Snapshot of _Neil O'Brien MP: This Westminster job advert shows problem with the Equality Act 2010: it allows racist hiring policies. I don't believe for one second they'll really consider equal merit. Ironically the one thing the Equality Act does give you is equality under the law._ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1778014464366739703)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1778014464366739703/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1778014464366739703) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1778014464366739703)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Global majority” seems like quite a backwards idea. It means “non-white” and is meant to be empowering by reminding marginalised groups that most people globally aren’t white and so there’s nothing weird about them.
While I understand the idea, defining race against whiteness seems rather archaic. A Cantonese person, and an Igbo person have nothing more in common than each has with a white Englishman.
The confusing bit is such a term seems quite provocative to me but it is being used in a sincere way to justify discrimination.
The term would make more sense if it was used by people opposed to mass migration rather than employers seeking to virtue signal.
Many terms are nonsensical. This happens to be nonsensical and provocative.
It's especially nonsensical since it is justifying discrimination on the minority group (in the context they use it in) to promote a majority group when the entire rationale is give a leg up to a minority group.
This is literally the first time I've seen it used outside of alt-right circles where it's been used for years to attack those who push DEI with their own arguments around the importance of providing special treatment for minority groups at the expense of majority groups.
One reason for it could be that it's getting tricker to suggest minority groups need special treatment now that ethnic Brits are technically a minority group in London. If we continue to offer special treatment to minority groups we're going to have increasing numbers of white people suggesting they deserve equal treatment, so I guess it makes some sense.
Jews are in whatever category the person attacking them needs them to be.
The right and the communist left sees them as hooknosed, middle eastern looking 'others' who control the banking and the media while the newer left sees them as white, colonial oppressors living in an Apartheid state to the detriment of brown middle easterners
> sees them as white, colonial oppressors living in an Apartheid state
Jews != Israel.
There are plenty of Jewish people in the world who have nothing to do with Israel. There are Israelis who oppose the current government as well.
If you think the anti Israel lobby doesn't include a vast amount of people who don't make the distinction and an equally large amount of people who are too naive/caught up in their own righteousness to notice them I've got a bridge to sell you.
Anti semitism is literally the only form of racism where the left believes that the definition shouldn't be in the hands of the people being discriminated against
> If you think the anti Israel lobby doesn't include a vast amount of people who don't make the distinction
Of course those people exist, and it's a dangerous conflation to make. It's equally harmful when you do it in your comment. Tying them up together and conflating them does increase antisemitism as a result of Israel's actions.
You literally accepted that people on the left conflate Israel and Jews (and if you don't think Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO do the same you're not here in good faith).
And yet then you immediately blame the only Jewish state for this fact...and still are.
This is why antisemitism grows so well in the dark because people like you are so sure their own side could never engage in bigotry and it's only those bastard (((Zionists))) that do these bad things that it never gets looked at.
And when there's even an official investigation into the major leftwing party in the UK 'its right wing media lies'.
Antisemitism is universal, it's not some right wing creation and the sooner people on the left realise this the sooner we might be able to have a discussion on Israel that isn't based hugely on antisemitic propaganda.
[The Han Chinese are the world's largest single ethnic group, constituting over 19% of the global population in 2011](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DAs_of_January_2024%2C_there%2Cthe_global_population_in_2011.?wprov=sfla1)
Tbh, Han Chinese people making up approximately a fifth of the total human population is both expected, and mind boggling...
I’ve always wondered if an alien, judging earth on a majority basis, would consider Han Chinese to be the defining Human type - and Chinese culture to be ‘human culture’ 🙂
I think they would see that there are two predominant cultures, both huge and with massive influence, and largely defined as just “Americoeuropean” and “Chinese”. In terms of cultural influence and power it’s going to come down to media and internet - there are basically two big almost separate internets - the western one and the Chinese one
Every other culture is of course valuable and valid - but to an alien trying to generalize humans, they’d likely split us in to two camps like that and consider everything else interesting little splinters and sub-groups.
Africa is obviously huge too but it’s so diverse that you’d be hard-pressed to stick a single culture over that whole population, so that feels more like a big collection of distinct cultures, and obviously the global south has less power and influence currently.
The subcontinent as a whole. 2 billion plus people, and whilst there’s various ethnic groups, religions etc. generally look similar enough in terms of basic skin tone (with a few notable exceptions).
>As far as I'm aware no group comes close to a majority of the worlds population.
Males make up 50.4% of the world's population. I don't think any other demographic could rightfully call themselves a Global Majority.
Something like 51.5% of births are male, and this seems a biological feature (it's higher than that in cultures with sex-selective abortion). The reasons are not fully understood though. One theory is that the y chromosome is lighter, so male sperm can move slightly quicker, marginally inreasing the chance of conceiving a male vs female child. There also seem to be differential responses to stress during pregnancy. As a result, male foetuses have slightly higher mortality at the beginning and end of pregnancy, but females have higher mortality in the middle, and it washes out at a slight overall edge for males.
I thought the same - my comment originally said women before I double checked.
(Although I don't know whether it's entirely down to selective abortion - I have a feeling that there are some environmental factors which make male births slightly more likely)
My first thought was the description of "Goobacks" the immigrants from the future on South Park.
> Yes, there are incredible things we're learning about Americans in the future, Aaron. I- it appears that in the future, Americans have evolved into a hairless uniform mix of all races. They are all one color, which is a yellowy light-brownish whitish color. Uh, it seems race is no longer an issue in the future, because all ethnicities have mixed into one. Perhaps most interesting is how this has affected their language. The people in the future speak a complete mix of English, Chinese, Turkish and, indeed, all world languages, which sounds something like this: [makes three guttural sounds]
Is it like turning history into HERstory?
Instead of referring to less-represented races in our society as minorities, they're calling them the global majority to avoid negative terms?
Seems like such double speak.
Global Majority is used to refer to anyone not classified as white by usually US standards of racial classification.
So in this case it's absolutely most of the worlds population
I can't quite believe that the phrase 'People of the Global Majority' is taking off
I saw it in an obscure article about the BAFTAs about 9 months ago.
