We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Positive Action Scheme
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kundrati Socialist Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2162
Description[?]:
| This bill would allow the government to encourage affirmative action to ensure the equitable representation of disadvantaged minorities in the workforce, while enforcing it for the public sector - local government and the civil service should be a shining example of positive action against negative discrimination. The Kundrati CP believes that if discrimination against women and ethnic minorities is not actively campaigned against, however unpopular the measures are, then the situation will only degenerate further. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Positive discrimination.
Old value:: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Current: No form of positive discrimination is permitted.
Proposed: The government encourages positive discrimination and enforces it for government hiring.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:47:36, December 23, 2005 CET | From | Alderdath Lebrali Demkratti | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | agreed |
| Date | 18:23:48, December 23, 2005 CET | From | Party of Evil | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | Not supported! Let them fend for themselves. If they can't, good riddance to bad rubbish. It's called evolution. |
| Date | 19:05:55, December 23, 2005 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | We feel that the PE’s rapid social Darwinism to be an archaic and ultimately counter-productive approach to the problems of poverty, discrimination and social exclusion. |
| Date | 22:28:06, December 23, 2005 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | Discrimination of any kind is bad. |
| Date | 23:04:23, December 23, 2005 CET | From | Union of Work-Shy Elements | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | The government and companies alike will always hire the most suitable applicant regardless of colour or religion. It’s against their own interest not to do so. That renders regulation in this area totally redundant. |
| Date | 23:44:36, December 23, 2005 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | That argument is understandable, but rests on a presumption we disagree with: that an employer will always choose the most suitable candidate. It is generally accepted that women and ethnic minorities are discriminated against in the workforce. White males for instance form a vastly disproportionate fraction in many key professions - are we to say there are no minorities more qualified than their "majority" counterparts? By ENFORCING affirmative action, the public sector can act as an example of progressive hiring policies, by favouring minorities when choosing between equally candidates. It's unpopular, yes, and not exactly fair to the "majority" person. But the entire economy is weighted in their favour, and if action is not taken to tackle discrimination in the workplace, then it only increases. Don't get us wrong, the CP used to share the very same idealism of the LSU - but we cannot remain blind to racist or sexist attitudes in the workplace. The situation won't cure itself. |
| Date | 00:10:14, December 24, 2005 CET | From | Party of Evil | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | Democracy is the rule of the majority, right? So passing legislation to support minorites over the majority is undemocratic. Simple logic. We fail to see the problem here. |
| Date | 02:46:11, December 24, 2005 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | Democracy is a broad term. A majoritarian system comprises a strict rule by majority, yes. It is also highly authoritarian, oppressive and arbitrary. So, just up the Evilists' street... Anyway, the more widely accepted definition, as you are no doubt aware, is that of a liberal democracy - with minorities guaranteed certain rights and/or standards via the rule of law. If we were to say that helping minorities is wrong, simply because they constitute a minority, is circular logic and in any case dehumanising. What any of this has to do with affirmative action, however, is another matter entirely. |
| Date | 08:35:43, December 24, 2005 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | "by favouring minorities when choosing between equally candidates" This smacks of racism. |
| Date | 15:22:12, December 24, 2005 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | *equally *qualified* candidates, that should have been. And no, it's not racism, anymore than using "all-women shortlists" in political parties is sexist. If there is widespread discrimination against women and ethnic minorities, however unofficial, then the only way to reverse that trend is to i) recognise that we do not live in a true meritocracy, ii) accept that racist or sexist views are distorting hiring policies already, and iii) take affirmative action to ensure that (qualified) minorities are adequately represented. By enforcing these hiring policies only within the public sector, we are ensuring that "majority" persons are not deprived of jobs. We are simply offsetting the general discrimination in the workforce. - If you continue to approach this from a gender/colour-blind perspective, than while your idealism may remain intact, nothing will change for minorities. |
| Date | 02:43:04, December 25, 2005 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | You are using race as deciding factor, thus, it is racism. Racism is racism, weather it be in the south or from a goverment sponsered program. Our "color-blindess" will probably do more than government sponsered racism. |
| Date | 14:10:25, December 26, 2005 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | "The south" - what are you talking about? In any case, we find your (in our Party’s opinion) overly simplified perspective in this regard most troubling. As we have said before, by the LSU's definition then legislative and regulative methods securing greater sexual equality in the workforce are actually sexism, and should be repealed and denounced. And quite frankly, even were the CP to buy into this idea that anything which includes race/sex in its deliberations must be racist/sexist, which ignores the social conditions we are dealing with, then we would still support this bill - because no label will change the fact that affirmative action benefits those who are discriminated against on the basis of their sex, ethnicity etc. on an institutional basis, by a society unwilling to tackle their own prejudices. Positive discrimination equips the government to deal with problems that are created by racist/sexist views, and which cannot be solved without approaching the issue from a perspective that is fully aware of this. Your colour-blindness LED to this system, and it will most certainly not change anything so long as you equate the reversal of institutionalised or cultural racism with racism itself! |
| Date | 18:04:57, December 26, 2005 CET | From | Party of Evil | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | What's wrong with discrimination anyway? </innocent> |
| Date | 02:37:38, December 27, 2005 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | Wow, I'm sorry, no offense, but that is just down right stupid and false. Legislating that women should be paid the same as me IS IN NO WAY THE SAME as legislating that if a black man and a white man apply for the same job, and if they are equally qualified for the job the job should go to the black man. To say they are the same is ignorant and false. One is equality, one is racism. The fact that you cannot see this disturbs us. |
| Date | 14:49:27, December 27, 2005 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Positive Action Scheme |
| Message | What the hell are you talking about? We weren't talking about equal pay initiatives, although we can see how you may have thought that. We were talking about positive discrimination for women - measures that discriminate in favour of women, to reverse the long trends of anti-female bias in the workforce, especially in promotion to hire office. What was the ONE example of woman-orientated affirmative action we brought up? All-women shortlists for political parties - whereby, in candidate selections, local parties in certain constituencies are forced to choose from lists of female candidates only. This process, while unpopular with some who argued much like yourself, leads to a massive increase in female participation in government, something that hadn't changed in decades of simple legal equality. That was our example: we feel that the end result excuses any discomfort with the means. As for our mentioning of sexist discrimination, AS WE SAID, we believe that affirmative action will help the work-status of women too. Not equal pay or anything like that, which we already have - we're talking about POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION. As you can see, there is an option in the Laws of the Land to propose that the "government sets compulsory quotas for hiring women, minorities and marginalized groups". The CP has been approaching this as though the current partial-affirmative action proposal would also cover women. Do you consider that sexist? Even so, don't you consider it justified? Quite frankly, as we have been saying time and again, your refusal to take into account existing prejudices against minority groups is absurd and pointless. You can establish legal equal to the nth degree, but unless you actively encourage and sometimes force employers to break their anti-minority hiring trends, however unofficial, then nothing will change. Your hysterical rhetoric avoids the fact that, while your conscience may be soothed, your policies won't change Kundrati prejudices one iota, nor will they lift a single disadvantaged minority out of the poverty trap. Now, ignoring the Evilists entirely, we will bring this bill to a vote and its inevitable defeat. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 149 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 137 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 19 |
| Random fact: Players should not role-play characters without the consent of the owner, and if they find they have role-played the character beyond what the owner intended, they should withdraw or amend the role-play appropriately. |
| Random quote: "Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction." - Charles R. Magel |