Conyers has stepped down, as he should have. Let's see if Representative Blake Fartenhold, facing very similar allegations, does the same.
Also, weird as it may be, it IS possible to be an icon of the civil rights movement and someone who sexually harassed women in the workplace at the same time. John Conyers was both.
This morning on CNN, a Roy Moore spokesperson pointed out the fact that host Poppy Harlow was pregnant, and then proceeded to ask her how that makes her feel about abortion. Real classy:
So the gay wedding cake case is at the Supreme Court. The Trump administration and the baker are claiming that forcing a baker to use his "artistry" and prepare a cake for a gay couples cake is against his freedom of expression. He wants to be free to discriminate and be a bigot.
However you feel about gay weddings this is a huge can of worms because once you open this door to legal discrimination there's no stopping it.
If they rule in his favor next we can expect all kinds of discrimination. Tailors could refuse service for Muslims or Protestants. Hair dressers could refuse to employ their "artistry" on Latina women because they are against immigrants. Stuff like that.
It's nearly 2018 and Republicans are still trying to find new tricks to legalize discrimination.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, considered by many to be a homophobe, offered the following (really) : "I've yet to have a wedding cake that I'd say tasted great."
So the gay wedding cake case is at the Supreme Court. The Trump administration and the baker are claiming that forcing a baker to use his "artistry" and prepare a cake for a gay couples cake is against his freedom of expression. He wants to be free to discriminate and be a bigot.
However you feel about gay weddings this is a huge can of worms because once you open this door to legal discrimination there's no stopping it.
If they rule in his favor next we can expect all kinds of discrimination. Tailors could refuse service for Muslims or Protestants. Hair dressers could refuse to employ their "artistry" on Latina women because they are against immigrants. Stuff like that.
It's nearly 2018 and Republicans are still trying to find new tricks to legalize discrimination.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, considered by many to be a homophobe, offered the following (really) : "I've yet to have a wedding cake that I'd say tasted great."
Don't these bakeries have to be licensed by the State to legally operate?? And if so, isn't it in the interest of said State to compel those they give the PRIVILEGE of a business license to to not discriminate against citizens of that State??
Beyond this, the ability of people to turn around and claim they are victims of religious discrimination because they themselves want to practice discrimination remains astounding. If they win the case, I sincerely hope their business fails and they fall into bankruptcy.
What do we have here?? A liberal speaker disinvited from a college campus?? Is this evidence of right-wing political correctness and snowflake culture run amok??
No, actually it isn't. It's just that some people get disinvited from speaking at college campuses.
I don't blame the administration for withdrawing the offer; they're just trying to keep funding for their program. But it's an abuse of power for a donor to a college to demand restrictions on who can speak on campus.
I see absolutely no evidence of Trump being "a would be dictator".
Being too white is a serious offense in the U.K and if your corporate board fails to bow to the creed of diversity you will be dragged before the council of wrongthink to justify your actions. More pushing for anti white discrimination from the left, and certainly not the first example to come from the U.K. Im looking at you, BBC.
Well, this article says that ethnic minorities make up 14% of the British population but only account for 2% of the director positions in question. What would you say accounts for that discrepancy in hiring?? Unless the argument is that they are inherently inferior.
Ethnic minorities make up 14% of the population now (and a disproportinate number are children). Large scale immigration to the UK is relatively recent. "Director Positions" would tend to come from people who started in those jobs 30/40 years ago when the percentage of ethnic minorities was considerably less. And those ethnic minorities with the relevent UK qualifications at that time even fewer.
Took my British family nearly the whole of last century and three generations to go from poor, unskilled manual workers to producing children who could attend the best universities and be in a position to be "Directors".
Why the sudden need to leapfrog ethnic minorities when the indiginous working or unskilled labourers have had to work for generations to achieve the same?
I see absolutely no evidence of Trump being "a would be dictator".
