equal representation

[shaheen]

I am trying to find some info on the down falls of legistating that the house of commons direcly reflects the socal make up of canada eg 51% of the house is female a certain amout minoritys.

[Federal 1/2 Slave]

OK Shaheen, I'm going let all hell rain crap down on me.
The major reasons (get that REASONS being plural) that legislation should not reflect population are...
(1) Let the BEST "person" willing (note willing) to step up to the plate represent the constituents.
(2) We (being the electorate) vote for candidates hopefully without regard towards the sex of the candidate.
(3) Forced quotas just do not work.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. About a year and a half ago a young lady interested in politics asked me if it was only men in their 40's and 50's that would be attending a meeting. I replied to the effect of "If you look at the demographics of those interested in politics what are you left with?" The sad truth is its a middle aged white male world <u>for the most part</u> when you look at the political audience. ( OK ladies and younger folks, cool your jets for a second!!!) Note the word AUDIENCE.

I'm sure some other posters will pick up the ball. (at least I hope!)

*crawling into my bomb shelter*
FHS

[shaheen]

thats a good start but would like to know more can't find any thing objective on the net

[WestViking]

You probably cannot find much on the net because the concept is inane.

Take the idea to its ultimate limits.

Every workplace and every endeavour must reflect the diversity of the population.

The waiter or witress in the restraurant you visit may be completely incompetent but he or she is only there to reflect diversity after all.

Then you go to the doctor for a check-up and discover that he or she is rude and uninterested in your health, becaause he or she is a doctor to reflect social diversity, not because he or she wants to serve you as a physician.

You don't realize how intrusive this 'plan' is until you are told to leave your job as you have been designated to have a baby on behalf of the group you represent.

[styky]

I am trying to find some info on the down falls of legistating that the house of commons direcly reflects the socal make up of canada eg 51% of the house is female a certain amout minoritys.

There are postings on a regular basis on the Governement web pages for employment. Within them it states.

Employment Equity is a factor in selection. Applicants are requested to indicate in their covering letter or resume if they are from any of the following groups: women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and persons with disabilities. .

Given the responsibilities with in the position do you want the person applying to be mainly qualified by the colour of their skin, their visible limp or their sex for say, a positon as an aplain inexpector? I for one would prefer that it was the best person for the job with the education and tools to handle the position.

Saying that there should be a 50% balance in the house of commons is only a good thing if those people are there for the right reasons and they are qualified.

[Little Big Man]

thats a good start but would like to know more can't find any thing objective on the net

Well, here's some additional information:

In the most recent federal election, both the (whiny) Greens and the NDP went on and on about how we need "proportional representation". What do they say is one of the primary benefits? It would allow political parties to choose the MPs (instead of the voter), so that parties like the NDP and Greens could use "affirmative action" (i.e., discriminatory, sexist and racist action) to select MPs. In other words, with the form of proportional representation wanted by the NDP and the Greens, you elect a party, not a particular MP. Then, the MP for your riding is chosen by the party that you elected. The NDP and the Greens have essentially said that they would use that selection power to increase the number of women and minorities who are made MPs...and to decrease the number of white men who are made MPs, of course...on the basis of genetic factors alone).

And, in case your research leads you to use such intellectually dishonest terms as "reverse discrimination": all discrimination - including discrimination against white males on the basis of their skin colour and sex - is discrimination. To say "reverse" is to suggest that white men are in a different "Class" than everyone else...that this is a two-sided war. That very notion - that there are two classes - is sexist and racist.

[shaheen]

i find this so helpful and you are quite right do you mind if i use a few qotes i will of coure credit u I could not say some of the points any better

[Wlyonmackenzie]

do a google search on keywords" affirmative action idiocy

or

affirmative action in public service

or

defeating meritocracy.....(that is the concept of promotion on merit)

[Wlyonmackenzie]

Take the idea to its ultimate limits.

Every workplace and every endeavour must reflect the diversity of the population.

Does this mean we will legislate more orientals onto the NBA and NFL teams?...more blacks in the NHL?....women in both?

Don Cherry...can you give us your opinion on mandated "diversity" and affrimative action" laws in professional sports and parliament?...