Minorities avoid the fight

Toronto Sun ^ | Peter Worthington

[Clive]

All I know about the Asian Pacific Post, a giveaway newspaper published fortnightly in Vancouver with a circulation of about 160,000, is from two editorials it ran this year.

Started in 1993, the newspaper has won several awards for excellence, including a Jack Webster award as the best community newspaper, and although it is aimed at Canadians of Asian extraction, the editorials in question apply to every Canadian -- but are rarely reflected in the mainstream Canadian (or American) media.

In mid-August, the Post asked: "Why are all the Canadian soldiers being killed in Afghanistan white?"

Of 67 soldiers killed since the start of the mission in 2002, all but two have been Caucasian, and the other two black. The Post asks: "Where are our new Canadians from China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine and the rest of Asia?" Where indeed.

The newspaper answers its own question with quotes from visible minority Canadians, who explain they didn't come to Canada to fight, didn't want their kids in the military, even came here to escape compulsory military service in their own countries.

The editorial admonishes this attitude: "If we, as new Canadians, do not hesitate to fight for equal rights, we must also not hesitate to defend those rights ...

... We must permeate and be present in all aspects of Canada. That includes the Canadian Forces."

Within 10 years, 20% of the Canadian population will be from visible minorities. The military today has a target of 9% of its personnel being from a visible minority, yet barely 3% of our Armed Forces are from these minorities.

IRONIC

Irony is that military recruiting and advertising posters often show visible minorities "being used as role models to dispel fears of racism and other undeserving taboos about the military" when, in truth, it is "minority groups that are shunning our military."

In an earlier, related editorial, the Asian Pacific Post criticized affirmative action programs, which it called "the attempt to deal with malignant racism by instituting benign racism." A perceptive definition, if you ask me.

The issue in this case was the Richmond, B.C., fire department chief , proposing to launch an aggressive campaign to recruit women and visible minorities as firefighters.

Of 191 active firefighters in Richmond, only eight were what the Post calls "vis-mins." "So what?" the newspaper asks rhetorically. "We don't hear anyone screaming that they should only be rescued by an Asian fireman."

It goes on to deplore the "white man need not apply technique," when it comes to affirmative action hiring. The green light for this hiring program would mean that no white person would be hired in the Richmond fire department for the next five years, until minority quotas were filled.

The paper says "Affirmative action erodes and undervalues the genuinely earned achievements of women and members of the visible minority," arguing that "neither the employer nor employee can ever be certain whether the job was given because of colour or credentials."

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The paper urges employers to "abandon the affirmative action quick-fix" and start to look at why visible minorities who come here with professional credentials, qualifications and experience, yet are relegated to driving taxis and working in grocery stores, and having "doors slammed in their face" when they seek professional jobs.

Affirmative action programs designed to exclude applicants on the basis of colour and not their credentials, constitutes "an insult to visible minorities," the Post opines. "Our message is simple; Recognize our credentials, not our colour."

Bravo, Asian Pacific Post! It's an attitude the rest of Canada's (North America's) mainstream media might emulate, had they the courage.

[Clive]

-

[MSF BU]

"minority Canadians, who explain they didn't come to Canada to fight, didn't want their kids in the military, even came here to escape compulsory military service in their own countries."

A. We're not supposed to ask questions like this and

B. Compulsory service is about the only way you'll see many groups serve in significant numbers. The demographics of the military are interesting, particularly if you can get the cross-tabs by branch, age, sex, MOS, etc.

[Vigilanteman]

I've often thought all government jobs should, with the exception of those which required hard-to-recruit skills such as Arabic language ability, have one of the following entry requirements:

1. Age: 50 or older.
   
2. Veteran status: Minimum two years, honorably discharged.
   
3. Existing employees: You have five years to meet one of the above two requirements, convince them that your skills are so necessary or unique or find a career in the private sector.

No private sector employees get five years to qualify for a guaranteed job which pays better than comparable work in the private sector. And these are not difficult requirements. The government would save on pension costs with such workers and greatly increase the quality thereof.

[fanfan]

[popdonnelly]

If you won’t fight for the country, do you deserve to live there?

[doc30]

The paper urges employers to "abandon the affirmative action quick-fix" and start to look at why visible minorities who come here with professional credentials, qualifications and experience, yet are relegated to driving taxis and working in grocery stores, and having "doors slammed in their face" when they seek professional jobs.

This is very telling. There are a lot of doctors, pharmacists and nurses from foreign countries that simply are not allowed to work in their professions. The professional associations in Canada try very hard to keep them out. Even the U.S. is not as stringent on immigrants with medical education for employment.