Being too white is a serious offense in the U.K and if your corporate board fails to bow to the creed of diversity you will be dragged before the council of wrongthink to justify your actions. More pushing for anti white discrimination from the left, and certainly not the first example to come from the U.K. Im looking at you, BBC.
Well, this article says that ethnic minorities make up 14% of the British population but only account for 2% of the director positions in question. What would you say accounts for that discrepancy in hiring?? Unless the argument is that they are inherently inferior.
Ethnic minorities make up 14% of the population now (and a disproportinate number are children). Large scale immigration to the UK is relatively recent. "Director Positions" would tend to come from people who started in those jobs 30/40 years ago when the percentage of ethnic minorities was considerably less. And those ethnic minorities with the relevent UK qualifications at that time even fewer.
Took my British family nearly the whole of last century and three generations to go from poor, unskilled manual workers to producing children who could attend the best universities and be in a position to be "Directors".
Why the sudden need to leapfrog ethnic minorities when the indiginous working or unskilled labourers have had to work for generations to achieve the same?
That depends on what hard percentage of ethnic minorities are recent arrivals and which aren't. And what your definition of recent is. And it would also depend on the number who are children as related to those who are adults (and likewise, how that compares to the non-minority adult/child ratio).
I see absolutely no evidence of Trump being "a would be dictator".
Being too white is a serious offense in the U.K and if your corporate board fails to bow to the creed of diversity you will be dragged before the council of wrongthink to justify your actions. More pushing for anti white discrimination from the left, and certainly not the first example to come from the U.K. Im looking at you, BBC.
Well, this article says that ethnic minorities make up 14% of the British population but only account for 2% of the director positions in question. What would you say accounts for that discrepancy in hiring?? Unless the argument is that they are inherently inferior.
Ethnic minorities make up 14% of the population now (and a disproportinate number are children). Large scale immigration to the UK is relatively recent. "Director Positions" would tend to come from people who started in those jobs 30/40 years ago when the percentage of ethnic minorities was considerably less. And those ethnic minorities with the relevent UK qualifications at that time even fewer.
Took my British family nearly the whole of last century and three generations to go from poor, unskilled manual workers to producing children who could attend the best universities and be in a position to be "Directors".
Why the sudden need to leapfrog ethnic minorities when the indiginous working or unskilled labourers have had to work for generations to achieve the same?
That depends on what hard percentage of ethnic minorities are recent arrivals and which aren't. And what your definition of recent is. And it would also depend on the number who are children as related to those who are adults (and likewise, how that compares to the non-minority adult/child ratio).
What's a hard percentage?
And what's the definition of recent? I'd say the 1950's is recent, all emigration to the UK in such large amounts is recent.
Not sure if you are based in the US, but there is no correlation between immigration to the UK and the US. The UK has a settled population and has had that for the past thousand or more years.
Why should the poor and disadvantaged in the UK move over to make room for immigrants? Share what little they have, what little they have always had with new arrivals? Had we had a society where all those at the bottem of the social scale had plenty, then a case could be made for asking those people to share. As it is, for instance, it's social housing, that provided for those with less, that is being shared out to immigrants. Not mansions in Mayfair.
TBH stop playing identity politics and ask the better question, why are there so few of the working class in "Director positions" (or politics/law ect.) regardless of ethnicity.
I thin we would be remiss if we didn't talk more about the moves being made to set up a shadow intelligence and spy operation that's only purpose is to protect the President from "enemies". As @Mathsorcerer said, this is dangerous. The reporter who wrote The Intercept article is Jeremy Scahill, who has been reporting on Erik Prince for over a decade, and, literally, wrote the book on Blackwater, his private mercenary company. And if you've followed Scahill's reporting, you will know that Erik Prince is a Christian Dominionist and basically an outright fascist. And I am not going to shy away from the fact that putting together a private intelligence service to undermine the actual law enforcement and spy agencies of the government was EXACTLY what Hitler did when he came to power.