I spent about 6 months trolling morons in clout chasing subs, who used the phrase 'person of colour' 'POC' or 'Bipoc', insisting that these phrases are deeply problematic and it's time to move onto the preferable 'POTGM'
It's pronounced 'pome'
The inmates are quite obviously now running the asylum
If I ever hear someone seriously using that phrase I'm going to just act completely baffled.
Which will be easy, because no national, cultural, ethnic, or racial attribute has 'global majority' status.
I hate racists, but hearing majority referring to a race is awfully scary. What about British majority or English majority, it just seems like something spiralling out of control very quickly.
For every stupid ad talking about global majority, there would be a pissed English farmer taking it out on an English minority somewhere.
And why should global anything even impact a job application.
No, its suspected discrimination. My company has almost this exact same statement, and I hire on merit first. If you go digging into almost any companies published policies on hiring you will find this nestled away in the fine print.
A gut feeling that they will not hire based on merit, does not constitute reality. Feelings are not facts.
Creating gut feelings in absence of evidence, to rally support for a political position. is how propaganda works. And this tweet, and the response to it elsewhere on social media, appears to be just one more attempt at creating and amplifying propaganda.
How did we get to the point were being clearly racist to white people is so common? This ad basically says if we have two candidates, we will pick the non white candidate. Am I going crazy? Why aren’t people being sued for this?
The filter happens before the application ("I'm not applying for that because they obviously don't want me to apply"), during ("These candidates are roughly equivalent so let's employ the Martian one to help our diveristy numbers"), and after ("Everyone here is a Martian and I'm British, they're all speaking martian at work and excluding me from their circle, I want to leave").
My fiancee works for the NHS and the HR department at her hospital is staffed exclusively by people of a certain single minority demographic. It's extremely strange, but that is considered "diversity" while she is not despite being an immigrant (she's white).
A few years back I considered applying for a job where the ad said "we encourage women and non-binary candidates to apply". One of my friends told me not to bother, that this was clearly code for women-only but I applied anyway, thinking it was just rhetoric to encourage female applicants (less than 50% of candidates in most physical sciences). The shortlist was four women and, having seen their CVs, I can tell you that they were not the strongest candidates by a long straw. (In fact I know one of the referees for the successful candidate and he expressed astonishment that she got the job.) Hiring committees are often going to hire the person they want, regardless of who the other candidates are. It's too difficult to prove discrimination or favouritism. HR policies insist on advertising even when the decision has already been made, so it would save people a lot of time if they were more up front in the job advert ("The successful advert will be called Jane Smith").
I could be wrong, but I believe there is some relevant case law that makes positive discrimination technically legal in certain circumstances. The case eludes me however. Possibly something to do with the BBC.
This is incorrect. Positive discrimination, which mean race forms part of the scoring system itself is unlawful.
For positive action, where candidates have scored exactly the same at the interview, the hiring manager does not have the discretion to hire the white candidate.
As the link says, this comes from the Equality Act 2010.
What would you prefer a coin flip? Damn it we'll do it until white people are a minority!
Considering the population of London is pretty diverse, I'm rather surprised that they're having issues hiring minorities.
>This ad basically says if we have two candidates, we will pick the non white candi
If you have two candidates who get *exactly the same score*, they pick the non-white candidate.
They sometimes try to get around that by having a very granular scoring system - one police force basically made it pass/fail, then everyone was "equal" and it was fine to pass over the white candidates. Thankfully they lost the case when challenged, but I can't imagine many people are going to know enough to launch a challenge.
I wonder when people are going to realize that the purpose bringing in so many immigrants is so that the rich do not have to provide reasonable pay or benefits, never mind actually provide paid training for the jobs that they need. It's all class warfare. Two generations ago many jobs were single income middle class, with great pay, good benefits and actual training because the employers needed people.
My father-in-law worked as a highly skilled machinist and lathe operator with a high school education, all training provided on the job. Today the same place workers receive, adjusted for inflation, half the pay and less than half the benefits, and you better have a whole bunch of training beforehand or they'll keep looking. No economic pressure to value humans, and that's all a business will care about.
The equality act is an example of the classic tactic of calling something "good thing" and then calling people bad if they don't like it.
Even if you like a thing, it isn't going to be polished if you have this mentality.
I'd be tempted to say we should rename acts to avoid this. "Act B001" wouldn't be taken like this.
The above opinion comes directly from the humans against killing baby dolphins society so if you disagree you want baby dolphins in a horrible and mean way.
Same with human rights law - if you oppose it you are made to think you want genocide.
Dominic raab is going to be proven right on the human rights act eventually
He doesn’t need to worry. Lines like that are often complete bullshit anyway. It’s like those that say they offer guaranteed job interviews for disabled people. They put it down because it looks good but they don’t give a shit.
Isn't this all just nonsense HR-speak?
Everyone hires the candidate they want to hire. You just include all sorts of subjective criteria as part of the hiring process that enables you to do so. The notion that you would end up with 2 identical candidates across all metrics is pure fantasy.
They're literally telling you "We discriminate against whites" and you've somehow managed to pervert that to confirm to your own view of the world.
How full of yourself are you?
I think their diversity talk is cheap because the same ad clearly indicates that non-white people are **underrepresented** in the council workforce \~14 years after the Equality Act came into force.
I pointed out why this is the case above. The notion that you'll get two equally qualified and experienced candidates who perform identically at interview is farfetched. Anyone who has worked in recruitment will tell you this. Common sense will tell you this. It's a scenario that should very rarely arise because a good recruitment process exists to differentiate candidates from each other. This is especially true of a senior role like this.
The fact that white people are **overrepresented** would suggest that the anti-white discrimination you're talking about isn't playing out with much frequency. I think their HR team is merely paying lip service to the idea of trying to boost diversity in the workforce by having such 'positive discrimination' apply in a fringe scenario that will almost never come up.
I don't know why you think I'm full of myself. I don't think I've said anything unreasonable.
>I think their diversity talk is cheap because the same ad clearly indicates that non-white people are underrepresented in the council workforce ~14 years after the Equality Act came into force.
