Hong Kong forced to act on racism November 30, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in Card, China, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Discrimination, ethnicity, Racism, Racist, Schools.
Hong Kong – Hong Kong, bowing to pressure from civil rights groups, proposed new laws on racial discrimination on Wednesday to protect the rights of the city’s ethnic minorities.
Under the Race Discrimination Bill, which requires legislative approval, “racial discrimination and harassment” in certain areas and “vilification on the grounds of race” will become illegal and punishable by fines and jail terms of up to two years.
“We are introducing the bill because we have international obligations to do so (and) because we have now gained general community support for legislation,” said Carrie Lam, the government’s Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs.
Racism is not often explicit or violent in Hong Kong but the city’s many foreign migrant workers have often been denied jobs, accommodation or school places on the basis of their ethnicity.
Bill making discrimination against homosexuals punishable by prison November 24, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Congress, Discriminate, Discrimination, ethnicity, Gay, Gays, gender, Homosexual, Law, News, prison, Race, racism and discrimination, Religion, same-sex, sexual orientation.
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil: Brazil’s lower house of Congress has passed a bill making discrimination against homosexuals a crime punishable by at least a year in jail, the bill’s sponsor said Friday.
The bill, passed Thursday, makes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation a crime equal to discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender and national origin — which have carried prison sentences since 1989, said Congresswoman Iara Bernardi.
The bill now goes before the Senate, which has not yet set a date to vote.
Betto de Jesus, director of the Sao Paulo-based Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians and Transgendered People, said the law would give homosexuals federal protection for the first time.
“We always wanted to have homophobia be considered a crime equal to racism,” he said.
Affirmative action is discrimination November 21, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in affirmative action, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, Diversity, ethnicity, Michigan, national origin, Racism, Racist, reverse racism.
Last week, Michigan voters overwhelmingly passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and made Michigan the fourth state to ban affirmative action for minorities and women in public universities and state government. The outcome of the vote is a huge blow to those who subscribe to the religion of “diversity,” especially University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman. For those of us who believe all individuals should be treated equal under the law regardless of their gender or skin color, MCRI’s passage is a sign that we may be on the verge of winning the fight against the inherently discriminatory practice of affirmative action.
MCRI is similar to the ballot initiatives passed in California in 1996 and Washington state in 1998 as it prohibits “public institutions from using affirmative-action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.” Florida is the other state that banned the use of racial preferences. In 1999 Gov. Jeb Bush pre-empted a threatened-ballot initiative by issuing an executive order banning affirmative action in state agencies and universities.
Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz have voluntarily put the burden upon themselves to fight racial preferences. Connerly is a conservative, black businessman and former regent of the University of California system who previously led the effort in California to ban affirmative action. Gratz was the lead plaintiff in Gratz v. Bollinger, one of the cases challenging the University of Michigan affirmative action’s policy cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. Gratz and Ward led the small, poorly funded operation to a 58-42 victory on MCRI despite being outspent, 3 to 1.
Ignore anti-Prop 2 scare tactics November 2, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in affirmative action, Asian, ballot, Black, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, Diversity, ethnicity, gender, Hispanic, Michigan, minorities, Race, Racism, Racist, reverse racism, Vote, White.
Update: Proposal two has now passed, please check out our other articles about it:
Victory Against Racism and Discrimination! Michigan Voters Approve Proposal 2
Legal Experts: Michigan’s Proposal 2 likely to hold up
I n 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a split decision, ruled that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions systems amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota. But the court did allow state schools, if they wished, to continue using a more “holistic” system aimed at giving minorities the benefit of the doubt.
Dial forward three years. According to data once again wrested from the university under a Freedom of Information Act request, the Center for Equal Opportunity, based in Herndon, Va., found that a black applicant with a cumulative SAT score of 1240 and a 3.2 grade-point average in high school has a 9-in-10 chance of being admitted to Michigan’s undergraduate program. For whites or Asians, the chances were 1-in-10.
In effect, nothing has changed in Ann Arbor. Which goes a long way to explain why Michigan voters are being asked to consider Proposal 2, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which would flatly bar government from using “affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals” based on race, ethnicity, gender and other suspect factors.
Proposal 2 is the same as amendments to the California and Washington constitutions that were approved by wide margins.
But a multi-million-dollar ad campaign organized by labor, business and political elites of both parties is frantically throwing sand in the eyes of the electorate with charges that Proposal 2 would be the end of civilization as we know it.
The campaign may work. From 75 percent approval, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative has sunk to less than 50 percent in polls recently. “Michigan is a much tougher place, politically, than either California or Washington state,” says Ward Connerly, the California businessman who has backed all three measures.
But the scare campaign against Prop 2 is just that: a scare campaign. California and Washington are doing just fine in the wake of their bans on race preferences. Yes, minority enrollment at a few of the most selective state schools is down, but overall minority enrollment in the state system is up. Female contractors can no longer count on a big boost when bidding for government work, but female income continues to rise overall.
