How should we deal with racism? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#1
With the globalisation and the current problems with terrorism, racism has had an increase in Europe and America. Some of it in terms of new-nazism and some in terms of racisms towards immigrants from Arab and African countries. How can you best deal with these problems? Some advocate that you should have a very firm policy and that the police should crack down on new-nazi communities. Others argue that this will cause more problems than it resolv and instead sugest that one should try to prevent these attitudes from arising in the first place. Also, is there a danger that people may feel that it is not as important to prevent racism if to minor atrocities are being punished? As an example, is it justified to punish a firm if they have a very low percentage of foreigners as compared to others, without further proof that they are discriminating foreigners? May such action promote more racism than it resolves?
1
What's Chico Time Precious?
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 15 years ago
#2
(Original post by Jonatan)
As an example, is it justified to punish a firm if they have a very low percentage of foreigners as compared to others, without further proof that they are discriminating foreigners? May such action promote more racism than it resolves?
In answer to this question. I don't think firms should be punished, if a person is good enough to do a job, white/black/green/indigo then they should be hired, not having to fill out a quota of certain ethnic minority groups.

And yes it probably does promote more rascism, the analogy that foreigners 'steal' local jobs and get employed over people who were born in that country, which is absurd.
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#3
(Original post by Absolution)
In answer to this question. I don't think firms should be punished, if a person is good enough to do a job, white/black/green/indigo then they should be hired, not having to fill out a quota of certain ethnic minority groups.

And yes it probably does promote more rascism, the analogy that foreigners 'steal' local jobs and get employed over people who were born in that country, which is absurd.
But may it not be a problem that companies can get away with racism or discrimination by simply saying "we hiered those we considdered better qualified". In sweden there was a huge discussion on a company's right to demand an accent free swedish language. It was argued that as long as an applicant could be easily understood and was able to communicate on a level equal of that of a native sweede, it was not justified to demand the person to be free of an accent. I can imagine that it will be very difficult to charge a company for discrimination, no matter how justified, because the company may always argue that they only try to pick people with the best qualifications.
0
riffraff
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 15 years ago
#4
(Original post by Jonatan)
With the globalisation and the current problems with terrorism, racism has had an increase in Europe and America
I doubt it has increased- what has probably happened is that it has become more acceptable to say things like that because of the terrorist attacks on the USA.

Some of it in terms of new-nazism and some in terms of racisms towards immigrants from Arab and African countries. How can you best deal with these problems?
Disprove the "paki" jokes etc. by integrating different cultures in schools and trying to stop small neighberhoods of a particular group developing, so that the existing groups do not feel threatened or overwhelmed.

As an example, is it justified to punish a firm if they have a very low percentage of foreigners as compared to others, without further proof that they are discriminating foreigners? May such action promote more racism than it resolves?
There is no justification to punish a firm for hiring those best suited for the job- provided that the criteria are based on qualifications etc. if there are too few peole from ethnic minorities achieving these qualifications, then it is the education system rather than the firm that needs to be investigated.

yes the actions you mentioned would and do provoke racism.
1
What's Chico Time Precious?
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 15 years ago
#5
(Original post by Jonatan)
But may it not be a problem that companies can get away with racism or discrimination by simply saying "we hiered those we considdered better qualified". In sweden there was a huge discussion on a company's right to demand an accent free swedish language. It was argued that as long as an applicant could be easily understood and was able to communicate on a level equal of that of a native sweede, it was not justified to demand the person to be free of an accent. I can imagine that it will be very difficult to charge a company for discrimination, no matter how justified, because the company may always argue that they only try to pick people with the best qualifications.
In some ways people are always going to be discriminated at job interviews regardless of race or skin colour. If the interviewer and applicant have similar personalities, hit it off and become quite friendly, then perhaps thy would be more inclined to hire them over someone beter qualified but a complete opposite personality. That person could argue they were better qualified, but the company would also argue that the other person fitted in better to what they were actually looking for.
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#6
(Original post by riffraff)
I doubt it has increased- what has probably happened is that it has become more acceptable to say things like that because of the terrorist attacks on the USA.
.
On the contrary recent supports sugest increasing racism, xenophobia and also antisemitism. The antisemitism can perhaps be linked to the palestinian conflict and the increased measures of teh US to combat terrorist atacks, but nevertheless, Jewish cementaries and schools are being atacked. Just a few days ago a fire bomb went of in a Canadian Jewish school. True enough, it did not hurt anyone physically, but it still shows that antisemitic crimes are increasing.
0
mentor16
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 15 years ago
#7
if you are truely for the downfall of racism...then why debate the topic?
1
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#8
(Original post by mentor16)
if you are truely for the downfall of racism...then why debate the topic?
If I am allowed to interpret this correctly you sugest that we give racism as little attention as possible? I think this can be a dangerous thing to do as it gives racist communities and new nazis a free playground. If we do not work actively to avoid racism to rise, then sooner or later it will. Perhaps people are not so easy to influence now when the economies of the world are doing ok, but when a recession comes and the previously rich population goes poor, then there is a risk that such ideas will flourish if we do not keep a decisive stand against it.
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 15 years ago
#9
And what kind of stand will this be? Censorship?
0
username9816
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 15 years ago
#10
I don't think we can deal with it.
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#11
(Original post by 2776)
And what kind of stand will this be? Censorship?
In practice that is what it will be, but purely legally you could argue that freedom of speech is limited in the sense that you are not allowed to violate human rights. Racist or nazi comments are clearly an example of a violation of human rights, since a fundamental part of the human rights charter states that all humans are to be considered equal regardless of gender, race or religion. You should not allow people to deliberately oppose the human rights. I do beleive it is very important to have freedom of speech, but it mut be limited to exclude proclamations which contradict the fundamental rights (including freedom of speech itself). I am not saying you should not be allowed to state that the law should be different, but I am saying that some fundamental values must be protected at all cost. Even if that implies limiting freedom of speech.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (409)
43.6%
No (98)
10.45%
I'm not old enough (431)
45.95%

Watched Threads

View All