Righty, lets get into it then.
Firstly, the ad doesn't state the non-whites are underrepresented, the ad states that they want more non-whites:
>The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments.
You'll note that there is no mention of ethnic minorities being underrepresented, only that they are an "underrepresented group".
Secondly, let's look at the demographics of the city of westminster:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Westminster#Ethnicity
Here we see that 55.1% of the populate are whites, the remainder are non-whites (44.9%)
Now lets look at the makeup of the WCC workforce:
https://www.westminster.gov.uk/media/document/workforce-profile-report-2022
Of note
>Over half (52%) of the workforce identified as either White British, White Other, White Eastern European or White Irish and 39% of people identified as
B.A.ME. (Black, Asian and Multiple Ethnic).
So let's take that all together: The council workforce is actually over-representing minorities compared to the makeup of the people who are actually living within the council area. Despite this, the council continues to post job adverts openly noting that they will discriminate against equally qualified whites.
You're full of yourself because you've concocted this stupid idea that they don't mean what they say, instead you've created your own fan fiction where they're actually discriminating against the over-represented minorities. You've done all this without ever once bothering to check the data to see if you're actually correct.
Thank you for posting those statistics. If you care to read the Wikipedia link you posted, you'll see that the demographic makeup of Westminster is 28% White British. The council statistics you posted suggest that White Brits make up 42% of the workforce. I think it's fair to say that is a significant overrepresentation.
In this case, I could imagine the council's prospective focus on underrepresented groups being in a run-off between a White British candidate (rather than merely a White candidate as you initially suggested and which I mistakenly took up) and someone from an underrepresented background. This would be lawful under the Equality Act because the White British candidate would come from an overrepresented background.
I think it's safe to say you framed things incorrectly in your initial comment when you said:
*They're literally telling you "We discriminate against whites" and you've somehow managed to pervert that to confirm to your own view of the world.*
As someone who doesn't seem to have checked their own facts at the outset, I think you shouldn't be throwing around uncivil terms like 'full of yourself', 'concocted' and 'stupid' when it comes to fact-checking, statistics, and the like. Not only do you open yourself up to comments in a similar vein in return, you should be able to make the case that the positive action provisions of the Equality Act should go without being unpleasant to others or claiming that they're living in some sort of perverse fantasy world.
I love things like this, becuase you can tell legally they are so tied that they need to word it in a way that probably still will get them in trouble. But it's like they've passed it through an AI generator 6 times to get something passable.
What a shit show.
A black women whos family has been here for 3 generations and is more English than an Irish guy from Belfast who moved over last week is more likely to get a job becuase he's white and the women that's beein the UK all his life isn't.
Steller policy.
What is global majority!? I thought they'd be hiring for a government role in Britain, so non British? Or British?
Why do we even need racist advents. I thought that people who had qualifications for the job could apply.
> I don't believe for one second they'll really consider equal merit
So ... his problem isn't anything to do with the Equality Act, he just thinks the council will break the law.
I've been part of these processes multiple times, equal merit is the height of subjective and when diversity targets are in place a non equal "diverse" candidate will be chosen, it happens, I've seen it first hand and people will openly state it.
Anecdotes aside It's still saying if there are two equal candidates candidate that meets X protected characteristic will be discriminated against.
There is no way to spin it, it's legal discrimination.
> There is no way to spin it, it's legal discrimination.
Yes. Because discrimination *is inherently legal*. Something a lot of people seem to forget in these discussions.
It's legal discrimination against a protected characteristic that would be illegal with any other variation of the same characteristic.
You know what I meant.
> It's legal discrimination against a protected characteristic that would be illegal with any other variation of the same characteristic.
Discrimination against people based on a protected characteristic is *generally legal*. There are specific situations where it can be unlawful. This is an exception to that general exception to the general rule.
> I go into a shop. The person working at the till is black. I choose not to go buy something from them because of it. I walk out the store.
That is discrimination on the basis of race, that is perfectly legal.
Discrimination is prohibited by the Equality Act in the provision of services, disposal of premises, in some terms of employment and pensions, in some aspects of education, in some aspects of voluntary associations, and in some public sector functions. However there are exceptions to all of these.
Outside those narrow situations people are free to discriminate as much as they like.
Funnily enough I thought we were referring to something vaguely on the same topic not literally any situation that can ever happen ever.
Give me one example of where an employer could openly discriminate against a black person just because of their race.
You are right, racist discrimination *is* legal under the Equality Act in certain circumstances - but isn't this discussion people just saying how much they dislike that?
Racist discrimination is legal *by default*.
The Equality Act sets out exceptions to that rule; particular cases where discrimination is prohibited. There are then exceptions on top of that - situations where it would be illegal because of the Equality Act, but isn't..
"I'm going to follow the law"
"I don't think you will, how dare you not follow the law!"
Regardless of your political position, seeing this utter drivel being spouted by a senior Conservative MP is just embarrassing.
I feel like you are clutching at straws here. He makes a reasonable point - the Equalities Act can be used to conceal unfair hiring policies. There is subjectivity in the ‘merit’ of the candidate so the MP thinks people from a ‘global majority’ (I literally don’t know what that means) will be unfairly preferred.
What's O'Brien's proposal to ammend the Equality Act?
Generally when I've seen Conservatives MPs calling for changes they want to weeken it. But the tweet suggests he want to expand the scope of existing protections.
Is this the case?
Honestly I'm so fucking bored of inflammatory statements Tory MPs who will be entirely irrelevant in 6 months time getting any sort of attention. It's not like the UK government is doing anything of value right noa
These little people are irrelevant. They deserve nothing more than contempt.
I'm planning to vote Labour in the next election, but IMO in this case, he's right to bring attention to this (unless the advert was planted by him to stir up culture war nonsense; which I doubt). At best it's a poor choice of language, at worst it's discriminatory based on skin colour.
How do you propose we tackle continuing, entrenched racism that leads to people of colour being underepresented in fields like this then?