I thin we would be remiss if we didn't talk more about the moves being made to set up a shadow intelligence and spy operation that's only purpose is to protect the President from "enemies". As @Mathsorcerer said, this is dangerous. The reporter who wrote The Intercept article is Jeremy Scahill, who has been reporting on Erik Prince for over a decade, and, literally, wrote the book on Blackwater, his private mercenary company. And if you've followed Scahill's reporting, you will know that Erik Prince is a Christian Dominionist and basically an outright fascist. And I am not going to shy away from the fact that putting together a private intelligence service to undermine the actual law enforcement and spy agencies of the government was EXACTLY what Hitler did when he came to power.
It was also the ineffectiveness and unpopularity of the Weimar Republic that lead to Hitler's rise. Another parallel? I can't see anything good coming out of the current 30-40-30% split in this country. It's nearly impossible to represent this kind of demographic with only two parties. I'd actually love to see both parties split up. If only the center-left and center-right could come together and form some kind of third party. I know it won't happen but I dare to dream...
I see absolutely no evidence of Trump being "a would be dictator".
Being too white is a serious offense in the U.K and if your corporate board fails to bow to the creed of diversity you will be dragged before the council of wrongthink to justify your actions. More pushing for anti white discrimination from the left, and certainly not the first example to come from the U.K. Im looking at you, BBC.
Well, this article says that ethnic minorities make up 14% of the British population but only account for 2% of the director positions in question. What would you say accounts for that discrepancy in hiring?? Unless the argument is that they are inherently inferior.
Ethnic minorities make up 14% of the population now (and a disproportinate number are children). Large scale immigration to the UK is relatively recent. "Director Positions" would tend to come from people who started in those jobs 30/40 years ago when the percentage of ethnic minorities was considerably less. And those ethnic minorities with the relevent UK qualifications at that time even fewer.
Took my British family nearly the whole of last century and three generations to go from poor, unskilled manual workers to producing children who could attend the best universities and be in a position to be "Directors".
Why the sudden need to leapfrog ethnic minorities when the indiginous working or unskilled labourers have had to work for generations to achieve the same?
While in the past boardroom directors tended to be promoted internally there are a number of reasons why this culture (which can verge on the semi-feudalistic!) should not be regarded as sacred. Lack of corporate governance has been regarded as one reason for recent financial crises. Consistently appointing officers who are relatively elderly, male, and long term employees rather than varying some of those variables may lead to corruption. A broad variety of perspectives strengthens companies, and a recognition of this can lead to better performance and stability. If appointments are being made on the basis of 'Buggin's turn' then problematic outcomes may result...
A sort of pro-whitey example of the possible positive effects on corporate governance of appointing external candidates would be the Olympus scandal in Japan:
I wasn't suggesting that the current culture is sacred. More sick to death of "minorities" being used by those who currently have power/influence seeking to make sure they hold on to it.
The biggest con being played out in the UK is the "priviledged" using minorities to divert attention from how they have sewn up tight their own priviledges.
The middle classes in the UK will patronise ethnic minorities and curse out anybody who might actually challenge their own priviledge. It's far, far easier in a class ridden society like the UK to be kind to some poor "ethnic" who actually doesn't have the cultural capital to turn round and say "we own this country as much as you and look at how you are behaving".
Hence Brexit.
When you have middle class Head Teachers being paid 100k or more and working in schools that are not providing a decent education for the pupils attending. It's only somebody born and bred who can actually turn round and say "WTF". And they know it. Deep down they daren't look in that mirror.
@UnderstandingMouseMagic: It's uncommon in American political discourse to complain about the middle class(es), so your post made me curious about differing class perceptions. Turns out that roughly 60% of Britons identify as working class, compared to under 40% of Americans. If you remove the "working class" option, then nearly 9 in 10 Americans regard themselves as lower-middle, middle, or upper-middle class. I guess it must have a very different connotation there.
I didn't follow the part about minorities being used to maintain privilege.
