When I worked for myself, the law was quite clear in that if I wanted to employ someone, it was illegal for me to discriminate against any candidate based on their:

• Age
• Being or becoming a transsexual person
• Being married or in a civil partnership
• Being pregnant or having a child
• Disability
• Race (including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin)
• Religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
• Sex/Gender
• Sexual orientation

As it happens, I don't have a single problem with anything on this list, both in its specific application to Employment Law or in all other aspects of life in general.
 
But what I don't understand is why there are legally 'allowable' exceptions to these rules.
 
For example:

• 'Minority' only shortlists, e.g. woman-only shortlists for MP candidature
• Bodies and associations that only allow people from one particular race/ethnicity to become members, e.g. National Black Police Association; Association of Muslim Lawyers
• Special offers on services and products that are only available to a certain demographic, e.g. Tesco offering reduced rate car washing for OAPs (senior citizens)

There must be hundreds of other examples?
 
To take these examples and turn them on their head, can you imagine the outrage if someone suggested men-only shortlists for potential Members of Parliament? Or the reaction to a proposed National White Police Association or an Association of Non-Muslim Lawyers? Or Tesco only offering cheaper car washes for customers in their thirties?
 
It seems to me, (and I'll readily admit my naivety here) that as a middle-aged white atheist, it's actually me that gets discriminated against in nearly every example of 'legal discrimination' I can think of.
 
No doubt a lot of extremely wicked acts were perpetrated in the past against many minorities and/or perceived inferiors by white men. But it almost feels that retribution is being made against me and my ilk for the actions of my predecessors - a sort of "now you know what it feels like" state of affairs.
 
I'm always bemused by modern-day politicians 'apologising' (often on behalf of their country) for acts or atrocities that took place hundreds of years ago, or in any event long before they were in any position to have been culpable.
 
The current trend is for white leaders to apologise for the Slave Trade. I notice also that monetary restitutions have also been mentioned by some. No sane person would for one minute think that the Slave Trade was anything other than one of the greatest crimes ever enacted by one group of people against another. Quite rightly these unspeakable acts should be condemned forever, as much to remember the victims, but also to ensure that these abominations are never allowed to happen again.
 
But I'm afraid I just don't understand the 'apology' thing at all, and I don't see what they accomplish, especially when they are impersonally issued by proxy on behalf of a nation.
 
 
 

No.

I suppose it could be for political posturing, as many things are these days.
 
Personally, I'm the first to offer an apology if I feel that I should, but I absolutely refuse to apologize for anything I haven't actually said or done myself.
 
I never apologize for anyone else. And I would be furious if someone did that for me or 'on my behalf' - not at least without checking with me first.

The current trend is for white leaders to apologise for the Slave Trade. I notice also that monetary restitutions have also been mentioned by some. No sane person would for one minute think that the Slave Trade was anything other than one of the greatest crimes ever enacted by one group of people against another. Quite rightly these unspeakable acts should be condemned forever, as much to remember the victims, but also to ensure that these abominations are never allowed to happen again.
 
 
 
Much of the wealth in today's first world was generated from colonial empires. Wealthy families around the world still enjoy the proceeds of slavery passed on down the line.

I think it's fair to say whites for the most part have controlled this ill gotten wealth.

Haven't most whites, regardless of economic standing, benefitted from 'white wealth'?

I think I have.
I believe the economic tables were slanted in my favor for much of my young life.

I look at it now as maybe the tables being slanted the other way a bit.
Is it fair?

I'm still waiting for my membership card and first check. Just a clerical oversight, I'm sure.

SteveStrummerUK
 
When I worked for myself, the law was quite clear in that if I wanted to employ someone, it was illegal for me to discriminate against any candidate based on their:

• Age
• Being or becoming a transsexual person
• Being married or in a civil partnership
• Being pregnant or having a child
• Disability
• Race (including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin)
• Religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
• Sex/Gender
• Sexual orientation

As it happens, I don't have a single problem with anything on this list, both in its specific application to Employment Law or in all other aspects of life in general.
 
But what I don't understand is why there are legally 'allowable' exceptions to these rules.
 
For example:

• 'Minority' only shortlists, e.g. woman-only shortlists for MP candidature
• Bodies and associations that only allow people from one particular race/ethnicity to become members, e.g. National Black Police Association; Association of Muslim Lawyers
• Special offers on services and products that are only available to a certain demographic, e.g. Tesco offering reduced rate car washing for OAPs (senior citizens)

There must be hundreds of other examples?
 
To take these examples and turn them on their head, can you imagine the outrage if someone suggested men-only shortlists for potential Members of Parliament? Or the reaction to a proposed National White Police Association or an Association of Non-Muslim Lawyers? Or Tesco only offering cheaper car washes for customers in their thirties?
 
It seems to me, (and I'll readily admit my naivety here) that as a middle-aged white atheist, it's actually me that gets discriminated against in nearly every example of 'legal discrimination' I can think of.
 
No doubt a lot of extremely wicked acts were perpetrated in the past against many minorities and/or perceived inferiors by white men. But it almost feels that retribution is being made against me and my ilk for the actions of my predecessors - a sort of "now you know what it feels like" state of affairs.
 
I'm always bemused by modern-day politicians 'apologising' (often on behalf of their country) for acts or atrocities that took place hundreds of years ago, or in any event long before they were in any position to have been culpable.
 
