Although Article 4 concentrates on occupations, we cannot avoid the fact that blacks and whites have different types of medical problems. So Article 4 also has a bearing on medicine. Given that the profile of black medical problems -- the predisposition to certain types of disease -- is found throughout the world, these medical problems cannot be explained on the basis of culture. Race as a biological and genetic reality has no difficulty in accounting for this.
________________________
[7] Of relevance for EU legislation is the landmark US case The City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co (1989) in which the Supreme Court struck down the reverse discrimination provisions of affirmative action. At the heart of the Croson decision was the failure of the city of Richmond to demonstrate any evidentiary basis for racial quotas. Vague claims about past wrongs and societal discrimination were held to be an insufficient basis for race-conscious programmes. Henceforth, any remedial measures had to be victim-specific and meet a strict scrutiny standard. For a detailed discussion of Croson and its wider implications see Roger Clegg ed., Racial Preferences in Government Contracting, The National Legal Center for the Public Interest, Washington, D.C., 1993.
The above analysis is of course not at all how the drafters of this Directive wish it to be interpreted. When they use legitimacy they really mean something vague, along the lines of fairness or more specifically equal opportunities and equal outcomes. When they use proportionate they mean quotas based on the percentage of racial or ethnic minorities in the population.[7] The determination to impose quotas arises from the assumption that blacks and Asians are victims of discrimination even when there is no obvious discrimination. Thus paragraph 2(b) of Article 2 states that:
Quote:
|
[...] indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons of a racial or ethnic origin at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary (Article 2, paragraph 2(b) emphasis added)
|
The use of 'apparently' begs the question that neutrality is somehow flawed or hides discrimination. That has to be demonstrated not just asserted, as is the case here. Or it suggests that the very idea of neutrality is something negative precisely because neutrality, as with colour-blind policing, leads to undesirable outcomes, undesirable being anything which conflict with the multicultural agenda (more blacks are arrested for violent crime). Given that we are all 'persons of a racial or ethnic origin' of some kind or other, then this paragraph does not make clear who is supposed to be the source of disadvantage for 'persons of a racial or ethnic origin'. Is this due to other persons of the same racial and ethnic origin or persons of a different racial and ethnic origin? In both scenarios the fact that an outcome benefits one individual or group at the expense of another is not in itself
prima facie evidence of discrimination on the basis of 'racial or ethnic origin', especially where the discriminating and injured parties are of the same racial or ethnic origin, thought that, as noted above, is unwittingly permitted by the Directive.
The exception to this assertion would be the multicultural who is quite happy to see white students with high SAT scores denied a place at a good university in order that a low-achieving minority student be given the place. Article 5 (Positive Action) will also have an impact: 'With a view to ensuring full equality in practice, the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting specific measures to prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to racial or ethnic origin'. The use of compensation here is misleading. It suggests that minorities have somehow been wronged or cheated because, for example, they are not represented in the university population in proportion to their number in the population as whites (the disparity ratio fallacy). Apparently, white men can't jump. Should they then be compensated for their failure to match black dominance in basketball?
Article 8 (The Burden of Proof) shifts the burden of proof in any legal action to the respondent and paragraph 2 also permits Member States to introduce 'rules o evidence
which are more favourable to plaintiffs' (emphasis added). Moreover, in view of the fact that multiculturalists wish to give the widest possible meaning to an interpretation of "hate crime", making it in fact a serious crime (a federal crime in the US), the assurance in Article 8, paragraph 3 that: 'Paragraph 1 shall not apply to criminal procedures' is not convincing. Paragraph 3 should possibly have been amended to conclude with 'for the time being' (In view of the provisions of the Council Framework Decision, '
for the time being' is appropriate. See below).
The whole dubious notion of 'indirect indiscrimination' also reveals intellectual inconsistency in another way. The Directive states that indirect discrimination can 'be established
by any means including on the basis of statistical evidence' (Preamble, paragraph 15 emphasis added). The combination of 'by any means' and the shift in the burden of proof puts respondents at a severe legal disadvantage. In the context of English common law these are serious erosions of traditional freedoms.[8] The willingness to use statistical evidence, which almost certainly means using the low numbers of blacks and Asians in certain professions as well as status within those professions as
prima facie evidence of discrimination, is in stark contrast to the hostility of egalitarians rationally and honestly to consider the rigorous statistical data as it relates for example to black and white IQ differences, crime rates worldwide and other forms of dysfunctional behavior.