Interesting. I would regard ethnic minorities (many of whom are 'born and bred here') as being more demonised than patronised, particularly as hate crimes spike post-Brexit. However I can see how they have been treated as a sort of political shuttlecock in some respects. In this light, rather than opposing measures which promote diversity, it makes sense to me for disadvantaged groups to cannibalise the upper classes who want the rest of society to squabble over the scraps. It's a bit easier to spot the upper classes in Britain, even if they learn to camouflage themselves with a pint as Farage did!
(A more complex question is the extent to which upper classes have forged links to become an international elite. That's still a work in progress, and will perhaps collapse into interbreeding as the European royal families did!)
I see absolutely no evidence of Trump being "a would be dictator".
Being too white is a serious offense in the U.K and if your corporate board fails to bow to the creed of diversity you will be dragged before the council of wrongthink to justify your actions. More pushing for anti white discrimination from the left, and certainly not the first example to come from the U.K. Im looking at you, BBC.
Well, this article says that ethnic minorities make up 14% of the British population but only account for 2% of the director positions in question. What would you say accounts for that discrepancy in hiring?? Unless the argument is that they are inherently inferior.
Ethnic minorities make up 14% of the population now (and a disproportinate number are children). Large scale immigration to the UK is relatively recent. "Director Positions" would tend to come from people who started in those jobs 30/40 years ago when the percentage of ethnic minorities was considerably less. And those ethnic minorities with the relevent UK qualifications at that time even fewer.
Took my British family nearly the whole of last century and three generations to go from poor, unskilled manual workers to producing children who could attend the best universities and be in a position to be "Directors".
Why the sudden need to leapfrog ethnic minorities when the indiginous working or unskilled labourers have had to work for generations to achieve the same?
That depends on what hard percentage of ethnic minorities are recent arrivals and which aren't. And what your definition of recent is. And it would also depend on the number who are children as related to those who are adults (and likewise, how that compares to the non-minority adult/child ratio).
What's a hard percentage?
And what's the definition of recent? I'd say the 1950's is recent, all emigration to the UK in such large amounts is recent.
Not sure if you are based in the US, but there is no correlation between immigration to the UK and the US. The UK has a settled population and has had that for the past thousand or more years.
Why should the poor and disadvantaged in the UK move over to make room for immigrants? Share what little they have, what little they have always had with new arrivals? Had we had a society where all those at the bottem of the social scale had plenty, then a case could be made for asking those people to share. As it is, for instance, it's social housing, that provided for those with less, that is being shared out to immigrants. Not mansions in Mayfair.
TBH stop playing identity politics and ask the better question, why are there so few of the working class in "Director positions" (or politics/law ect.) regardless of ethnicity.
I was simply asking for numbers to crunch other than the ones provided in the article. If I had them crunched them and, it in fact turned out that the rate of actual ethnic minorities who could reasonably even be considered for the job was within 1 or 2 percentage points of the actual amount who hold them, I was completely open to saying that this might be a program that might not be needed. But as of now I don't have those numbers, and I also can't agree that the 1950s (which would constitute 70 years) is a reasonable time-frame to exclude potential candidates from being qualified.
Trump is going to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel and will move the US embassy to there at great expense. I'll try to explain what that means best I can, I'm definitely no expert.
This move is exclusionary to Palestinians who consider Jerusalem to be their capital. So Trump is picking the Jewish nation over the Muslim one. This is a needless slap in the face to many.
Arab nations have condemned the move and Trumps buddy dictator Erdogan in Trukey says this move is beyond the red line.
Trump getting is getting the United States in the middle of a religious dispute and picking sides. Millions of Muslims will not have their minds changed and realize the error of their faith by this move. When some jackass in another country tells you your religion is wrong that is totally convincing and a good way to change your mind. What could go wrong?
Imminent conflict with North Korea is not enough for Trump he also wants to destabilize and risk conflict in the middle east as well it seems.
Trump is going to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel and will move the US embassy to there at great expense. I'll try to explain what that means best I can, I'm definitely no expert.