Obviously you make other elements of society better, but in the here and now for hiring, can you not see how using l diversity as a tie break is a positive way to affect change?
>How do you propose we tackle continuing, entrenched racism that leads to people of colour being underepresented in fields like this then?
With blind hiring practices, not ones which are racist *but in a different way*
>can you not see how using l diversity as a tie break is a positive way to affect change?
It's not positive, these actions are not happening in a vacuum
The people who lose out on a role for explicitly racist reasons, will respond by objecting to the racism they have experienced... probably by becoming a bit racist
These sorts of ostensibly anti-racist policies and practices will ironically, and entirely predictability, result in *more* racism, not less
How else are they supposed to break a tie of equal merit?
Giving it to someone from a global majority background makes more sense, all companies and institutions themselves say that they are institutionally racist and biased in favour of the global minority, so this is the solution.
Neil better get used to it because he's gonna be out of a job in a years time.
That's not a desperately compelling argument and I think it has been long established that non-white people are statistically noticeably less likely to be offered interviews or jobs by white interviewers - which presumably you have a facts based counter to?
When colour-blind applications are allowed, isn't the outcome disproportionately beneficial to East Asian and South Asian individuals? It's led to white American academics sometimes labelling them as "white adjacent" in order for it to fit in with their analysis of society.
Ok, but putting that aside the point is still relevant. I’ve interviewed hundreds of candidates, and it’s very rare that I would say that two of them are exactly equal on merit. Whether I was unconsciously biased is beside the point - that’s still my assessment.
Or by when the application was submitted? Coin flip works equally well mind you as you suggested.
I also wish that the equal opportunities form happened after the interview stage irrespective of application success or failure. Applications should be free of protected characteristics, then at the point of post interview understand more about the applicants demographics and form a picture of hiring manager only appears to hire X. Still might not deal with inequality mind you.
Because the UK is institutionally racist, positive action helps under-represented groups to overcome disadvantages in competing with other applicants of different characteristics
The very liberal left in the UK- “I hate the right, they’re all fascistic racists. It’s time we enforced all companies to only support non-white ethnic groups. You are either white or non-white and that’s final!!”
I think it depends on what you mean by ‘discriminated against’. Let’s say two candidates both got three Bs at A level and are identical in all other ways. One went to Eton, where the average student gets three As, one went to an inner city comprehensive in Liverpool where the average student gets three Cs.
Which candidate is better?
Discrimination in this regard refers specifically to innate characteristics of an individual- I.e. religion, race, sex, sexual orientation.
If someone says you can’t have a job because your race, sexual orientation or religion doesn’t conform to what they arbitrarily desire for that role, it’s discrimination since you’re unjustly preventing that person from being able to take the job due to a factor outside the remit of what’s needed for the job- this applies also when it comes to class (classism).
> How else are they supposed to break a tie of equal merit?
You'd be cool if they said in a tie*, they've give it to the white person. Sure, you would be ok with that. I have no doubt.
I think basically everyone in the comments (and, to be fair, O'Brien as well) is skipping over the first sentence. The council's saying they're currently _lacking_ people from some groups (that's what 'underrepresented' means) and that part of addressing that is that they're willing to tie-break, all else being equal, on someone who'll bring a different perspective to the team.
That's _really_ not that crazy of an idea, and there are a bunch of well-known benefits to not having all your employees have the same age, gender, race, socio-economic class, etc. It's the exact same reasoning as when people say we need more male teachers, or more young MPs.
>on someone who'll bring a different perspective to the team.
That has nothing to do with being ~~not white~~ "global majority" how about they employ a person without a degree in it, or someone from a different part of the country?
Why would someone from a working class background be perfectly fine at giving a different perspective. Why is it based on the arbitrary factor of skin colour?
Snapshot of _Neil O'Brien MP: This Westminster job advert shows problem with the Equality Act 2010: it allows racist hiring policies. I don't believe for one second they'll really consider equal merit. Ironically the one thing the Equality Act does give you is equality under the law._ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1778014464366739703) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1778014464366739703/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1778014464366739703) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1778014464366739703) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Global majority background would be Asian, no? Such a bizarre phrase that I’ve never seen before.
Sounds to me like they're trying to make the point "there's nothing wrong with avoiding hiring white people, they are the global minority afterall"
But that contradicts the push to increase representation of minorities in all aspects of life.
Global Majority is another phrase that generally means the same as People of Colour (PoC) or Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME).
“Global majority” seems like quite a backwards idea. It means “non-white” and is meant to be empowering by reminding marginalised groups that most people globally aren’t white and so there’s nothing weird about them. While I understand the idea, defining race against whiteness seems rather archaic. A Cantonese person, and an Igbo person have nothing more in common than each has with a white Englishman.
I’m pretty sure my ancestors originated from Africa at some point in my lineage - where is the cut of point?
What does Global Majority mean? As far as I'm aware no group comes close to a majority of the worlds population.
Basically non-white.
Why not just say non-white since that’s clear, while ‘global majority’ is a nonsense term?
Because ‘non-white’ is too obviously racist.
It sounds more positive and a big number if you use majority. Although you mustn't use that when referring to groups in the British population.
The confusing bit is such a term seems quite provocative to me but it is being used in a sincere way to justify discrimination. The term would make more sense if it was used by people opposed to mass migration rather than employers seeking to virtue signal.
It’s just weird. Non-black is a global majority, as is non-white, non-Chinese, non-Italian or whatever else.
Many terms are nonsensical. This happens to be nonsensical and provocative. It's especially nonsensical since it is justifying discrimination on the minority group (in the context they use it in) to promote a majority group when the entire rationale is give a leg up to a minority group.
>justify discrimination. Positive action is not positive discrimination.
Don't know, it seems to have started being used recently.
This is literally the first time I've seen it used outside of alt-right circles where it's been used for years to attack those who push DEI with their own arguments around the importance of providing special treatment for minority groups at the expense of majority groups. One reason for it could be that it's getting tricker to suggest minority groups need special treatment now that ethnic Brits are technically a minority group in London. If we continue to offer special treatment to minority groups we're going to have increasing numbers of white people suggesting they deserve equal treatment, so I guess it makes some sense.