[Commentary: The US got anti-white discrimination going formally and legally under LBJ, but really institutionalized and kicked off under Richard Nixon, directed by one of his jews. The first formal academic criticism, from jew Glazer, appeared a few years later, still in the '70s. It's as though Europe has taken the American example and, if anything, removed the fig leaf. This equality law is nothing but a way to fuck whites. 'Affirmative action' or 'positive discrimination,' as well as the concept of and intention behind 'hate crimes' are designed solely to hurt and endanger and degrade whites. They are not aimed to help blacks. They don't help blacks. They are designed solely to hurt whites. By rubbing their nose in the fact they can do nothing about having their racial inferiors shoved on top of them as 'equals.' This tepid British academic, who deserves credit for courage, just like Kevin MacDonald, can't, because of professional deformation, as the French call it, as much as any other reason, truly effectively evoke the outrageousness of these anti-white policies. Instead, Ellis analyzes them with the usual conservative, neoconservative, gloss. He makes the obvious points obviously. He only hints that the people who designed these policies just might be aware of their actual effect! The people enacting these legal outrages are not stupid. They are running things. Nor are they well intentioned. They are quite ill intentioned. But they ARE rational. They DO know 1) that blacks are niggers; 2) that there ain't no cure for nigger; 3) that sticking niggers over whites will have no effect but destroying the white race and the West it made. They know this. What they do is deliberate. It is calculated. It is and should be called murder. Genocide. White men are morally crushed by being legally forced to accede in their own undermining, all in the name of historical guilt and 'equality.' . . . In the US, the rhetoric began by calling a jewish movement a black movement. Constitutional rights were done away with (freedom of association, for one) and it was called 'civil rights.' The promulgators spoke of equality and opportunity and fairness, but this was a cover. What they actually wanted was legal superiority. The 'civil rights movement' was a jew-led anti-white movement, aimed at subverting the constitution and placing blacks, browns, reds and yellows on top of whites - but below jews. This would be done in the name of equality, fairness, morality and justice. Degree by degree, decisions by decision, courts came to find that mere 'statistical disparity' was enough to prove invidious discrimination. This is where the EU has started. Statistical patterns alone are enough. The fundamental irrationality of this position, and the fact that in practice it is anti-white, are well known to the architects. They're what they intend. Conservatives are losers precisely because they won't take this point head on. They will pretend these consequences are unintended results of well intentioned men, when the facts are the opposite. The men are ill intentioned, and the results are entirely intentional. No kind of moron doesn't realize that the fact that niggers are 80% of D.C. yet <1% of aeronautical engineers has nothing to do with racial discrimination. Essentially this stuff amounts to a white tax. A tax on whites for being white. They are penalized because they are superior. They are tied up like plowhorses and made to farm fields for their inferiors, all while being lectured about their historical guilt. No ordinary white wants this, not in France, Germany, Italy or England. But we have it anyway. Why? Because the elites somehow split from the people. How is that? Because the elites came to be dominated by a tiny alien outsider racial group - namely, the jews. And jews plus white sellouts (think the Bill Clintons) run things. Any voice that might rise up and speak for the white majority gets attacked or crushed. That position - that whites have interests - is declared beyond the pale. Its ideas aren't discussed. They are smeared as hate. Their carriers are defamed. Their representatives are shamed or imprisoned - whatever means of separating them from money and influence the jews have to use is employed. Whites have effectively been converted into slaves, through law. Through media rhetorical trickery many of them have been so blinded to this they think it a good or at least inevitable thing. It is neither. Whites don't need blacks and jews to run effective, attractive societies. Jews are an alien, competing race that has figured out how to get control of white society and destroy it from the inside. Whites exist to feed jews and the muds they use to control and dilute the white population. Essential to white recovery in the future is teaching our young that jews are not us. They are hostile aliens bent on our genocide. Ellis doesn't get anywhere near this because his work is mostly descriptive rather than analytical. Its the racial animus driving the PC crowd that needs to be excavated and put on the table for all to see and think about. Specifically what needs to be done is to identify the jewish role in creating communism, its policies and rhetoric, and drawing lines to their equivalents in the West. Ellis at least sort of does this, indirectly. He's a Soviet expert, so he draws some parallels. But he leaves out the jewish nexus. That's what is essential though. For it, you must turn to the Nazis. Their puzzling it out and explaining it so all could understand is why they are, to the jews, and in the jew-controlled media, the most evil men of all time. Evil, note wryly, is a word jews laugh at everywhere else.]
Council Framework Decision (CFD)[9]
Multiracial societies worldwide are artificial constructs and liable, as demonstrated by the former Yugoslavia, Soviet Union and countless examples from Africa, to explode into violence. Beyond certain limits racial and cultural diversity has historically posed a threat to the survival of a nation or state. Yet the explanatory memorandum which accompanies the CFD instructs us that: 'European societies are multicultural and multi-ethnic, and their diversity is a positive and enriching factor' (paragraph 1, emphasis added). No evidence is cited in support of this assertion. Nor are we told when in the recent history of Europe, the continent ceased to be monoracial and became multiracial. If diversity, which is a code word for the presence of a large numbers of non-white legal and illegal immigrants in European societies, were indeed 'positive and enriching', then whites would be demanding ever more diversity. Of course, they make no such demands. There is massive opposition to large numbers of legal and illegal immigrants in Europe and the CFD is intended as part of the wider coercion of indigenous Europeans to believe, act, and to speak as if they believe, that diversity is a good thing.
__________________________
[8] Another remarkable feature is the provision of Article 7 (Defence of Rights) which permits individuals to apply the principle of equal treatment 'even after the relationship in which discrimination is alleged to have occurred has ended'.
[9] Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia, COM (2001) 664, 28.11.2001. See: http://europa.en.int/eur-lex/en/com/...1_0664en01.pdf