Monday, November 27, 2006

The Right To Discriminate

With all these anti-discrimination movements it becomes necessary to assert the importance of discrimination and our basic right to discriminate! I am not saying that anti-discrimination is inherently violating our rights, but these anti-discrimination measures have introduced what is called reverse discrimination!!

In short, we have to understand when discrimination is acceptable and when it is not. Our basic premise is that people are equal in the eyes of the law. Which is a good practice that reserves the rights of people. BUT people are NOT necessarily equal in the eyes of other people. People have the basic freedom of thought and freedom of opinion. Dictating what other people think of each-other is violating these basic freedoms! If someone hates another simply because he has black skin, its within his basic freedom of opinion. Maybe judging someone by the color of their skin is an illogical thought, yet he still has the right of having illogical thoughts and opinions. One cannot be an elitist and deny others their freedom of opinion simply because it is (according to them) an illogical one.

The idea is similar to that of secularism. Secularism says that the government and the law have to be impartial to religion. That the law shouldn't include laws that are religiously charged. Yet, it is acceptable that people within a secularist country to follow religions. Its within the freedom of religion (where the freedom of religion itself is part of the freedom of opinion), right? Same goes for any-other kind of discrimination. It is unacceptable for the law to discriminate between people, yet it is perfectly acceptable for the people themselves to discriminate. Its their right to discriminate!

Consider that the law imposes on you who your friends are?! Is that acceptable? So what if all your friends happen to be white-skinned? Does this give the law the right to force you to have a black-skinned friend so that the collection of your friends is "politically correct"?! - The law has not gone this far concerning imposing your friends, but in some other fields it has, this phenomenon is called reverse discrimination.

Reverse discrimination is when the law includes policies that gives extra rights to historically discriminated against groups. For example, women in history have been known to be victims of discrimination. Now in many countries there are quotas for the minimum number of women participating in the parliament! Now, isn't that just another form of discrimination?! Why do we solve discrimination, by similar discriminatory acts?! [I am not against women quotas in parliaments but I think better solutions have to be formulated]

In a similar fashion, laws have been there to regulate employment issues in the private sector... Just like the law shouldn't impose on us who our friends are (even if we were not politically correct), the law shouldn't impose on the private sector who their employees are or what salaries do the private sector give their employees.

10 comments:

Tololy said...

I find your argument very interesting. But do tell me this, how do you argue against age discrimination in a previous post and then argue for the right of individuals to discriminate in this post? Is it simply a matter of choosing which argument you feel like supporting at a given point in time?

Devil's Mind said...

As I tried to make clear, I am against discrimination within the law. Yet, I support people's right to discriminate against one another! The problem that Age discrimination poses is the "age of consent", which is a legal issue, so it falls under the unacceptable forms of discrimination.

Radi Radi said...

listen, imagine you and your blonde friend working for the same company doing the same job, she gets a her third raise this year and you don't. still doing the same work as you are, she gets to use the company car and the company hotel suite and you don't.

then you would understand why there are laws, its not enough to have the nice hair colour to get ahead in life, if she however is more competent than you in her equal job, she deserves a raise

Rastafari once said "until the colour of one's skin is of no more significance the the colour of his eyes, there will be war"

he is right

Devil's Mind said...

But if the company was in the private sector, its the owner's right to choose his employees. As an employee, you must have signed some kind of contract with your employer. If that contract has not been violated I see no crime being done!

Remember that its against the good of any company to hire people based on any factor other than competence. If a company has any policy beside hiring the most competent employee sooner or later that company will fail miserable to operate. Just consider Darwinism and Natural Selection laws and you will understand all of this!!

PShea66 said...

Why do you assume someone has a "right to discriminate"? Legal prohibitions against discrimination regard discrimination not as a right but as a negation of someone else's right.

Devil's Mind said...

pshea66, could you please elaborate?! I have no idea how the legal system defines discrimination, but as I have pointed out reverse discrimination is a valid concern with many people who identified its threat and are trying to deal with it.

Additionally, consider that discrimination has two forms: Positive discrimination, and Negative discrimination. Positive discrimination is when gives a particular group additional rights (like how women's quotas in the parliament gives them extra power). Negative discrimination is when a particular group is denied some of its rights (like how women are denied their right to vote in some countries).

Both positive discrimination and negative discrimination need to be abolished when applied to any legal context!

Anonymous said...

Reverse discrimination is a term invented by sophisticated white supremacists to undermine efforts to correct historical injustices against blacks and colored people in the US.

Discrimination is a proactive measure to exclude groups with distinct characteristics that sets them apart from the others. This discrimination usually has dire consequences be it social, political, economic, etc.

Your so called "reverse discrimination" is not a proactive effort to exclude people with certain characteristics and those who enforce affirmative action are not actively seeking whites to throw them out of jobs and schools.

In the context of the great injustices suffered by blacks in the US, either the the US awards blacks reparations they have asked for or continue affirmative action until all social, political, and economic indicators for blacks are same as those of the national average.

and spare us the story of how the white man fought and died in the civil war to free the slaves. if you buy that then you buy the silly story of how Americans are fighting to spread democracy and human rights in iraq and Afghanistan. in both wars, it was pure economic interests with a fancy moral cover story.

Devil's Mind said...

I am not suggesting that all the acts that protect the historically disadvantaged people should be immediately abolished. Just like women quotas are necessary to balance things out. In the same sense, acts that protect the blacks or whatever other race or category is doing a good job at restoring balance.

Yet, we have to understand that these must be temporary solutions. We must understand that such "anti-discriminatory" acts, are discriminatory themselves, so our goal should be to avoid them as much as possible (but not completely as a temporary solution).

Another point is that certain researches, books, and opinions are being marginalized because they are not politically correct. So "political correctness" is acting as a censorship tool, and this is a serious issue.

The Observer said...

I guess it depends on the harm done by the descriminating act. If the harm imposed on the person who is descriminated against is more than the harm done by the descriminating person if it is prohibited then it is right.

If the harm of prohibiting the descrimination on the descriminating person would be more than the person being subject to the descriminating act then why not keep it?

Things can be measured out according to the social rules and situation one can be in, but in the majority of cases, the harm imposed on the descriminating person is much more...

Devil's Mind said...

Not really! Its not like choosing the lesser of two evils. I don't really think it works like that! The law should treat people equally, and give those people necessary liberty in dealing with one another.