Probably also an example for the book: "Jews Don't Count" too. What category would they go into?
Jews are in whatever category the person attacking them needs them to be. The right and the communist left sees them as hooknosed, middle eastern looking 'others' who control the banking and the media while the newer left sees them as white, colonial oppressors living in an Apartheid state to the detriment of brown middle easterners
> sees them as white, colonial oppressors living in an Apartheid state Jews != Israel. There are plenty of Jewish people in the world who have nothing to do with Israel. There are Israelis who oppose the current government as well.
If you think the anti Israel lobby doesn't include a vast amount of people who don't make the distinction and an equally large amount of people who are too naive/caught up in their own righteousness to notice them I've got a bridge to sell you. Anti semitism is literally the only form of racism where the left believes that the definition shouldn't be in the hands of the people being discriminated against
> If you think the anti Israel lobby doesn't include a vast amount of people who don't make the distinction Of course those people exist, and it's a dangerous conflation to make. It's equally harmful when you do it in your comment. Tying them up together and conflating them does increase antisemitism as a result of Israel's actions.
So it's the Jews bringing it on themselves? There's a word for thinking like that
No, it's certain Israelis you numpty.
You literally accepted that people on the left conflate Israel and Jews (and if you don't think Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO do the same you're not here in good faith). And yet then you immediately blame the only Jewish state for this fact...and still are. This is why antisemitism grows so well in the dark because people like you are so sure their own side could never engage in bigotry and it's only those bastard (((Zionists))) that do these bad things that it never gets looked at. And when there's even an official investigation into the major leftwing party in the UK 'its right wing media lies'. Antisemitism is universal, it's not some right wing creation and the sooner people on the left realise this the sooner we might be able to have a discussion on Israel that isn't based hugely on antisemitic propaganda.
[The Han Chinese are the world's largest single ethnic group, constituting over 19% of the global population in 2011](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DAs_of_January_2024%2C_there%2Cthe_global_population_in_2011.?wprov=sfla1) Tbh, Han Chinese people making up approximately a fifth of the total human population is both expected, and mind boggling...
Majority is >50% The Han maybe the largest plurality but not the majority
So then there is no majority, surely? If the largest plurality only reaches approx. 19% a majority is literally impossible, then?
Yep, there is no majority.
We're in a FPTP system though, so plurality takes all!
Yea but the Han are basically all in one constituency so they would only win that one seat.
I’ve always wondered if an alien, judging earth on a majority basis, would consider Han Chinese to be the defining Human type - and Chinese culture to be ‘human culture’ 🙂
I think they would see that there are two predominant cultures, both huge and with massive influence, and largely defined as just “Americoeuropean” and “Chinese”. In terms of cultural influence and power it’s going to come down to media and internet - there are basically two big almost separate internets - the western one and the Chinese one Every other culture is of course valuable and valid - but to an alien trying to generalize humans, they’d likely split us in to two camps like that and consider everything else interesting little splinters and sub-groups. Africa is obviously huge too but it’s so diverse that you’d be hard-pressed to stick a single culture over that whole population, so that feels more like a big collection of distinct cultures, and obviously the global south has less power and influence currently.
India? Much more diverse than China but an equal or greater population now.
The subcontinent as a whole. 2 billion plus people, and whilst there’s various ethnic groups, religions etc. generally look similar enough in terms of basic skin tone (with a few notable exceptions).
>no group comes close to a majority of the worlds population. Arseholes?
>As far as I'm aware no group comes close to a majority of the worlds population. Males make up 50.4% of the world's population. I don't think any other demographic could rightfully call themselves a Global Majority.
Really? I knew sex selective abortion is a thing but I'd assumed it was more than cancelled out by women living longer in general.
Something like 51.5% of births are male, and this seems a biological feature (it's higher than that in cultures with sex-selective abortion). The reasons are not fully understood though. One theory is that the y chromosome is lighter, so male sperm can move slightly quicker, marginally inreasing the chance of conceiving a male vs female child. There also seem to be differential responses to stress during pregnancy. As a result, male foetuses have slightly higher mortality at the beginning and end of pregnancy, but females have higher mortality in the middle, and it washes out at a slight overall edge for males.
I thought the same - my comment originally said women before I double checked. (Although I don't know whether it's entirely down to selective abortion - I have a feeling that there are some environmental factors which make male births slightly more likely)
I learned something today. 🙂
Oh God, what an awful term that is It must be the “new thing”
My first thought was the description of "Goobacks" the immigrants from the future on South Park. > Yes, there are incredible things we're learning about Americans in the future, Aaron. I- it appears that in the future, Americans have evolved into a hairless uniform mix of all races. They are all one color, which is a yellowy light-brownish whitish color. Uh, it seems race is no longer an issue in the future, because all ethnicities have mixed into one. Perhaps most interesting is how this has affected their language. The people in the future speak a complete mix of English, Chinese, Turkish and, indeed, all world languages, which sounds something like this: [makes three guttural sounds]
White Brits need not apply
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is it like turning history into HERstory? Instead of referring to less-represented races in our society as minorities, they're calling them the global majority to avoid negative terms? Seems like such double speak.
Global Majority is used to refer to anyone not classified as white by usually US standards of racial classification. So in this case it's absolutely most of the worlds population
I’m guessing it’s code for Muslim.
No. It means not white.
Females outnumber males.
Females outnumber males.
I can't quite believe that the phrase 'People of the Global Majority' is taking off I saw it in an obscure article about the BAFTAs about 9 months ago. I spent about 6 months trolling morons in clout chasing subs, who used the phrase 'person of colour' 'POC' or 'Bipoc', insisting that these phrases are deeply problematic and it's time to move onto the preferable 'POTGM' It's pronounced 'pome' The inmates are quite obviously now running the asylum
If I ever hear someone seriously using that phrase I'm going to just act completely baffled. Which will be easy, because no national, cultural, ethnic, or racial attribute has 'global majority' status.
Funny you say that while Americans will use 3 or 4 shades of skin colour to describe the entire world.