The current trend is for white leaders to apologise for the Slave Trade. I notice also that monetary restitutions have also been mentioned by some. No sane person would for one minute think that the Slave Trade was anything other than one of the greatest crimes ever enacted by one group of people against another. Quite rightly these unspeakable acts should be condemned forever, as much to remember the victims, but also to ensure that these abominations are never allowed to happen again.
 
But I'm afraid I just don't understand the 'apology' thing at all, and I don't see what they accomplish, especially when they are impersonally issued by proxy on behalf of a nation.
 
 
 

 
This thread will probably walk a dangerously thin line to politics but I can answer some of the things I do actually know.  You can toss out  like "Bodies and associations that only allow people from one particular race/ethnicity to become members, e.g. National Black Police Association; Association of Muslim Lawyers"
 
Most of those organizations are member based organizations that fit a certain demographic.  It IS illegal for any of those organizations to deny employment to people based on discrimination.  There ARE white people attending "black" colleges and "black" organizations despite the name.  I have even known white guys who pledged "black" fraternities.  Keep in mind many of these organizations came into being when these groups were not allowed to be in mainstream organizations that only permitted white males.  Now the PC language is catching up and some organizations now use the term "traditionally black" to allow for the fact that anyone is free to join.
 
As for things like discounts for senior citizens, again, you are confusing employment discrimination law with private companies right to target offers.  Any company could theoretically make a "30% off to all white people" coupon but it would likely be a bad PR move.  Not many people are adamantly opposed to giving Senior citizens a break.  So, technically it does grant seniors preferential trreatment that will likely always be accepted by society.  This would be much different if you were talking about a company that only hired senior citizens and turned away qualified younger people. 
 
The rest of your statements I will likely not touch because I know better than to get into politics on a forum :)

Discrimination - am I missing something?

 
You're missing that people who whine about being discriminated against mostly only in principle look rather silly compared what the other side had to endure in reality.

It's always seemed to me that the people most heavily vocal about "ending discrimination" are also the most enthusiastic about perpetuating tribal divisions, pigeonholing everyone according to their physiological characteristics and relentlessly drumming the bitterness of historical injustice into the heads of each new generation. 
 
There are people with a political agenda which depends upon brainwashing certain groups into believing that they don't have a hope in hell because the cards of society are stacked against them. They are currently doing far more damage to said groups than their historical injustices should account for. And of course the focus is always on the bad time their ancestors had, forgetting that the situation was pretty much dire for 99.999% of the world's population throughout history. Some people were sold into slavery. Others (like many of my ancestors for example) were forced to march hundreds of miles in deep snow with little on their feet and even less in their bellies to pointless battles with swords they could barely lift, and ultimately certain death. Others were marched into concentration camps and slaughtered by the millions. But it seems that a select few get to endlessly use their historical woes as political currency, and not others. 
 
Personally it annoys me when someone blames their crappy life on their childhood, let alone what happened before they were born. 
 
 

i find men that complain about things like "ladies night" or not being able to work out at curves are among the whiniest men in existence.

sharke
It's always seemed to me that the people most heavily vocal about "ending discrimination" are also the most enthusiastic about perpetuating tribal divisions, pigeonholing everyone according to their physiological characteristics and relentlessly drumming the bitterness of historical injustice into the heads of each new generation. 
 
There are people with a political agenda which depends upon brainwashing certain groups into believing that they don't have a hope in hell because the cards of society are stacked against them. They are currently doing far more damage to said groups than their historical injustices should account for. And of course the focus is always on the bad time their ancestors had, forgetting that the situation was pretty much dire for 99.999% of the world's population throughout history. Some people were sold into slavery. Others (like many of my ancestors for example) were forced to march hundreds of miles in deep snow with little on their feet and even less in their bellies to pointless battles with swords they could barely lift, and ultimately certain death. Others were marched into concentration camps and slaughtered by the millions. But it seems that a select few get to endlessly use their historical woes as political currency, and not others. 
 
Personally it annoys me when someone blames their crappy life on their childhood, let alone what happened before they were born. 
 
 

I somewhat have an insider perspective on that - though nothing that compares to what other people have gone through. 
 
I come from a place where nationalism runs rampant and people put a lot of emphasis on "our" history, as opposed to the rest of Canada. 
 
Actually, that's pretty much the only thing you can openly be proud of back home - to be the descendant of a people who lost their war to the British. - I know...
 
There is much to be told about the virtues of being a victim and the inherent nobility associated with being "oppressed". It gives people a sense of entitlement - they're the humble and proud survivors. The righteous. Those who will be avenged.


Proud to speak French - as if it were a choice they made, or as if they actually spoke proper French or knew anything about the so-called culture which they get so reeled up about.
 
Speaking poor French, watching hockey, being a peaceful and pretty secular culture, w/ a disgusting penchant for socialism, partying and eating poutine. 
 
That's what it's all about, and that's what supposedly makes us so unique. 
 
That and not wanting/not having to speak English - which is a cornerstone of our "culture".
 
Obviously, no one is to tell them that pretty much every one on earth is a descendant of people who've been oppressed and who've been oppressors.  
 
I look at them and I have a hard time believing that not that long ago, I understood their point of view. And I wonder how many descendants of other historically oppressed people feel as alienated as I do when they see the **** their people stir.