• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter MobilizeMail follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on RSS

Latest Threads/Videos


News and Views

Most Active - Last 30 Days


Deals and What's On banner
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Discrimination?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,797

    Default Discrimination?

    It would appear that discrimination is allowed for some people:

    "Shortly before Lizzi Hines took over Spaceworks, the six-year-old office interiors company, in 2006 . . .

    When taking on new staff she is looking for compatibility. We are an all-female team, we are all under 35. . ."
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/small-busi...ectid=10799083

    But not for others:

    "A Fiji-Indian landlord has had his rental property listing removed by Trade Me after he described his ideal tenants as "European"."
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10799189

    Both items in the one issue of the Herald!
    Reminds me of sauces, geese and ganders.
    Last edited by flyernzl; 16-04-2012 at 05:41 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Quakeville
    Posts
    40

    Default

    That's the way the world works. It's only discrimination if it's got anything to do with the White Male. We can have woman only clubs/teams but when it comes to the old school Gentlemans clubs or male only sports teams that's discrimination. We can have a Maori Rugby team but if someone proposed a white only team what do you think would happen? (I'm not saying we should do it just using it as an EXAMPLE). The "best" and "worst" ethniticity to be is a white male. We "get everything" yet we can't do anything together for then were being selective....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    4,487

    Default

    *I wish I was a Maori.........*


    I have been wondering about why only whites are racists, but no other race
    is...... so I got to thinking:


    Maori call me a 'Pakeha' [Pa = village, keha = flea, vermin ], 'Whitey',
    'Honky' and 'Redneck' and that's OK, but if I call you Hori, you call me a
    racist.


    You have a race based Maori Political party, special Maori only
    parliamentary seats and Maori can stand as a candidate in any parliamentary
    electorate in New Zealand but non-Maori people cannot stand for a Maori
    seat or be on the Maori roll or a member of the Maori Party. You have '3
    bites at the same electoral cherry'. Non-Maori people have only one and yet
    you still say you are disadvantaged.


    If I complain you call me a redneck racist.


    You have a race based Maori caucus in parliament which includes the Maori
    members from all parties. It concerns itself with protecting and advancing
    Maori values, not party political values. If whites or any other ethnic
    group had a multi-party parliamentary caucus that dealt with the
    advancement of its own race or for whites only, and not politics, we would
    be called racist.


    You also want to appoint your own representation on local bodies and demand
    the granting of special seats or privilege. If not granted you scream
    racism. Yet Maori can be elected just the same as any person from any race.
    If there were seats on any local body that were just for whites only there
    would be great cries of racism.


    You have a flag of your own, which you insist be recognised and flown
    alongside the flag of our country. This illustrates your separateness and
    division from the rest of New Zealanders. If a non-Maori person flew and
    demanded recognition of a competitive flag for New Zealand, it would be
    tantamount to Treason.


    There are a number of openly proclaimed Maori schools and Colleges in New
    Zealand specifically for Maori students, yet if there were 'Whites Only
    Colleges', they would be racist colleges.


    If non-Maori had scholarships, college funds and trusts that only gave
    scholarships to non-Maori students, you know they'd be racists.


    You expect whites and other New Zealanders to ignore your special tax payer
    funded educational institutions and, when we complain, or say you should
    teach your language and culture in the home as with other races, do you
    call us racists.


    Who pays for the running of Maori colleges? If non-Maori objected to their
    taxes going to pay for them they would be called racist. If white people
    had their own schools and colleges they would be called elitist racists.


    You have Government funded race-based Kohango Reo's [pre-schools] to teach
    your race your own language and even have transport to pick the children
    up. If any other race asked for the taxpayer to fund the teaching of only
    their own language, or transport to take their children to pre-school they
    would be laughed at and called racist.


    You have Maori Health Services and special organisations within the
    taxpayer funded public health system which are run by Maori for only Maori.
    If whites asked for such special and separatist privileges from the health
    services they would be racists.


    You have a Maori TV channel funded by the New Zealander taxpayer. If there
    was a 'Whites* *Only' TV, or if whites said Maori should fund their own TV,
    they would be called racists.


    You also have your own Te Reo TV channel which broadcasts solely in Maori.
    Of the 14 free to air Freeview TV channels Maori have two of them and yet
    there are also Maori language programs and news on the main network
    channels such as TV One and TVNZ 7. If we consider that to be an
    over-representation of a language that the rest of us don't want to learn,
    we are called racists.


