There are too many Wogistanis at the UN for him to get away with his comments.
The Government will seriously consider a United Nations condemnation of NZ First MP Richard Prosser’s anti-Muslim comments, Justice and Ethnic Affairs Minister Judith Collins says.
The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued a report on New Zealand’s progress at tackling racial discrimination and inequality. Read more »
We have already called for David Farrar to hand in his man card. Now we can be certain he lacks the required manliness to claim it back. He has posted his blouse score on Facebook:
Now either he was being overly politically correct in his answers or he lied like a flatfish, because there is no way in hell he would have scores that low. Especially the hostile sexism. If he did then he would be a happily married man and would have been so for ages.
For the record my scores were: Read more »
There is a great deal of heat and smoke and allegations of misogyny being hurled around in Aussie politics, but they really need to take pause and stop having a sook, things aren’t as bad as they make out.
As debate rages over sexism and misogyny in Canberra and across the country, a global survey has found Australian women are the most economically empowered in the world.
The study says Australian women are the world’s most economically advanced in terms of access to education, market participation and anti-discrimination policies.
Despite Australia still failing to pay women salaries equal to men – average weekly earnings for women are 17 per cent less than men – the survey by international consulting and management firm Booz & Company found it topped a list of 128 countries in allowing women to play a role as economic agents in their social and political systems.
Australia was followed by three Scandinavian countries — Norway, Sweden and Finland. New Zealand was fifth.
At the bottom of the list were Yemen, Pakistan, Sudan and Chad.
Not much to complain about there, though I’m sure one of the Labour wimmin will find something to carp about.
Oh no here is something else for the PC wankers to get all upset about – lookism
General Pants, a popular clothing chain, appears to have found a winning formula for hiring shop assistants: no ugly people.
Wander into any store across Australia and it’s likely you will be greeted by staff who are young, beautiful and hip to the hipbone.
While General Pants would hardly be alone in seeking to recruit presentable staff – and the company wasn’t immediately available to comment – would such a practise be illegal even if it did?
Employers can be sued for discriminating on the basis of gender, race or disabilities. But, with the exception of one Australian state, they are free to discriminate when it comes to physical appearance.
But you can be too good looking
The most famous case of “beauty lookism” happened in New York in 2010, when Debrahlee Lorenzana, a Puerto Rican single mother, filed a suit against Citigroup, claiming that she was fired from her job at a Citibank branch for looking too “hot”.
Cannot see what the fuss is about. Good looking people generally earn more money in sales and therefore cost more to hire. The market will decide what rate an employer can afford to pay. The demand for good looking people in sales is driven from consumers buying their product. Do not pretend it is just men driving this requirement, women like being served by young, good looking men just as much as men the reverse. Many retail stores have become half nightclub, all hook up joints these days. Loud booming music and even their own scent.
The litigation that will result from adding “lookism” into discrimination law will be ridiculous.
Church leaders, but especially the Catholic Church really do have blinkers on when it comes to homosexuality…but the blinkers continue to ignore the plethora of crimes their own priests have committed:
Stubborn leaders, secular and sacred, must not drag the gay marriage debate into disrepute.
When I heard Bishop Philip Tartaglia spark a furious row by suggesting that a former Scotland Office minister’s premature death was connected to his homosexuality, I wanted to cry: can someone please save the Catholic Church from itself? The Archbishop-elect of Glasgow insinuated that David Cairns’s sexual orientation contributed to his death at 44 of pancreatitis. But his slur comes in the wake of Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s outburst about gay marriage being a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”. Taken together, these interventions cement the Church’s reputation for homophobia in many quarters.
Bishop Tartaglia and Cardinal O’Brien have no obvious resemblance to David Cameron: the Scotsmen are older, more portly, and lack the finesse, informed by Eton and polished by his years in PR, that smooths our PM’s edges. They hold opposing views on gay marriage to him. But the three men all risk seriously upsetting their followers over their handling of the issue.
Ordinary Catholics are furious with a leadership that persists in stoking hellfire at the mention of gays; paradoxically, their frustration matches that of ordinary Conservatives, who also despair of their leaders’ attitude to gay marriage. The Church hierarchy may sound like bigots, but the Tory high command are acting like bullies. Polls show that the majority of Catholics in Scotland do not share their leaders’ homophobia. Like so many co-religionists south of the border, they yearn to protect heterosexual marriage without bashing gays in the process. Similarly, polls show that most Conservatives do not share their leaders’ appetite for changing the law on marriage.
Much will be made of the ethnic MPs at the National Party conference, and how diverse the party is becoming. This is all very nice but if the party were actually diverse there would be members who aren’t white and grey.
