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 Discrimination (December 2082 Act)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition
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: August 2083
Description[?]:
| The Moderate Leftists urge Parliament to support a bill which would force the Government to employ minorities, women and marginalised groups, setting an example for companies around the nation. |
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 | 15:49:47, July 07, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | No way. Let us decide that companies can no longer hire the best person for the job! We think not. This is racial, sexual and etnic discrimination. All people have to be treated equally before the law. No different treatment, either positive or negative can be given to anyone because of their race, gender, age or ethnicity. |
| Date | 18:32:58, July 07, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | ((Hmm, familiar wording on that proposal!)) Would the MLP consider a more moderate proposal, in order to phase in affirmative action in government hiring first, as a pilot project? Our concern is that small cooperatives and businesses should have some freedom of action: it can be hard to hire 20% minorities when there are only 20 employees, for instance. We would suggest starting with affirmative action in government hiring, assessing the progress of that programme, and then considering whether to extend it to compulsory quotas for business after a trial period. |
| Date | 19:15:08, July 07, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | Discrimination should be based only upon the candidates' suitability for a given job. Race, sex, faith, and sexual orientation should have no impact whatsoever on the hiring process, either positive or negative. Let each candidate's ability and skill speak for itself. |
| Date | 01:00:11, July 08, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | We tend to concur with our right wing colleages here, positive discrimination or affirmative action is still discrimination. Social programs and skill development courses designed to help disadvantaged minorities will do more good than forcing people to hire them. |
| Date | 01:22:25, July 08, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | Inclusion programs, to ensure that all are presented with as near as possible with the same opportunities are acceptable to us. However equality of outcome programs, where regardless of effort or ability all are guaranteed a proportional share of success are an anathema to any inteligent politician. |
| Date | 17:05:24, July 08, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | Possibly an emerging consensus? |
| Date | 22:57:40, July 08, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | Would the member for the CCF-Greens care to elucidate on their comment. What we are seeing is a complete refusal to consider affirmative action. Is this the consensus to which you refer? |
| Date | 16:59:00, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | Inclusion programmes, we understnad, would include the government encouraging but not enforcing affirmative action. This might see a middle path between quotas and the "merit principle" which does nothing to combat systemic discrimination against minorities. Perhaps we have misunderstood the ASP's comments. |
| Date | 17:08:19, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | You have indeed misunderstood our comments. Inclusion programes are simply programmes that make things avasilable to all individuals regardless of race, religion, age, creed, gender etc. There is no consideration whatsoever of any factor beyond the individual being human, or a good aproximation thereof, and alive. The alternative to the 'merit' principle is a 'demerit' principle of some kind where your ability to do whatever is being asked is in some way made secondary to some other, less relevant criteria. All 'demerit' principles are discriminatory in nature. |
| Date | 23:07:40, July 11, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | "From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either the one or the other, but not both at the same time." – Friedrich von Hayek |
| Date | 12:19:39, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | ((Moved to vote 1 month before election to make it obvious that the wording/proposal has changed. |
| Date | 12:20:22, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | ((There is no need to vote on this, it will reset)) |
| Date | 15:32:37, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | Still opposed. The best person for the job should be employed regardless of any other factors such as race, gender or age. The only factor that may legitimately affect this is, in our opinion, the existence of a criminal record. Where the salaries are paid invuoluntarily by the population there is even more necessity to ensure that the person being paid is the best available. This is still discrimination and in opposition to the principles of equal treatment of all before the law. |
| Date | 01:06:45, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | We will support the revised bill, on the basis that equality must be not only between individuals, but also between the majority and marginalized and racialized groups. All individuals do not operate on a level playing field, and government policies should acknowledge that. |
| Date | 21:53:45, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as stupid." Discrimination is discrimination any way you look at it. |
| Date | 23:36:39, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | @CCF The government should recognise that and correct it by levelling the field, not by tilting it some way that they prefer. Get rid of all discrimination, positive action of any kind discriminates, causes resentment, segregates, says that this person is different to that one as a person and nothing else. It is the deepest and most insidious form of racism, sexism and ageism. It says that certain groups are incapable of achieving without having the playing field tilted for them. It says that they are not as good as the others. If you want to discriminate, go ahead, but don't try to pretend this is egalitarian. It is NOT. |
| Date | 00:34:18, July 21, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | The term "positive disrimination" is a misnomer. Although Americanisms are generally detestable misuse of the language, in this case the term "affirmative action" is far preferable and a far more accurate description. What we have now is systemic discrimination. What we have to do is choose: will we keep having systemic discrimination, or will we choose "positive discrimination"? There is already discrimation. The system inherently marginalizes certain groups, those without power, and piles advantage after advantage on wealthy heterosexual men from the majority ethnicity who speak the majority language. Those are the people who have traditonally had the greatest access to higher education, skills training, and the like. We are correcting that with free education up to university for all, but it will take time. Once all social and economic barriers to the advancement of women and minorities are removed, then there will be no need for this bill. But it woudl be folly to pretend, with Candide-like faith in the magical market fairies, that there are no systemic barriers. If we talk about hiring "the best man for the job," then we will hire, most of the time, wealthy heterosexual men from the majority ethnicity who speak the majority language. Not because we are prejudiced, but because those are the people who in this society have the advantages, the best chances to learn the necessary skills, the best opportunities. And this system will perpetuate itself. Not through malice, but because that's what systems of invisible privilege do. How can we change that? The original suggestion was for a draconian government-enforced system of mandatory quotas on minority hiring. We opposed that. Too much compulsion was involved. This bill is a compromise, in which the government will only use preferential hiring in its own operations. In this way, we will begin to resemble more the reality of Lodamun. More Rapulese indigenous peoples may be hired: people who are so often despised in Port Andalay, and passed over by the unconscious prejudices of our present systemic discrimination. People from the majority will still be hired, but there will also be space made for minorities and for diversities and for more women in our male-dominated political culture. In other words, what this bill does is level the playing field. Leaving the present system in place would only leave prejudice in place. We hope that all parties will vote on the merits of this bill, and not based on the word "discrimination." |
| Date | 01:01:33, July 21, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | This type of argument is the type that justifies anything. It does not matter what the hell it is caled. Saying that we will favour one group over another due to their age, gender or race is discrimination. If we talk about hiring the 'best person for the job" (no one ever said best man other than yourself) we are talking about just that. The person who will fulfill the role best is employed. No other criteria, no other agenda. If the pérson is a white heterosexaul male with a boring dress sense and an intention of being part of the establishment, then so be it. We have no right to discriminate against the person for being boring. If the person happens to be a half negro half japanese punk teenage female then they should be employed. This is a level playing field. What the bill proposes is to say that the half black half japanese feemale ten punk needs help to get a job. It patronises her badly. It classifies her as a person that needs help. Yeah, great equality that one. Take your patronisation and shove it is likely to be the response. You can claim to be prejudiced if you want, but to extend this to the entrpreneurs and human resources professionals in our country is yet further disrespect toward our citizenry from the CCF. The governmennt has no mandate to discriminate in any way. We will oppose any and all measures that try to say that one person has more rights than any other. |
| Date | 02:30:18, July 21, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination (December 2082 Act) |
| Message | Ow, the rhetoric, it burns! ;) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 199 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 185 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 66 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "The experience of ages has shown that a man who works on the land is purer, nobler, higher, and more moral... Agriculture should be at the basis of everything." - Mikuláš Gogolský, former Deltarian writer |