Positive Health Online

Originally published at https://www.activehealthcare.co.uk/literature/mind-spirit/266-discrimination

And I recollect the signs I saw, many years ago, in the front window of some pubs in specific parts of London, saying “No dogs; no Irish”. With my educated mind, having lived through the next five decades, I now wonder if one can discriminate against dogs. I recall many ‘separations’ within society, all of which were, at the time, accepted, without questioning their validity. We used to have man’s clubs, the women’s institute, the officers mess, single’s clubs, boy scouts, hobby clubs, the catholic priesthood, the boys choir, the farmer’s union. All made some distinction within society based on very specific traits, talents, capacities, interests within human beings. They discriminated against the rest of society, against human beings that did not concur with the requirements of the group. And then I wonder why I am not allowed to eat anything related to animals in a vegan restaurant. I am not welcome there, and the sign on the door tells me so. It certainly doesn’t feel ‘all inclusive’ to me. Neither are signs in public places that say ‘no skateboarding’ or ‘no kids’ zone’. On the one hand society is making a fierce effort not to discriminate against nobody or nothing, but on the other hand it shows that there are differences within society and that society has to make choices about ‘what one allows and what one outlaws’.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80288356

Credit: By BJ70159 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80288356

For specific purposes, groups within society would ‘separate’ themselves from the rest in order to enjoy the company of people with similar interests and to further their interests without disruption from people ‘who don’t share that same passion’. Then there was a time when separation was referred to as ‘apartheid’, which is the South African word for ‘separation’. By using a different word and adding a negative connotation, separating people into groups was being promoted as something bad within society.

The word discrimination is derived from the Latin verb ‘discrimire’ meaning ‘to separate, to distinguish, to make a distinction’. It means ‘to distinguish from something else or from each other, observe or mark the differences between’. There is no negative connotation attached to making a distinction. In modern times, the bad connotation of marking differences began by ‘separating’ specific groups of people into distinctly different categories, setting them ‘apart’ from the others, and having different rules and regulations to mark them being ‘different’, being ‘not the same’. The bad connotation arises out of the different rules and regulations these separate groups of people are subjected to. Differences within society are currently no longer allowed, since the end of the separation of black and white people, following on from the end of official slavery. From there, we moved to eliminating the natural differences between a man and a woman, between different nationalities, between different regions, and between different cultures and religions. Discrimination, to make a distinction, simply has to stop. Apparently.

Today, there are still two definitions of the word discrimination:

1. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another;
2. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.

From this, it must now be obvious that the only way our modern society is allowed to look at discrimination is in the context of ‘unjust’ or ‘prejudiced’. And what does that mean? Unjust means ‘not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair’. What the hell is morally? Morally means ‘with reference to the principles of right and wrong behaviour’. Which behaviour is ‘right’ and which one is ‘wrong’? It turns out that many pages have been written on this question by many philosophers, but after all the twisting and turning of words and concepts has ended, we are left with this. ‘Societies decide what is or isn't acceptable. Norms, morality and laws are the result. To the extent different societies have different priorities, they will have different norms, morality, and laws.’ So, discrimination then becomes the kind of treatment of separation of different categories of people, which society finds unacceptable. And who makes the decisions within society? Governments, authorities, organisations that rule over the population.

And what is meant by ‘prejudiced’? A prejudice is ‘a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience’. What does preconceived mean? Preconceived means ‘an idea or opinion, formed before having the evidence for its truth or usefulness’. We now know from other articles and research that scientific evidence for truth doesn’t exist. It simply is impossible to know for sure what is scientifically true and what isn’t. This makes all ideas and opinions ‘preconceived’. Hence, any kind of treatment of different categories of people is based on what someone believes to be true, whether this someone is me or you, or the government, the authority, the organisation that rules the population.

The UK government websites states the following:

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

• Age
• Gender reassignment
• Being married or in a civil partnership
• Being pregnant or on maternity leave
• Disability
• Race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
• Religion or belief
• Sex
• Sexual orientation

The European Commission states the following:

Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations states:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

It looks to me as if making a distinction at virtually any level of life, of individuals or of a group, namely the society an individual belongs to, is now considered discrimination, and is forbidden by law. No individual shall be discriminated against, for no reason whatsoever. Hence, I perceive it to be an infringement of the law, if I refuse someone a job on the basis that that person is not tall enough. As with almost all aspects of human life, there are rules and regulations to adhere to. Luckily, there are also rights that employers have.

