On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:58:23 +0000, "Ian Woollard"
<ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/02/2008, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
IMO that definition of racism is way too broad.
When I first heard the definition, I thought it was rather strange,
but after thinking through the implications, it seems that it does
indeed work rather well, even for racism where people try to hide the
fact that they are being racist; or for when people are being
unintentionally racist.
That's presupposing that the aim of the law should be to suppress
everything that anybody might regard as racist, even if entirely
unintentional.
This is, for
example,
not racism (or "religionism") at all. What we are dealing with is a
fundamental incompatibility between the goals of our project and the
beliefs of a particular religious group.
So you say, but then you suggest remedies that would disadvantage minorities.
That's presupposing that "not disadvantaging minorities" is a
consideration that trumps everything else, including things that some
others might regard as of greater importance such as free speech and
free inquiry.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site:
http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips:
http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
http://domains.dan.info/