    If we had any organisations, schools, trusts, governmental groups, TV
    stations, etc. for whites only to advance OUR lives, we'd be racists.


    A white woman cannot be Maori sportswoman of the year, but any race can be
    New Zealand sportswoman of the year.


    A white person cannot be in the Maori All blacks, or any Maori sporting
    team, but any colour can be in the All Blacks, or any New Zealand sports
    team. This separatism is decidedly racist but if a non-Maori person
    comments on it they are labelled racist. The fact that we have a Maori All
    Black team is as racist as is any race based sports team can be, but if
    there was a whites only All Black team, or any other whites only sports
    team, it would be considered blatantly racist.


    You say the whites commit as much violence as you do, so why are the Maori
    parts of town the most dangerous places to live?


    Why are the jails so full of Maori?


    Why are so many children killed and bashed by Maori?


    But when I say that Maori are a violent people you call me a racist.


    You rob us, convert our cars, rape our women and bash our elderly, but if a
    white police officer shoots a Maori, or a Maori gang member, or assaults a
    Maori criminal running from the law and posing a threat to society, you
    scream racism.


    You are proud to be Maori and you're not afraid to announce it, even though
    you may not be full Maori, but part Maori, or even only 'trace element'
    Maori, but when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.


    Why is it that only whites can be racists?






    *There is nothing improper about this e-mail. It's all true and illustrates
    that it's time we started to pressure all politicians to eliminate special
    race-based privilege and parliamentary seats based on race.*


    *Stop giving Maori special privilege and treat them the same as any other
    New Zealander, Caucasian, Chinese, Asian, Indian, or Pacific Islander.*


    *There are many races that live in New Zealand and all were alien
    initially, now there are many minorities and if we don't learn to stand up
    and stop privilege being accorded to any one particular group, the next
    group to start wanting separatist rules, favouritism and privilege will be
    alien religious groups.*


    *The great gravy train, a.k.a the Waitangi Grievance Industry, has
    hopefully nearly finished it work of judging events of 160 years ago
    through today's eyes and making compensation awards in today's money, so
    now is the time to stop and ask:*


    *Do we want a privileged group enjoying special favour for no rational
    reason, or do we want racial equality in New Zealand with fairness and
    equal privilege for all..?*


    *There is nothing improper about this e-mail......... so let's see which of
    you care enough to send it on.*


    *Think about this .... If you don't want to forward this for fear of
    offending someone - THEN YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!*


    *It's not a crime to be white, YET.. but getting very close!*

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,797

    Default

    Well . . . that response was a bit of a blast.

    I guess the point I was originally making was that discrimination on racial grounds is not legal, but apparently discrimination of age and gender grounds would appear to be. At least if you are an under 35 female.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,566

    Default

    apparently there is something about being able to choose who you live and work??? with

    but the rental case fits neither of those so you can not select on the basis of race...

    they are going to have to be very slippery on this....
    people keep trying to rewrite the world as themselves

    like that'll work...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Mordor
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    I don't think in employment you are able to discriminate on grounds of age or gender. Such advertisements do occur but in ignorance of laws against discrimination. Personally I don't see anything wrong with having criteria as to whom you'd employ but some elements are best not publicly stated. Same goes for landlords.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    4,487

    Default

    Imagine the cry when you advertise that you want only people who are not morbidly obese!

    That is allowed.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston001 View Post
    I don't think in employment you are able to discriminate on grounds of age or gender. Such advertisements do occur but in ignorance of laws against discrimination. Personally I don't see anything wrong with having criteria as to whom you'd employ but some elements are best not publicly stated. Same goes for landlords.
    OK,
    so if a local strip club advertises for a stripper - they should employ 70 year old lady/gentleman???
    Surely there are cases where the gender and age do come into play....unless you'd really enjoy stripping of the above mentioned age group?
    it is not discrimination but suitability .... depends only which way you look at it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    1,699

    Default

    Some years ago my father needed a warehouse co-ordinator, it involved plenty of heavy lifting, moving of stock etc
    Contacted the local govt employment agency, who said they couldn't advertise for able bodied, fit,strong etc
    So they sent a mixture of middle aged (+) ladies, no-hopers in bare feet, etc etc, plus 2 likely candidates. One of which got the job.
    A complete waste of time for nearly all concerned.


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •