Weblog entry #258 for simonw
See all weblog entries made by simonw.
Comments on this Entry
whims they decide they want to indulge themselves in. It's quite a deficiency
in the governance of the EC IMHO.
Still, it's a commission ruling, not a court ruling as far as I can see.
I'd expect it to fail in the European court - and that will overule the
current situation.
My guess is a test case will drag the to the European court and the
commission ruling will be overruled.
Freedom must be worked for - constantly.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
[ Send Message | View Utumno's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
Simon, since you keep bringing up this subject:
I am of the opinion that an employer should be able to dictate who works for him.
Thus: I cannot see anything wrong with this ruling. In fact, I consider it a breeze of fresh air.
If I run an orphanage I should be able to fire anyone who is even suspected (yes, suspected, not proven ) to have had commited pedophile acts in the past.
If I run a company and redheads piss me off, the state should not have any right to force me to employ them.
If I run a religious school I should not be forced to hire people who openly defy the principles of my religion.
If I run a consulting company and I have deluded myself into believing that in order to dazzle my customers I have to have good looking, female consultants with big baloons - well, I should have the right to state my wishes in the job offer and thus discriminate against old, male, bald geeks with breasts on the smallish side.
Discrimination? Of course. So?
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
1. "juden need not apply" (hah. have to bypass the filter...)
2. "Blacks and irish need not apply"
The above type of adverts were in common use in Europe not so long ago.
Where do you draw the line for being able to claim discrimination?
Would you draw *any* line, ever? Do you have any limits?
What about the flip side: Only juden may apply/only blacks/irish may apply?
Is expressing discrimination openly like above OK? Why?
Is your stance on offensive behaviour in public consistent with the above?
Just curious if you have thought it through.
PJ
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
[ Send Message | View Utumno's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
This is a purely theoretical discussion as those kinds of laws have no chance to get through the communists in Brussels, but in principle - yes, "only juden/irish/blacks may apply" and "no juden/irish/blacks" are perfectly ok.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
What you're saying is pure right-wing, xenophobic gibberish.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
[ Send Message | View Utumno's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
You can label me a 'xenophobe' , I also could label you a 'leftie' and where would this lead us? Nowhere. Please stop labelling.
Would your company hire a person with a mohawk to be its PR person? Of course not, because that would undermine your company's credibility in the eyes of its customers.
Coming back to the original issue, hiring an openly gay teacher undermines a religious school credibility in the same way. Its customers are conservative parents who are not going to send their children to such school. Hiring the gay would therefore create measurable losses for the school. That is exactly why the school - and any other company - should be able to dictate who can work there.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
secret", is the company right in deciding to not consider him because of
this reason? And (a separate issue) should they have the right to not hire him
because of this reason?
What if the company says: "no juden" and a blond jude turns up and doesn't
disclose his origin?
According to you, is encouraging/mandating restrictions on juden or
other groups right when it should not visibly affect the
company/school/whatever?
Should a state have any responsibility to minorities to restrict unfair
discrimination against them?
According to you, was Hitler within his rights in encouraging/mandating
enforcing discrimination on the juden? (I'm not talking about the ultimate
result that this lead to - concentration camps and death - I'm talking
about earlier, when the screws were being tightened on them)
Is there any point at which discrimination is wrong in your view?
PJ
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
I think there is a much heavier moral responsibility on spending tax revenue, such that it doesn't discriminate against law abiding citizens, who are after all forced to pay the taxes being used to discriminate against them. I also object to the government spending my taxes on anyone but the best person for a particular government job, the government, like the law, should be blind to irrelevant aspects of job applicants beliefs or behaviours in appointing staff.
As regards private institutions I have some sympathy for your view, although I'd argue that it is a complex issue, and some groups (such as young women) would find employment opportunities with career prospects very limited if there were no protection. There are reasons these laws were introduced, and before repealing them one must consider the kind of society that might result.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]