1. Employers have every right to establish minimum educational requirements and experience levels for any job position. Employers can make subjective evaluations about a candidate’s ability to fit into the company culture. As long as the employer’s decision is not based on race, gender, age, disability, or other protected category, the employer has the discretion to make whatever selections are in the employer’s best interest. – Looking at the list of what is considered discrimination, can you see on what ground the employer will still be allowed to make a selection in his/her best interest?
2. Employers have the right to establish policies and procedures governing such matters as employee ethics, leave policies, pay, pay for performance, and behaviour when interacting with customers or the public. Employer policies can include social media usage during work hours and after hours. Employers can also establish dress and grooming standards. – So, an employer is allowed to decide that no employee is allowed to wear a headscarf!

On March 2017, the European Court of Justice ruled on two cases brought by women employees who were dismissed because they wore the headscarf, and the court ruled that internal rules prohibiting visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign do not constitute direct discrimination. – However, not everybody agrees. “With this judgment, the European Court of Justice blatantly disregards the societal context Muslim women face in Europe.” We have employers’ rights, but they can easily be contested. I wonder what an employer, in reality, is still allowed to make a choice on without having to worry about being in trouble with the law.

Providing jobs to other people and looking for specific skills and characteristics within the workforce is very much encouraged by the government. To mark their appreciation for your contribution to the wellbeing of the community, they give you rights. You are given, by the government, the right to pick your employees, the right to demand a specific conduct of your employees and the right to uphold a specific standard of behaviour and how to dress. After all, it is your business, so it is only right and proper that you should be in charge of it.

However, this same government has also committed itself, on a global scale, to implement rules and laws that outlaws any preference in choosing one person over another based on differences in gender, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation. In other words, when you as an employer prefer to employ one person over another, it cannot be for any of these ‘reasons’. That is not allowed. Your choice, by law, has to be based on another difference between the two candidates. If that isn’t the case, you and your company are liable for unfair treatment of one of the candidates, liable for discrimination charges. The Equality Act 2010 protects the following people against discrimination: anyone who works for an employer, contractors and self-employed people hired to personally do the work, job applicants, and former workers.

It seems to me that an employer nowadays is being invited to find devious ways to try and get the type of employee he envisages. Being honest about what you have in mind is not only no longer acceptable, but it puts your business and your person in jeopardy. “I am looking for a younger person”, or “I don’t want my employees to have visible tattoos” or “I need someone with a stronger voice” are examples of requirements that the employer can no longer make public. Adhere to the anti-discrimination laws first, before we get to your rights as an employer. It is much more about responsibilities that are put on the shoulders of the employer than it is about the rights he/she has as a job provider. How does that compare to the responsibilities of the employees?

I am not going to mention the obvious ones that are written down in legal rules and that are not difficult to figure out for yourself. There are no surprises and no hardship in any of those. No, let’s ask ourselves what has happened to the responsibility of the choices the job applicant is making. Is this what he or she really wants, or are they applying for almost anything because it has become difficult for the employer to dismiss the joker?

Would you apply for a job as a Playboy Bunny if you are very short and overweight?

Would you apply for a job as a greenkeeper at the golf club if you are allergic to grass pollen?

Would you apply for a job in a perfumery if you can’t stand strong scents?

Would you apply for a job in public sector administration if you cannot speak the language?

Would you apply for a job as a farmhand if you cannot tolerate life stock?

Would you apply for a job as a TV broadcaster if you can’t stand having your picture taken?

Is it not reasonable to assume that when the job description is very specific about what the employer is looking for, the potential applicants will be able to self-assess if they possibly meet the employers’ requirements? And if it is clear right from the start what is truly required, will that not result in less applications and a more speedy process, as a direct result of self-evaluation? This in turn will allow for a more open connection between the employer and the potential candidate. However, today it no longer is about what the employer needs from his potential employee. It is all about equal opportunities, whatever that may mean.