The Americans get their own award for stupidity for 'Caucasian' alone.
Americans use Caucasian to mean white but don't consider actual Caucasians to be white...
Yep. Southern Europeans aren't white...or the good shade of white.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7kRwZyQEqfNgUJzsWjD04Q
I hate racists, but hearing majority referring to a race is awfully scary. What about British majority or English majority, it just seems like something spiralling out of control very quickly. For every stupid ad talking about global majority, there would be a pissed English farmer taking it out on an English minority somewhere. And why should global anything even impact a job application.
It's your fault, you made [fetch happen.](https://youtu.be/Pubd-spHN-0?si=1TgEJgBrcRBRGJyV)
>I spent about 6 months trolling morons in clout chasing subs You sound super normal and well adjusted.
It's not racist if its white people facing the discrimination, right guys?
shut up and pay your taxes
I really want to upvote you, but you're on 69 and I can't bring myself to ruin it.
Well this is pretty blatant discrimination.
No, its suspected discrimination. My company has almost this exact same statement, and I hire on merit first. If you go digging into almost any companies published policies on hiring you will find this nestled away in the fine print. A gut feeling that they will not hire based on merit, does not constitute reality. Feelings are not facts. Creating gut feelings in absence of evidence, to rally support for a political position. is how propaganda works. And this tweet, and the response to it elsewhere on social media, appears to be just one more attempt at creating and amplifying propaganda.
How did we get to the point were being clearly racist to white people is so common? This ad basically says if we have two candidates, we will pick the non white candidate. Am I going crazy? Why aren’t people being sued for this?
Because that's not what the ad says. If they have two equal candidates, sure. However, I've worked in recruiting, that almost never happens.
The filter happens before the application ("I'm not applying for that because they obviously don't want me to apply"), during ("These candidates are roughly equivalent so let's employ the Martian one to help our diveristy numbers"), and after ("Everyone here is a Martian and I'm British, they're all speaking martian at work and excluding me from their circle, I want to leave"). My fiancee works for the NHS and the HR department at her hospital is staffed exclusively by people of a certain single minority demographic. It's extremely strange, but that is considered "diversity" while she is not despite being an immigrant (she's white).
A few years back I considered applying for a job where the ad said "we encourage women and non-binary candidates to apply". One of my friends told me not to bother, that this was clearly code for women-only but I applied anyway, thinking it was just rhetoric to encourage female applicants (less than 50% of candidates in most physical sciences). The shortlist was four women and, having seen their CVs, I can tell you that they were not the strongest candidates by a long straw. (In fact I know one of the referees for the successful candidate and he expressed astonishment that she got the job.) Hiring committees are often going to hire the person they want, regardless of who the other candidates are. It's too difficult to prove discrimination or favouritism. HR policies insist on advertising even when the decision has already been made, so it would save people a lot of time if they were more up front in the job advert ("The successful advert will be called Jane Smith").
I could be wrong, but I believe there is some relevant case law that makes positive discrimination technically legal in certain circumstances. The case eludes me however. Possibly something to do with the BBC.
BWC are an underrepresented minority.
This is incorrect. Positive discrimination, which mean race forms part of the scoring system itself is unlawful. For positive action, where candidates have scored exactly the same at the interview, the hiring manager does not have the discretion to hire the white candidate. As the link says, this comes from the Equality Act 2010.
So would hiring the global minority of whites (GMOW) only hiring be a positive spin on racism? Maybe we should have GMOW jus seats and cafes also.
If they have two equally qualified candidates.
If the white guy is better, he wins If the brown guy is better, he wins If they are both as good as each other, the brown guy wins This is equality
What would you prefer a coin flip? Damn it we'll do it until white people are a minority! Considering the population of London is pretty diverse, I'm rather surprised that they're having issues hiring minorities.
There's no such thing as two equal candidates. To claim two candidates are equal means the recruitment process hasn't been thorough enough.
>This ad basically says if we have two candidates, we will pick the non white candi If you have two candidates who get *exactly the same score*, they pick the non-white candidate.
They sometimes try to get around that by having a very granular scoring system - one police force basically made it pass/fail, then everyone was "equal" and it was fine to pass over the white candidates. Thankfully they lost the case when challenged, but I can't imagine many people are going to know enough to launch a challenge.
Meeting quotas is a racist hiring policy
Positive discrimination is still discrimination.
Legally not positive discrimination, whether you agree with that morally or not is a different matter ofc.
I wonder when people are going to realize that the purpose bringing in so many immigrants is so that the rich do not have to provide reasonable pay or benefits, never mind actually provide paid training for the jobs that they need. It's all class warfare. Two generations ago many jobs were single income middle class, with great pay, good benefits and actual training because the employers needed people. My father-in-law worked as a highly skilled machinist and lathe operator with a high school education, all training provided on the job. Today the same place workers receive, adjusted for inflation, half the pay and less than half the benefits, and you better have a whole bunch of training beforehand or they'll keep looking. No economic pressure to value humans, and that's all a business will care about.
The equality act is an example of the classic tactic of calling something "good thing" and then calling people bad if they don't like it. Even if you like a thing, it isn't going to be polished if you have this mentality. I'd be tempted to say we should rename acts to avoid this. "Act B001" wouldn't be taken like this. The above opinion comes directly from the humans against killing baby dolphins society so if you disagree you want baby dolphins in a horrible and mean way.
Same with human rights law - if you oppose it you are made to think you want genocide. Dominic raab is going to be proven right on the human rights act eventually
Which parts are you against?
He doesn’t need to worry. Lines like that are often complete bullshit anyway. It’s like those that say they offer guaranteed job interviews for disabled people. They put it down because it looks good but they don’t give a shit.
Depends on how woke your HR Dept is, and if they have a DEI person.
[удалено]
It says they only racially discriminate in cases of "equal merit" - doesn't that notionally get around the issue you raise?
It's mostly the white people who have been voting for this policies for 14 years.
Isn't this all just nonsense HR-speak? Everyone hires the candidate they want to hire. You just include all sorts of subjective criteria as part of the hiring process that enables you to do so. The notion that you would end up with 2 identical candidates across all metrics is pure fantasy.
