adoption from Catholic agencies is like a Jim Crow law. A separate swimming session for one group once a week at their own request simply isn't.
And, now you've announced your prejudice against students - which is of course discrimination - and OAPs, I'll just note that you've failed to justify yourself against the OAPs. Perhaps one day you will be one. Perhaps your thinking would be clearer if you'd been a student.
P-Ump, less of the Thatcher comparisons please! You'll give me a headache. Hope you feel better. (Sounds like, with your sniffles, you'd be put WITH the children and old people. Sorry! Get better soon.)
My nose is certainly running, so I shouldn't be allowed near a pool. Will post (and swim) again when recovered. V. interesting discussion btw. Thanks for the wishes too.
Ms B (or do you prefer P-Eng's sobriquet of "Lady Baroqney"?), sorry for the Thatcher thoughts. Actually I was comparing you to a dominatrix, not a politician, which I would have thought far less offensive.
I agree with your masterful description of positive discrimination. Of course, it is a difficult area. There is the practical difficulty in that people will always find another way to discriminate. For example, a firm for whom I worked had no female partners. No shortage of female staff with ability, but I once sneakily saw a partners' memo which said that they still "had not found a woman with all the qualities we require in a partner". There's no way that a discrimination case could be proved, if in fact they were committing sex discrimination. Then, in another firm, I observed the progress of a group of trainees. Who did all the partners and clients want to work with? Clue, it was not the obliging and talented but weedy Scouse bloke; it was the six foot blonde with formidable assets. Life isn't fair sometimes.
Back to the pool. I don't think that the Orthodox Jew times can be put under positive discrimination. Positive discrimination, or affirmative action, to me seems appropriate in the case of a group historically disadvantaged, such as black people in South Africa in the 1990s or the Southern US states circa the 1960s. But there's never been a prohibition on Jews in Hackney pools, at least not so far as I'm aware. If they choose not to swim with others, that's their own choice and not a disadvantage imposed upon them by others. The remedy in that case is to modify their beliefs (exactly what in Judaism requires them to swim apart? Would it be anything like the dodgy bits in the old testament telling us not to eat shellfish or go near women at certain times, or all the stoning to death parts?) Or else get themselves their own pool (thus raising the issue of whether the government is going too far by precluding discrimination in the supply of goods and services, because as with the Catholic agencies that's what a Jewish pool would be doing).
The OAPs isn't necessarily discriminatory, since everyone can expect to become one. And there's presumably health and safety issues with the more frail members. So too with children-only sessions, or conversely with the arrangements whereby lanes are set aside for those who can swim in lengths.
All of these are examples of the authority trying to cater for different physical attributes, rather than religious beliefs which people are entitled to have but for which they are not entitled to be subsidised.
Dear Ms Baroque - pray explain the difference between ticking "Anonymous" or using an alias - like you. P-Ump does not disclose who he is although I know him, have known him for years, very much respect his opinion, and I think he knows who's writing this. You're assumption (or presumption) that I would think clearer if I had been a student is erroneous. I think very clearly, thank you very much. You just don't agree with my point of view. I have a Masters degree and post-graduate qualifications, but never expected a handout just because I was a student. I paid for my own education and lifestyle by having many jobs. Yes one day I'll be an OAP. And I would still not expect a handout just because I'm old and on a fixed income (isn't being on a salary a fixed income?) My point about there being no positive discrimination is that it necessarily means a negative discrimination of someone else - which I might add is what you have said, so I'm a bit puzzled by your vitriolic attack and patronising attitude. In your first post you say "women only" sessions amounts to "no men". In your response to my post you say one should be making an effort not to discriminate AGAINST a group - but what's the difference? Isn't "women only" discriminating against men? Somehow I feel that if you were talking about a "men only" club (which still exist), you would be up in arms as it discriminates against women. And so it does. In the workforce, where two candidates are of equal calibre but there is a positive discrimination policy in place, one is given brownie points for belonging to a certain category. Personally I would not like to be appointed to a position on that basis. Furthermore, your assumption that without positive discrimination women and people of colour would otherwise still be hovering in lowly paid jobs is also not correct. Not sure about coloured people, but the general human rights movement has a lot to do with that - equality, not being singled out for special treatment. For women, one of the most powerful forces (albeit indirectly) was that of birth control, giving them the option not to have children and the freedom to choose what they wanted to do with their lives. Coupled with an increase in divorces following relaxation of laws, and many women being forced to work as a result (as alimony payments were either not coming or too low), it is too simplistic to say that positive discrimination alone achieved even the majority of the increased participation of women in the workforce and subsequent flowing through into higher levels. And I may add that with all the "positive discrimination" in the world, women still get paid less and are stuck in jobs with the least status. So it hasn't worked anyway.
And yes, there are some typo's. Quick typing does that sometimes.
Hi there Anonymous. My name is not exactly emblazoned all over my blog but it is easy enough to find out. Most people know it. I write poetry and poetry criticism; there are links to it in the right-hand sidebar. My blog is linked in several places under my name.