This move is exclusionary to Palestinians who consider Jerusalem to be their capital. So Trump is picking the Jewish nation over the Muslim one. This is a needless slap in the face to many.
Arab nations have condemned the move and Trumps buddy dictator Erdogan in Trukey says this move is beyond the red line.
Trump getting is getting the United States in the middle of a religious dispute and picking sides. Millions of Muslims will not have their minds changed and realize the error of their faith by this move. When some jackass in another country tells you your religion is wrong that is totally convincing and a good way to change your mind. What could go wrong?
Imminent conflict with North Korea is not enough for Trump he also wants to destabilize and risk conflict in the middle east as well it seems.
With this move, I'm genuinely convinced Trump wants to provoke a terrorist attack to solidify his power.
@UnderstandingMouseMagic: It's uncommon in American political discourse to complain about the middle class(es), so your post made me curious about differing class perceptions. Turns out that roughly 60% of Britons identify as working class, compared to under 40% of Americans. If you remove the "working class" option, then nearly 9 in 10 Americans regard themselves as lower-middle, middle, or upper-middle class. I guess it must have a very different connotation there.
I didn't follow the part about minorities being used to maintain privilege.
Providing cheap labour. Competing with those who are already disadvantaged therefore making any challenge to those above them that much more difficult. Large scale immigration inevitably settles in areas which are already poor. It's the poor in the UK who see their schools affected, their healthcare affected, their services affected. It's the poor in the UK who have to compete for social housing and social services with the recent arrivals.
And one of the most effective ways to maintain privilege is to keep those below at a disadvantage. Builders/handymen/catering/hospitality workers, ordinary non skilled or semi skilled workers have watched their incomes fall. Undermine the value of your countryman/woman's labour by having an inexhaustable supply. Unless of course you have "the right professional qualifications and connections" then you just get pay rises.
And when this is pointed out, avoid all critisism by calling everybody racist. Virtue signal until the cows come home whilst not paying the going rate for the services you use. Keep more of your money to yourself. Invest in property and watch how having 3 million extra people in the country leads to property price rises.
I see absolutely no evidence of Trump being "a would be dictator".
Being too white is a serious offense in the U.K and if your corporate board fails to bow to the creed of diversity you will be dragged before the council of wrongthink to justify your actions. More pushing for anti white discrimination from the left, and certainly not the first example to come from the U.K. Im looking at you, BBC.
Well, this article says that ethnic minorities make up 14% of the British population but only account for 2% of the director positions in question. What would you say accounts for that discrepancy in hiring?? Unless the argument is that they are inherently inferior.
Ethnic minorities make up 14% of the population now (and a disproportinate number are children). Large scale immigration to the UK is relatively recent. "Director Positions" would tend to come from people who started in those jobs 30/40 years ago when the percentage of ethnic minorities was considerably less. And those ethnic minorities with the relevent UK qualifications at that time even fewer.
Took my British family nearly the whole of last century and three generations to go from poor, unskilled manual workers to producing children who could attend the best universities and be in a position to be "Directors".
Why the sudden need to leapfrog ethnic minorities when the indiginous working or unskilled labourers have had to work for generations to achieve the same?
That depends on what hard percentage of ethnic minorities are recent arrivals and which aren't. And what your definition of recent is. And it would also depend on the number who are children as related to those who are adults (and likewise, how that compares to the non-minority adult/child ratio).
What's a hard percentage?
And what's the definition of recent? I'd say the 1950's is recent, all emigration to the UK in such large amounts is recent.
Not sure if you are based in the US, but there is no correlation between immigration to the UK and the US. The UK has a settled population and has had that for the past thousand or more years.
Why should the poor and disadvantaged in the UK move over to make room for immigrants? Share what little they have, what little they have always had with new arrivals? Had we had a society where all those at the bottem of the social scale had plenty, then a case could be made for asking those people to share. As it is, for instance, it's social housing, that provided for those with less, that is being shared out to immigrants. Not mansions in Mayfair.
