Wednesday 7 August 2013

The Discrimination of Anti-Discrimination

The Discrimination of Anti-Discrimination

Let me tell you the story of a man. He is looking for a new job and out of the 20 advertised, he chooses one to apply for. Out of all the candidates, he is one of those called for an interview. He does so well at the interview he is offered the position over any other candidate. He accepts. On his way out of the building he has a conversation with a women, they hit it off and he asks her out. She, attracted to his confidence and pleasant manner agrees. They go out, in time they fall in love, they get married and live happily ever after and all because of discrimination!


Let me explain.

The first act of discrimination was that of the 20 advertised positions, he applied for 1. What was wrong with the other 19 positions? He discriminated against them.

The second act of discrimination was that he was selected for an interview, not everyone was selected.

The third act of discrimination was that he was offered the job over every other candidate.

The fourth act of discrimination was that he asked a particular women to go out with him, why this particular women? Because he likes her? Because he finds her attractive? Because they get along? This is even worse than I thought, here are 4 separate acts of discrimination!

He asks a particular women out - discrimination
Because he likes her - discrimination
Because he finds her attractive - discrimination
Because they get along - discrimination

This particular women isn't the only women in the world, if he gave other women a chance he might find one he likes better, he might find one as attractive maybe even more attractive, he might even find one he gets along with better. But instead he discriminates against every other women in the world in favour of this particular women. Then to put the final nail in the coffin he falls in love with this particular women and then compounds the issue by marrying her.

Every time you or anyone else makes a choice between two or more choices that is an act of discrimination.

Coke or Pepsi.

Vegetable or Salad.

Local or International.

Each decision is an act of discrimination. So how can you live a life free of discrimination?

The answer is you cannot. To live is to discriminate, it's that simple.

So if that is true how can things such as anti-discrimination laws and anti-discrimination commissions exist? How can they work if every decision is an act of discrimination?

They exist because some people believe, rightly or wrongly, that certain groups of people have been discriminated against and that that should be fixed or corrected. It works by discriminating in favour of one group and there fore by definition discriminating against anyone who does not belong to that group.

How is that anti-discrimination?

It's not, anti-discrimination laws and commissions discriminate for and against certain groups of people. It is anything but anti-discrimination.

The argument is that anti-discrimination is needed to protect and help vulnerable people who are the victims of negative discrimination. Where as other groups have benefited from positive discrimination, discrimination in their favour.

There are 5 groups around the world who it is said have (and are) the victims of negative discrimination, Indigenous groups, Minorities, Immigrants, Women and Homosexuals. The results are mixed, for Indigenous groups and Minorities it has failed. Their lives as a group are no better than it was 40 years ago. For immigrants the results are mixed. For Women and Homosexuals it has been a great success.

But that success has come at a price, because when you discriminate in favour of one group you discriminate against another. For every act of discrimination in favour of an Immigrant, there is an act of discrimination against the Native born. For every act of discrimination in favour of a women, there has been an act of discrimination against a man and for every act of discrimination in favour of a Homosexual, there has been an act of discrimination against a Heterosexual.

There is no anti-discrimination without discrimination.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future


  1. The blogger is largely correct about the meaning of discrimination, but I'm unclear on the larger point he's trying to make.

    "To discriminate" simply means to make distinctions. I remember (I'm old) when ads would include phrases like "for the discriminating buyer," but I doubt if anyone would use a phrase like that today as part of a marketing campaign, given the negative connotations which the word now has. Over the years the meaning of "to discriminate" has morphed into "to discriminate UNFAIRLY." No one questions the appropriateness of making hiring decisions based on educational experience and background. If you need to hire a brain surgeon, you hire someone who's been trained to do brain surgery, and has some references which suggest he's good at it. That's appropriate and fair discrimination, or, positive, from Mark's perspective, I think.

    Many people have suffered as a result of unfair discrimination, and, personally, I support the legislative efforts which have outlawed certain kinds of discrimination, race in the workplace and public accommodations, for example.

    One might get the impression from reading this post, that it's illegal to discriminate against gay people, but that's not necessarily true. Some states forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, but many do not. There is no federal ban against sexual orientation discrimination.

  2. Dear Bruce

    My larger point is that Anti-Discrimination is a lie, it doesn't exist, it is simply discrimination.

    You are of course correct when you talk about how the word Discrimination (and it's variants) have changed meaning and is now only used as a negative. But not everyone knows this.

    "No one questions the appropriateness of making hiring decisions based on educational experience and background."

    This is how it should work but "Anti-Discrimination" is used to decide who gets an education and who gets hired. Every time a Quota is used that means that that person is not admitted or hired because of how good their education is but is based on "Anti-Discrimination", which doesn't exist as it is simply Discrimination.

    I would also like to point out that the Internet is International, it is not confined to one country, so while the examples are broad, the same issues exist across many countries even though the specifics may be different. For example in Australia (where I live) Anti-Discrimination laws do favour homosexuals over heterosexuals just as they favour women over men. The specifics where you live may be different but the issues are the same.


  3. I don't think that most of us would demuf from the fact that it is invidious to deny service, a job, a promotion or some other benefit to somebody merely because he or she is a member of a certain group.

    But do we really need legislation to stop such discrimination, or is it sufficient to let society deal with the problem. I think the answer to that is that anti-discrimination law needs to be phased out, now that social mores have changed.

    The problem with using the law is that it doesn't seem to be able to deal with consientious objectors. We have all heard of those egregious cases where religious people have been fined and villified because they wouldn't supply services to homosexuals. The law cannot see that these religious people truly do have a consientious objection to homosexual intercourse. But I think society can see that such 'discrimination' is perfectly OK, because those denied service by Christians can always get it somewhere else.

    I think the fear of the anti-dicrinationists is that any relaxation of their precious laws will lead to a frenzy of bigotry from us all. This of course shows that the left (who are most in favour of such laws) beleiev that we are all at heart bigots. In reality ithey just want another way to control us and remove our choices. They want us to have a life where the only choices we have are who to fornicate and where to shop. Of course many people are happy with that limittion on their freedom and don't even notice that they have become childlike cretins.

    Rococo Liberal

  4. Dear Rococo

    Some very good points.

    I particularly like what you said about "conscientious objectors".

    Mark Moncrieff

  5. I have not done the necessary research to be sure, but my understanding is that laws against discrimination started as Public Service regulations to prevent employment discrimination against (originally) catholics and then jews, negroes and asians. Having found this a terrific winner against the ruling classes, the usual suspects pushed it further and further until it was made into law covering all activities of the whole population.
    Clearly, there is an argument that the Public Service, being paid for by all citizens, should not discriminate when hiring citizens without good reason.
    There is no justification however, for applying this to all decisions of all citizens.
    It completely destroys personal freedom of both thought and action. It establishes Government Bureaucrats as judges on your thoughts, your speech and your actions. Whether or not your decisions are logical or approved by the government, they are yours alone and you should have the freedom to make them without government interference. All Laws against discrimination should be removed. Public service regulations can remain.