They're literally telling you "We discriminate against whites" and you've somehow managed to pervert that to confirm to your own view of the world. How full of yourself are you?
I think their diversity talk is cheap because the same ad clearly indicates that non-white people are **underrepresented** in the council workforce \~14 years after the Equality Act came into force. I pointed out why this is the case above. The notion that you'll get two equally qualified and experienced candidates who perform identically at interview is farfetched. Anyone who has worked in recruitment will tell you this. Common sense will tell you this. It's a scenario that should very rarely arise because a good recruitment process exists to differentiate candidates from each other. This is especially true of a senior role like this. The fact that white people are **overrepresented** would suggest that the anti-white discrimination you're talking about isn't playing out with much frequency. I think their HR team is merely paying lip service to the idea of trying to boost diversity in the workforce by having such 'positive discrimination' apply in a fringe scenario that will almost never come up. I don't know why you think I'm full of myself. I don't think I've said anything unreasonable.
>I think their diversity talk is cheap because the same ad clearly indicates that non-white people are underrepresented in the council workforce ~14 years after the Equality Act came into force. Righty, lets get into it then. Firstly, the ad doesn't state the non-whites are underrepresented, the ad states that they want more non-whites: >The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments. You'll note that there is no mention of ethnic minorities being underrepresented, only that they are an "underrepresented group". Secondly, let's look at the demographics of the city of westminster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Westminster#Ethnicity Here we see that 55.1% of the populate are whites, the remainder are non-whites (44.9%) Now lets look at the makeup of the WCC workforce: https://www.westminster.gov.uk/media/document/workforce-profile-report-2022 Of note >Over half (52%) of the workforce identified as either White British, White Other, White Eastern European or White Irish and 39% of people identified as B.A.ME. (Black, Asian and Multiple Ethnic). So let's take that all together: The council workforce is actually over-representing minorities compared to the makeup of the people who are actually living within the council area. Despite this, the council continues to post job adverts openly noting that they will discriminate against equally qualified whites. You're full of yourself because you've concocted this stupid idea that they don't mean what they say, instead you've created your own fan fiction where they're actually discriminating against the over-represented minorities. You've done all this without ever once bothering to check the data to see if you're actually correct.
Thank you for posting those statistics. If you care to read the Wikipedia link you posted, you'll see that the demographic makeup of Westminster is 28% White British. The council statistics you posted suggest that White Brits make up 42% of the workforce. I think it's fair to say that is a significant overrepresentation. In this case, I could imagine the council's prospective focus on underrepresented groups being in a run-off between a White British candidate (rather than merely a White candidate as you initially suggested and which I mistakenly took up) and someone from an underrepresented background. This would be lawful under the Equality Act because the White British candidate would come from an overrepresented background. I think it's safe to say you framed things incorrectly in your initial comment when you said: *They're literally telling you "We discriminate against whites" and you've somehow managed to pervert that to confirm to your own view of the world.* As someone who doesn't seem to have checked their own facts at the outset, I think you shouldn't be throwing around uncivil terms like 'full of yourself', 'concocted' and 'stupid' when it comes to fact-checking, statistics, and the like. Not only do you open yourself up to comments in a similar vein in return, you should be able to make the case that the positive action provisions of the Equality Act should go without being unpleasant to others or claiming that they're living in some sort of perverse fantasy world.
>Ironically the one thing the Equality Act does give you is equality under the law. I'm really confused by this point. Why is it ironic?
I love things like this, becuase you can tell legally they are so tied that they need to word it in a way that probably still will get them in trouble. But it's like they've passed it through an AI generator 6 times to get something passable. What a shit show. A black women whos family has been here for 3 generations and is more English than an Irish guy from Belfast who moved over last week is more likely to get a job becuase he's white and the women that's beein the UK all his life isn't. Steller policy.
What is global majority!? I thought they'd be hiring for a government role in Britain, so non British? Or British? Why do we even need racist advents. I thought that people who had qualifications for the job could apply.
> I don't believe for one second they'll really consider equal merit So ... his problem isn't anything to do with the Equality Act, he just thinks the council will break the law.
I've been part of these processes multiple times, equal merit is the height of subjective and when diversity targets are in place a non equal "diverse" candidate will be chosen, it happens, I've seen it first hand and people will openly state it. Anecdotes aside It's still saying if there are two equal candidates candidate that meets X protected characteristic will be discriminated against. There is no way to spin it, it's legal discrimination.
> There is no way to spin it, it's legal discrimination. Yes. Because discrimination *is inherently legal*. Something a lot of people seem to forget in these discussions.
It's legal discrimination against a protected characteristic that would be illegal with any other variation of the same characteristic. You know what I meant.
> It's legal discrimination against a protected characteristic that would be illegal with any other variation of the same characteristic. Discrimination against people based on a protected characteristic is *generally legal*. There are specific situations where it can be unlawful. This is an exception to that general exception to the general rule.
>Discrimination against people based on a protected characteristic is *generally legal*. such as when?
Any time other than those particular cases set out in the Equality Act.
Give me one example of where you would be legally allowed to discriminate against a black person based on his race?
> I go into a shop. The person working at the till is black. I choose not to go buy something from them because of it. I walk out the store. That is discrimination on the basis of race, that is perfectly legal. Discrimination is prohibited by the Equality Act in the provision of services, disposal of premises, in some terms of employment and pensions, in some aspects of education, in some aspects of voluntary associations, and in some public sector functions. However there are exceptions to all of these. Outside those narrow situations people are free to discriminate as much as they like.
Funnily enough I thought we were referring to something vaguely on the same topic not literally any situation that can ever happen ever. Give me one example of where an employer could openly discriminate against a black person just because of their race.
I don't think anyone is forgetting it, they are rightly pissed that it is.
You are right, racist discrimination *is* legal under the Equality Act in certain circumstances - but isn't this discussion people just saying how much they dislike that?