TBH stop playing identity politics and ask the better question, why are there so few of the working class in "Director positions" (or politics/law ect.) regardless of ethnicity.
I was simply asking for numbers to crunch other than the ones provided in the article. If I had them crunched them and, it in fact turned out that the rate of actual ethnic minorities who could reasonably even be considered for the job was within 1 or 2 percentage points of the actual amount who hold them, I was completely open to saying that this might be a program that might not be needed. But as of now I don't have those numbers, and I also can't agree that the 1950s (which would constitute 70 years) is a reasonable time-frame to exclude potential candidates from being qualified.
The proportion of black and minority ethnic groups has indeed been rising sharply in the UK in recent years. The 14% figure quoted earlier was from the 2011 census and the equivalent in 1991 was 6%. While I agree with some of what @UnderstandMouseMagic says I don't think at all that attempting to help ethnic minorities is a way of protecting middle class privilege - quite the reverse. There is a large cross-over between issues of class and race when considering equity across society, but that is widely recognised. There's a lot of discussion at the moment for instance about admission to 'elite' universities and the focus there is more on class than race.
As for why should people share what they have with immigrants there are certainly potential answers, but I think it's the wrong question to pose. Studies have consistently shown that even asylum seekers make a net positive economic impact on the UK. Asylum seekers though are a small proportion of total immigrants and the economic impact is overwhelmingly positive for the larger group. That doesn't mean there are no economic problems associated with immigration. Often immigrants cluster together in geographic areas and that can lead to local pressure on services such as education, health and housing which cause understandable concerns for local people. Most of those concerns could (and should) be addressed though if the national government distributed resources to deal with the local pressures.
Trump is going to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel and will move the US embassy to there at great expense. I'll try to explain what that means best I can, I'm definitely no expert.
This move is exclusionary to Palestinians who consider Jerusalem to be their capital. So Trump is picking the Jewish nation over the Muslim one. This is a needless slap in the face to many.
Arab nations have condemned the move and Trumps buddy dictator Erdogan in Trukey says this move is beyond the red line.
Trump getting is getting the United States in the middle of a religious dispute and picking sides. Millions of Muslims will not have their minds changed and realize the error of their faith by this move. When some jackass in another country tells you your religion is wrong that is totally convincing and a good way to change your mind. What could go wrong?
Imminent conflict with North Korea is not enough for Trump he also wants to destabilize and risk conflict in the middle east as well it seems.
With this move, I'm genuinely convinced Trump wants to provoke a terrorist attack to solidify his power.
Hmm... And it just came out that Mueller subpoenaed Trump's Deutsche bank records and then the same day Trump tries to provoke war or a terrorist attack in the middle east. Hmmm... What can it mean? Perhaps he's hoping for a bump in popularity if he starts a war?
I fail to see what Trump intended to accomplish by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It's not like this will actually do anything good for either Americans or Israelis. It won't make Israel safer. It won't make peace easier. It won't strengthen America's position in the Middle East or any other part of the globe. All it does is piss off a large number of people who happen to have guns and rockets aimed at Israel.
You know, I could be okay with a decision that made Middle Eastern Muslims angry if it actually accomplished something. But I can't support a decision that endangers Israel's security and does nothing else.
@UnderstandingMouseMagic: It's uncommon in American political discourse to complain about the middle class(es), so your post made me curious about differing class perceptions. Turns out that roughly 60% of Britons identify as working class, compared to under 40% of Americans. If you remove the "working class" option, then nearly 9 in 10 Americans regard themselves as lower-middle, middle, or upper-middle class. I guess it must have a very different connotation there.
I didn't follow the part about minorities being used to maintain privilege.
And one of the most effective ways to maintain privilege is to keep those below at a disadvantage. Builders/handymen/catering/hospitality workers, ordinary non skilled or semi skilled workers have watched their incomes fall. Undermine the value of your countryman/woman's labour by having an inexhaustable supply. Unless of course you have "the right professional qualifications and connections" then you just get pay rises.