If National were truly representative it would have more than the current two Maori in cabinet. One of the ethnic candidates would have made the step up.
National’s never been into affirmative action beyond having a few token MPs, and is probably justified in doing so. Our cabinet should be picked on merit, not to please liberal elite wankers who reckon we need “diversity”.
The problem for National is that it doesn’t have the balls to say “we pick people on merit not skin colour or gender, and we don’t do quotas”. That would shut down the discussion.
It sounds like calling someone fatty could well become a hate crime in the UK. It could be worse though, at least they aren’t banning the abuse of Gingas.
Ridiculing someone as ‘fat’ or ‘obese’ could become a hate crime under an idea being floated by a group of MPs and a leading charity.
A report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Body Image and the Central YMCA recommended MPs should investigate putting “appearance-based discrimination” on the same legal basis as race and sexual discrimination.
Under the Equalities Act 2010, it is illegal to harass, victimise or discriminate against anyone on the basis of a number of ‘protected’ characteristics, such as their race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability.
The parliamentary group, supported by the charity Central YMCA, has today published a report, Reflections on Body Image, recommending “a review into the scale of the problem of appearance-based discrimination and how this would be best tackled”.
It goes on: “This may include exploring whether an amendment to the Equalities Act would be the most appropriate way of tackling such discrimination.”
Under the current act, people can and are prosecuted for verbal abuse if it is deemed serious enough.
Now you might think I am being cheeky with the headline, but check what Andrew Sullivan has to say about equality…from a gay perspective on the difference between the private sector and the government in enhancing equality.
One of the oldest arguments we had in the old gay rights movement – back when it was a monolithic captive of the New Left – was whether discrimination could be countered more effectively by private choice or public mandate. My view was that the government should not discriminate against gay citizens in any way, but that the private sector and anti-gay religious communities should retain more freedom. The market would eventually win over bigotry, I argued. That’s me and my libertarianism.
The consensus view was that federal anti-discrimination laws were much more vital, and the top priority of the Human Rights Campaign. That was in 1988. Such a federal law remains out of reach more than two decades later, despite massive support from the general public. But without such a law, we’ve been able to test whether the free market logic of non-discrimination can work. Today, we hear this news:
For the first time ever, all 100 firms on Fortune’s Best Companies To Work For list this year have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation.
This is not because they are somehow being noble. It is because they are serving their shareholders by employing the absolutely best people for the jobs they have and do not want to miss someone’s talents because of something irrelevant like sexual orientation.
Hence capitalism enables equality. And the last entity to get with the program is the government.
First Hone, now this.
In an email to Mr Rankin, Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres said although he deplored Professor Mutu’s suggestion that New Zealand should discriminate against white-skinned people from certain countries, the Bill of Rights Act allowed people to speak their mind.
Mr de Bres also quoted the Education Act, which, he said, respected the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test perceived wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions.
Professor Mutu, who is also head of the Department of Maori Studies at the University of Auckland, claimed Maori were generally supportive of
Or is the rule if you are Maori you can say what you like and get away with it?
Imagine if an academic had used academic freedom to say we should not allow jews, arabs, afghans or eskimo in because they didn’t play rugby. Joris would have had kittens.
Continuing the series from previous posts.
National is experiencing some of the same problems that David Cameron is having to deal with after re-branding the Tory party:
Third, the Tories tried to prove that they were “nice” by siding with politically organised groups whose strategy was to portray themselves as victims: ethnic minorities were victims of oppression by whites, and gays were victims of “straight” oppressors. The main ploy of such groups – there are now seven with legal recognition – was to claim that each group should be represented in every sub-division of society in the same proportion as it is found in the general population. If ethnic minorities make up 9 per cent of the population then if 9 per cent of judges, teachers or doctors are not from ethnic minorities there must have been discrimination by whites. The political solution has been to enact laws defining discrimination as disproportionate representation, even though such disparities are inevitable. As a result, complying with anti-discrimination law has become a major business cost. The Equality Act is the latest in a long line of anti-discrimination measures and its main clauses did not come into effect until October 1. The Coalition could have delayed the new law but instead it chose to push it through, despite promising that it would adopt a one-in one-out approach to regulation. Their policy announcement that no new regulations would be imposed unless an old one was abandoned didn’t last five minutes.
We are going to see something similar as National embraces the Greens. Watch also for a push from the gay community for gay marriage. Momentum is building in the US and in Britain for this. David Cameron has already neutralised the issue by supporting gay marriage. John Key can do likewise. By doing so he will take the card away from Labour who think they have a mortgage on rainbow votes.