Salaries go up every year with the cost of living index, people get pay rises. Pensions, on the contrary, stay at the same monetary rate for years and years and their spending power goes down and down - so that you might be on the same figure of money now as you were ten years ago: how far would THAT go? And council tax, utilities, etc, keep going up and up. That's fixed.
I worked all through my twenties too, and teens. I saved up the money to come to England when I was 18 working 70 hours a week. I was bloody grateful any time I got anything a little cheaper. Hours add up slowly when you only get paid a couple of quid for each one, and I was always tired AND skint. Even long after student days.
Oh, anyway, I'm sorry, I just am not feeling this debate any more... you know? You sound like a textbook: women this and it was like that and these were the factors... I've pretty much been there and seen it and done it, & trust me: I know women earn less! I was there when my mother went back to full-time work, after my father moved out. I know she had a rough time in the office. She retired at 70, years and years after him. When my dad retired his final-salary pension was the same as what she was earning in her job. She, of course, had taken years off and working part-time... And my dear, I am another who took nine years off "work" to raise kids and now don't have a pension fund worth blowing one's nose on. So let's talk about being poor in old age shall we! (I suspect I might be a little older than you; I can also remember the first tranche of debate about positive discrimination raging around me when I was a kid, and I can remember my best friend's parents fighting because she was wearing an Equal Rights Amendment bracelet, and he couldn't get a job and said it was because the jobs were all going to women... it was nonsense, of course: he was a philosophy of religion professor. I think there are five posts for those in the USA.)
All I was saying was about having some tolerance and maybe sort of, you know, liking our fellow human beings and cutting them a little SLACK for chrissakes? But that doesn't seem to be your bag.
And by the way, "you're" means "you are". I am not an assumption! But even if I were, I was not making an ASSUMPTION that you would have been smarter if you'd been a student. I was making a SNARKY REMARK about it, which is totally different.
P-Umo, you seem much better! Well done. I had no idea P-Eng called me that - does he only do it when he's talking about me? (I like it, though. He is very clever.)
Oh, sigh, well the issue about the hypothetical Jewish families swimming in the pool was moderately interesting to me in the short term, but I don't, in fact, much care if the pool gets closed off for separate groups. So I'm fine with it. Let them swim. You carry on among yourselves, though.
I'm sorry this all got rather acrimonious. I guess it shows that discrimination is a tricky area, if intelligent people (which I know you both are) can have such sharply divided views on the subject. The Englishman said he tried to join the debate but was precluded by technical glitches; shame as he I am sure would have been a little oil on troubled water. I hope none of this has dissuaded either of you from returning to the blog, I value all opinions (well save those of "Jenna" on another post, I am going to have to tighten up comment moderation).
no worries P-Ump, you are an ornament to the blogosphere. And it is quite true that the presence of the Periodical One might well have drowned out all the noise from the rest of us...
Ms Baroque I am not sure why you are so vicious just because someone doesn't agree with you. Hardly as tolerant as you claim to be. The net is anonymous - get used to it or simply don't comment. But don't try to argue someone's opinion should be discounted simply because their identity is not known. It's really rather petulant. I may not be that much younger than you seem to think I am (which is usually a compliment but in this case I will take it as the insult it was meant to be). We just dealt with life differently and came up with opposing opinions. That should be interesting rather than antagonising. As to typo's - I added a message indicating I knew there were some - "you're" was one of them. And English happens to be my second language (of the four I speak). So let's not get too precious about this. As for the content of your post (well, what little of substance there was) I'd like to point out that pensions do get adjusted from time to time. Sure, it's still not much, but I never said it was. My point was that OAP discounts are based on AGE, not on INCOME. There are plenty of Golden Agers who can afford pretty much anything they want. And I have seen an awful lot of students spend an awful lot of money on cars, clothes and holidays, where I had to bike and take public transport. During most holidays I worked anyway so the agonising decision whether to go to Tunisia, Russia, Egypt, India or America didn't really come into it. Where I live salaries are not automatically indexed. I WORKED and raised children. I do not have any pension scheme at all (but working on it). And I still don't expect a handout based on generic statistics such as age or position (i.e. student) rather than actual need. Discussion over, as far as I'm concerned.
I think that is indeed the end of the discussion, unless the Periodic Englishman makes good on his promise to intervene in what he terms the ‘Baroqonomous Debate’. (Mind you, he’s gone AWOL on his own blog after defaming and debasing me with all kinds of scandalous and libellous comments - legal action is in the pipeline - so don‘t hold your breath.) I have, however, been in contact with Dave Hill over the weekend. He is putting together something for CIF on the issue and asked to use some of this blog’s material. I readily agreed - it was a high compliment after all - so if anyone’s particularly brave, there’ll be a chance to do the whole thing again. I will of course link to it as and when. Meanwhile, Englishman - I’m putting together a WANTED poster and swatting up on the law enforcement techniques of the American West in the 19th Century. You have been warned.
Post a Comment