According to a variety of academic studies increased immigration does not lead to decreasing wages. There is a lot of evidence that immigration benefits the country as a whole, and strengthens services in the long run. Immigrants tend to be younger, which is good for demographics. The state has not paid for their education etc. while they are younger, which is a net gain as they pax tax & consume goods in the future. While anecdotal evidence may exist for immigrants 'taking jobs', reducing immigrant numbers reduces the number of available jobs. Similarly immigrants are often accused of criminal conduct in numerous countries when they actually tend to have lower crime rates, for the practical reason that they would be at risk of losing their visa for even minor offences.
It's the 50th anniversary of Israel annexing part of Jerusalem, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, as an aside.
It's perhaps worth noting that recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital was a campaign promise by Trump. I'm all in favor of the principle of keeping promises.
However, I agree with everything @semiticgod says. If Trump really wanted to be the first country (other than Israel itself) to recognise Jerusalem, then that should have been proposed as part of a wider plan that offered something to other groups. Doing it this way is just another illustration of his approach of increasing general conflict and discontent in order to solidify his personal support from quite small minority groups.
I fail to see what Trump intended to accomplish by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It's not like this will actually do anything good for either Americans or Israelis. It won't make Israel safer. It won't make peace easier. It won't strengthen America's position in the Middle East or any other part of the globe. All it does is piss off a large number of people who happen to have guns and rockets aimed at Israel.
You know, I could be okay with a decision that made Middle Eastern Muslims angry if it actually accomplished something. But I can't support a decision that endangers Israel's security and does nothing else.
Comments
Also, weird as it may be, it IS possible to be an icon of the civil rights movement and someone who sexually harassed women in the workplace at the same time. John Conyers was both.
I'm not holding my breath.
However you feel about gay weddings this is a huge can of worms because once you open this door to legal discrimination there's no stopping it.
If they rule in his favor next we can expect all kinds of discrimination. Tailors could refuse service for Muslims or Protestants. Hair dressers could refuse to employ their "artistry" on Latina women because they are against immigrants. Stuff like that.
It's nearly 2018 and Republicans are still trying to find new tricks to legalize discrimination.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, considered by many to be a homophobe, offered the following (really) : "I've yet to have a wedding cake that I'd say tasted great."
Beyond this, the ability of people to turn around and claim they are victims of religious discrimination because they themselves want to practice discrimination remains astounding. If they win the case, I sincerely hope their business fails and they fall into bankruptcy.
What do we have here?? A liberal speaker disinvited from a college campus?? Is this evidence of right-wing political correctness and snowflake culture run amok??
No, actually it isn't. It's just that some people get disinvited from speaking at college campuses.
Russia has just been banned from participating in the Winter Olympics due to previous banned substance abuse.
With the NHL also not going (Imagine if they were, but Russians like Ovechkin couldn't participate) this Olympics is going to be tame.
"Director Positions" would tend to come from people who started in those jobs 30/40 years ago when the percentage of ethnic minorities was considerably less. And those ethnic minorities with the relevent UK qualifications at that time even fewer.
Took my British family nearly the whole of last century and three generations to go from poor, unskilled manual workers to producing children who could attend the best universities and be in a position to be "Directors".
Why the sudden need to leapfrog ethnic minorities when the indiginous working or unskilled labourers have had to work for generations to achieve the same?
And what's the definition of recent?
I'd say the 1950's is recent, all emigration to the UK in such large amounts is recent.
Not sure if you are based in the US, but there is no correlation between immigration to the UK and the US. The UK has a settled population and has had that for the past thousand or more years.
Why should the poor and disadvantaged in the UK move over to make room for immigrants?
Share what little they have, what little they have always had with new arrivals?
Had we had a society where all those at the bottem of the social scale had plenty, then a case could be made for asking those people to share.
As it is, for instance, it's social housing, that provided for those with less, that is being shared out to immigrants.
Not mansions in Mayfair.
TBH stop playing identity politics and ask the better question, why are there so few of the working class in "Director positions" (or politics/law ect.) regardless of ethnicity.