The anti-Prop 2 campaign suffers an even more crucial flaw: It is simply unable to explain why more discrimination would lead to less discrimination. At a big rally against Prop 2 in Detroit 10 days ago, Jesse Jackson gave a particularly weird explanation of why he opposes a ban on preferences. Men of all skin colors play for the Detroit Tigers, he rightly noted, but no baseball fan would think to root for a St. Louis Cardinals player simply because of his skin color. “Diversity” leads to strength, he asserted.
Racial Preferences Mean Big Government October 31, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in affirmative action, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, color, Discrimination, ethnicity, Michigan, national origin, Race, Racism, Racist, reverse racism.
Update: Proposal two has now passed, please check out our other articles about it:
On November 7, Michiganders will vote on Proposal 2—the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI)—which prevents Michigan government from discriminating against and granting preferential treatment to individuals based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Borrowing the rallying cry used by Malcolm X and later by the Black Panthers, the organized opposition to the MCRI calls itself, “By Any Means Necessary,” or BAMN. And for good reason. BAMN views the principle of equal protection for equal God-given rights as a mortal threat to big, bureaucratic government and the liberal politics that built it. From the liberal point of view, the MCRI must be killed. BAMN!
The United States was founded on the principle that all human beings, by virtue of their shared human nature, possess equal natural rights. According to the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents, rights come from a Creator, not government. Government’s purpose is limited to protecting natural rights, which is the standard we use to judge governments: People may exercise their natural right “to alter or to abolish” a government that violates, rather than protects, these rights.
The political logic of the American Founding requires that a government of limited purpose should be a government of limited power. The U.S. Constitution and all state constitutions limit the power of government so that it better achieves its purpose—protecting rights—rather than threatening them.
Americans today, however, have largely forgotten the natural right principles of the Founders’ Constitution, adopting instead a new “progressive” theory of rights and a corresponding “progressive” understanding of government’s purposes.
More than a century ago, “progressive” thinkers and politicians (who later called co-opted the name “liberal”) began attacking limited, constitutional government in favor of a large bureaucratic-welfare state, one that could better achieve vague and changing notions of evolutionary “progress” and “social justice.” Woodrow Wilson, for example, insisted that “living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice”—academic code for saying the Constitution has no fixed or objective meaning.
Racism and Discrimination Alive and Well October 19, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in affirmative action, Blacks, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, ethnicity, minorities, Race, racism and discrimination, reverse racism, Supreme Court, Whites.
For a decade now, my Center for Equal Opportunity has documented the double standards used by colleges and universities in giving preference in admission to blacks and Hispanics while disfavoring better qualified Whites and Asians.
In July 2003, the Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action admissions program, which favored Blacks and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics. But three new CEO studies released this week show that preferences, for blacks especially, have gotten worse in subsequent years. And these preferences extend to law and medical school admissions as well.
In 2003, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions on Michigan’s admissions programs. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court ruled that the university’s undergraduate program, which awarded extra points on the basis of race or ethnicity, was unconstitutional. In Grutter v. Bollinger, which examined the law school’s admissions procedures, the Court upheld the school’s program, which it contended took race into account but did not mechanically award specific points for race or ethnicity.
A Victory Against Racism: Affirmative Action on Ballot July 27, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in A Victory Against Racism, admissions, affirmative action, Against, Amendment, anti-affirmative, anti-affirmative action, Ballet, ballot, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, color, court, Discriminate, Discrimination, Diversity, ethnicity, gender, government, Michigan, national origin, November, programs, Race, Racism, Supreme, university, Victory.
The Michigan Supreme Court will not remove an anti-affirmative action measure from Novembers’ statewide ballot. The court rejected a request that it reconsider an earlier decision which sent the measure to Michigan voters.
The proposed amendment would ban government and university admissions programs from basing preference on race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.
NAACP: Racist to blacks July 22, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in Advancement, African Americans, African-American, Association, black-on-black, Blacks, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Clinton, Colored, Confederate, Confederate flag, Discriminate, Discrimination, Dixon, ethnicity, interracial, Mfume, NAACP, NAACP Racist to blacks, National, National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peo, People, Race, Racism, Racist, racist comment, Racist to blacks, Richard Dixon, Shelby Steele, slavery, South Carolina, Thomas Sowell, Uncle Tom, Walter Williams.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is interested in “advancing” the cause of blacks.
Well, some blacks, anyway. But not all blacks; only those who toe the NAACP’s political line get NAACP “support” and praise.
Like “women’s rights” groups who, ironically, defended President Bill Clinton when his trysts with Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky were made public, the NAACP is also picking and choosing — hypocritically — the “causes” it will take up on behalf of blacks.