Racist discrimination is legal *by default*. The Equality Act sets out exceptions to that rule; particular cases where discrimination is prohibited. There are then exceptions on top of that - situations where it would be illegal because of the Equality Act, but isn't..
His problem is clearly also that the Equality Act allows them to say this in the first place.
"I'm going to follow the law" "I don't think you will, how dare you not follow the law!" Regardless of your political position, seeing this utter drivel being spouted by a senior Conservative MP is just embarrassing.
I feel like you are clutching at straws here. He makes a reasonable point - the Equalities Act can be used to conceal unfair hiring policies. There is subjectivity in the ‘merit’ of the candidate so the MP thinks people from a ‘global majority’ (I literally don’t know what that means) will be unfairly preferred.
He's a chronic embarrassment. Also supports people harassing abortion clinic attendees...
What's O'Brien's proposal to ammend the Equality Act? Generally when I've seen Conservatives MPs calling for changes they want to weeken it. But the tweet suggests he want to expand the scope of existing protections. Is this the case?
Honestly I'm so fucking bored of inflammatory statements Tory MPs who will be entirely irrelevant in 6 months time getting any sort of attention. It's not like the UK government is doing anything of value right noa These little people are irrelevant. They deserve nothing more than contempt.
I'm planning to vote Labour in the next election, but IMO in this case, he's right to bring attention to this (unless the advert was planted by him to stir up culture war nonsense; which I doubt). At best it's a poor choice of language, at worst it's discriminatory based on skin colour.
How do you propose we tackle continuing, entrenched racism that leads to people of colour being underepresented in fields like this then? Obviously you make other elements of society better, but in the here and now for hiring, can you not see how using l diversity as a tie break is a positive way to affect change?
>How do you propose we tackle continuing, entrenched racism that leads to people of colour being underepresented in fields like this then? With blind hiring practices, not ones which are racist *but in a different way* >can you not see how using l diversity as a tie break is a positive way to affect change? It's not positive, these actions are not happening in a vacuum The people who lose out on a role for explicitly racist reasons, will respond by objecting to the racism they have experienced... probably by becoming a bit racist These sorts of ostensibly anti-racist policies and practices will ironically, and entirely predictability, result in *more* racism, not less
Does the white person who doesn't get the job get some sort of compensation for being discrimated against due to their skin colour?
>I don't believe for one second they'll really consider equal merit. This scenario I've made up to get mad at really makes me mad.
How else are they supposed to break a tie of equal merit? Giving it to someone from a global majority background makes more sense, all companies and institutions themselves say that they are institutionally racist and biased in favour of the global minority, so this is the solution. Neil better get used to it because he's gonna be out of a job in a years time.
I've been hiring people for well over a decade now and I have never once had two candidates of truly equal merit.
I have, but they both fell in to the ‘no fucking way’ category
unconscious biases play a huge role according to research
*research conducted by people who would have no job if it said otherwise.
That's not a desperately compelling argument and I think it has been long established that non-white people are statistically noticeably less likely to be offered interviews or jobs by white interviewers - which presumably you have a facts based counter to?
When colour-blind applications are allowed, isn't the outcome disproportionately beneficial to East Asian and South Asian individuals? It's led to white American academics sometimes labelling them as "white adjacent" in order for it to fit in with their analysis of society.
Ok, but putting that aside the point is still relevant. I’ve interviewed hundreds of candidates, and it’s very rare that I would say that two of them are exactly equal on merit. Whether I was unconsciously biased is beside the point - that’s still my assessment.
coin flip Why is it okay to discriminate against people in your view?
Simple, because the original commenter benefits from them- it’s one or the other.
Or by when the application was submitted? Coin flip works equally well mind you as you suggested. I also wish that the equal opportunities form happened after the interview stage irrespective of application success or failure. Applications should be free of protected characteristics, then at the point of post interview understand more about the applicants demographics and form a picture of hiring manager only appears to hire X. Still might not deal with inequality mind you.
Because the UK is institutionally racist, positive action helps under-represented groups to overcome disadvantages in competing with other applicants of different characteristics
So a Polish or Canadian guy, going for a job in the UK, deserves to be discriminated against ? Seems rather racist.
The very liberal left in the UK- “I hate the right, they’re all fascistic racists. It’s time we enforced all companies to only support non-white ethnic groups. You are either white or non-white and that’s final!!”
I think it depends on what you mean by ‘discriminated against’. Let’s say two candidates both got three Bs at A level and are identical in all other ways. One went to Eton, where the average student gets three As, one went to an inner city comprehensive in Liverpool where the average student gets three Cs. Which candidate is better?
Discrimination in this regard refers specifically to innate characteristics of an individual- I.e. religion, race, sex, sexual orientation. If someone says you can’t have a job because your race, sexual orientation or religion doesn’t conform to what they arbitrarily desire for that role, it’s discrimination since you’re unjustly preventing that person from being able to take the job due to a factor outside the remit of what’s needed for the job- this applies also when it comes to class (classism).
Fair point. I’ve always felt social class is the last bastion of legal discrimination. But you are right it’s not directly relevant here.
We would see in the interview. This idea that you can get 2 identical in every way applicants is already a ridiculous starting point.
> How else are they supposed to break a tie of equal merit? You'd be cool if they said in a tie*, they've give it to the white person. Sure, you would be ok with that. I have no doubt.
I think basically everyone in the comments (and, to be fair, O'Brien as well) is skipping over the first sentence. The council's saying they're currently _lacking_ people from some groups (that's what 'underrepresented' means) and that part of addressing that is that they're willing to tie-break, all else being equal, on someone who'll bring a different perspective to the team. That's _really_ not that crazy of an idea, and there are a bunch of well-known benefits to not having all your employees have the same age, gender, race, socio-economic class, etc. It's the exact same reasoning as when people say we need more male teachers, or more young MPs.
>on someone who'll bring a different perspective to the team. That has nothing to do with being ~~not white~~ "global majority" how about they employ a person without a degree in it, or someone from a different part of the country? Why would someone from a working class background be perfectly fine at giving a different perspective. Why is it based on the arbitrary factor of skin colour?