A sort of pro-whitey example of the possible positive effects on corporate governance of appointing external candidates would be the Olympus scandal in Japan:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_scandal
I wasn't suggesting that the current culture is sacred. More sick to death of "minorities" being used by those who currently have power/influence seeking to make sure they hold on to it.
The biggest con being played out in the UK is the "priviledged" using minorities to divert attention from how they have sewn up tight their own priviledges.
The middle classes in the UK will patronise ethnic minorities and curse out anybody who might actually challenge their own priviledge.
It's far, far easier in a class ridden society like the UK to be kind to some poor "ethnic" who actually doesn't have the cultural capital to turn round and say "we own this country as much as you and look at how you are behaving".
Hence Brexit.
When you have middle class Head Teachers being paid 100k or more and working in schools that are not providing a decent education for the pupils attending. It's only somebody born and bred who can actually turn round and say "WTF".
And they know it.
Deep down they daren't look in that mirror.
I didn't follow the part about minorities being used to maintain privilege.
(A more complex question is the extent to which upper classes have forged links to become an international elite. That's still a work in progress, and will perhaps collapse into interbreeding as the European royal families did!)
This move is exclusionary to Palestinians who consider Jerusalem to be their capital. So Trump is picking the Jewish nation over the Muslim one. This is a needless slap in the face to many.
Arab nations have condemned the move and Trumps buddy dictator Erdogan in Trukey says this move is beyond the red line.
Trump getting is getting the United States in the middle of a religious dispute and picking sides. Millions of Muslims will not have their minds changed and realize the error of their faith by this move. When some jackass in another country tells you your religion is wrong that is totally convincing and a good way to change your mind. What could go wrong?
Imminent conflict with North Korea is not enough for Trump he also wants to destabilize and risk conflict in the middle east as well it seems.
Competing with those who are already disadvantaged therefore making any challenge to those above them that much more difficult.
Large scale immigration inevitably settles in areas which are already poor. It's the poor in the UK who see their schools affected, their healthcare affected, their services affected. It's the poor in the UK who have to compete for social housing and social services with the recent arrivals.
And one of the most effective ways to maintain privilege is to keep those below at a disadvantage.
Builders/handymen/catering/hospitality workers, ordinary non skilled or semi skilled workers have watched their incomes fall.
Undermine the value of your countryman/woman's labour by having an inexhaustable supply.
Unless of course you have "the right professional qualifications and connections" then you just get pay rises.
And when this is pointed out, avoid all critisism by calling everybody racist. Virtue signal until the cows come home whilst not paying the going rate for the services you use. Keep more of your money to yourself. Invest in property and watch how having 3 million extra people in the country leads to property price rises.
As for why should people share what they have with immigrants there are certainly potential answers, but I think it's the wrong question to pose. Studies have consistently shown that even asylum seekers make a net positive economic impact on the UK. Asylum seekers though are a small proportion of total immigrants and the economic impact is overwhelmingly positive for the larger group. That doesn't mean there are no economic problems associated with immigration. Often immigrants cluster together in geographic areas and that can lead to local pressure on services such as education, health and housing which cause understandable concerns for local people. Most of those concerns could (and should) be addressed though if the national government distributed resources to deal with the local pressures.
You know, I could be okay with a decision that made Middle Eastern Muslims angry if it actually accomplished something. But I can't support a decision that endangers Israel's security and does nothing else.
It's the 50th anniversary of Israel annexing part of Jerusalem, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, as an aside.
However, I agree with everything @semiticgod says. If Trump really wanted to be the first country (other than Israel itself) to recognise Jerusalem, then that should have been proposed as part of a wider plan that offered something to other groups. Doing it this way is just another illustration of his approach of increasing general conflict and discontent in order to solidify his personal support from quite small minority groups.
It did exactly what he hoped it'd do.
Time's person of the year are the silence breakers. Those who spoke out against Sexual Harassment.