Equal opportunity, in the context of employment, means that all job applicants and employees are treated fairly and without discrimination based on protected characteristics. This includes things like race, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability, and other factors, specified earlier. Equal opportunity aims to ensure everyone has an equal chance to compete for jobs and advance based on their skills and qualifications, rather than on personal characteristics. Jobs based on qualifications, rather than on experience or personality. The equal opportunity idea no longer values personal characteristics. In fact, it is despicable and punishable to make that distinction. It doesn’t matter to the lawmaker if your applicant fits in with the already existing team, or if the applicant truly understands what your company is standing for, what its values are. If a selection is going to be made solely based on qualifications and skills learned at school, then surely this can be best done by a computer programme, thereby not only ensuring the right person for the right job but also eliminating human error in the process of equal opportunity selection. Surely, algorithms are much better at determining the best candidate for the selected job, if no personality elements are to be considered, if no human connection is allowed between applicant and employer.

Would you like to work for a boss who only employed you in order to comply with the rules and to avoid a court case, rather than him believing you are the best person for the job?

Job satisfaction and work enjoyment is your legal right as a person. Someone will have to provide that for you though, and if he/she doesn’t, you have reason to complain and an authority willing to listen. Not only is it not allowed for you to be discriminated against when applying for a job – the employer must justify his/her choice to the anti-discrimination law – but you cannot be discriminated against either when being dismissed from a job. The UK government sets out strict rules about this process as well.

Dismissal is when your employer ends your employment - they do not always have to give you notice. If you’re dismissed, your employer must show they’ve:

• a valid reason that they can justify
• acted reasonably in the circumstances

They must also:

• be consistent - for example, not dismiss you for doing something that they let other employees do
• have investigated the situation fully before dismissing you - for example, if a complaint was made about you

If you’re a part-time or fixed-term worker, you cannot be treated less favourably than a full-time or permanent employee.

‘Justify a reason’ to whom? Indeed, to the government, the authority that will listen to you complaining about your dismissal. Have you been given ‘equal opportunity’?

There are some situations when your employer can dismiss you fairly.

• You may not be able to do your job properly if, for example, you have not been able to keep up with important changes to your job (for example, a new computer system) or you cannot get along with your colleagues
• You can be dismissed if you have a persistent or long-term illness that makes it impossible for you to do your job.

However, before taking any action, your employer should follow disciplinary procedures and give you a chance to improve. Also, your employer should look for ways to support you (for example, considering whether the job itself is making you sick and needs changing) and give you reasonable time to recover from your illness. The burden lies on the shoulders of the employer. He needs to act correctly, by law. The employee is, right from the start of this process, being identified as the victim, as the person who needs protection by Big Brother.

Other reasons for dismissal are stated within the law, which seem, to a standing-by observing party, pretty straightforward, even though the government has felt the need to show a ‘balanced’ approach towards ‘unfair’ dismissal.

• You can be dismissed for ‘gross misconduct’ without your employer going through the normal disciplinary procedures. This can happen if, for example, you’re violent towards a colleague, customer or property.
• You can be dismissed if continuing to employ you would break the law - for example, if you’re a driver in a lorry firm and you lose your driving licence.
• If it’s impossible to carry on employing you, it’s likely to be fair. For example, if a factory burns down and it’s no longer possible to employ anyone.
• You may be dismissed fairly if you unreasonably refuse to accept a company reorganisation that changes your employment terms, or if you’re sent to prison.

And that is the extend of the field in which the employer is free to make his own decisions without having to fear legal retribution.

Discrimination, as focused on in law, is a very recent political development. It is seen as the flagship of freedom rights to all people, even though we have demonstrated that employers have been robbed of their freedom to decide for themselves what they want for their business. Instead, an authority will decide what is best for everyone. And people are taken in by the propaganda of that authority, unable to recognise that it is not them who gain the freedom to think and act for themselves, but it is the authority who now has the freedom to implement any rule they like for the benefit of everyone. The Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 were passed by Harold Wilson's Labour government. In 1975, Britain became a member of the European Community, which became the European Union in 1992, but it was not until Tony Blair's ‘New Labour’ government won the 1997 election that the UK opted into the social provisions of EU law. It is the Equality Act of 2010 that serves as a crucial framework for combating discrimination in the United Kingdom. The law is therefore quite new and is still in a state of flux, pushed forward by the newly introduced idea of ‘equality’, which lies at the heart of human rights.

Being told what equality means, has resulted in people no longer knowing what the reality of human equality truly encompasses. It doesn’t mean we should all wear the same clothes, eat the same food or believe in the same god. What it should mean is that what one person is allowed to do, another should be allowed as well. There should be no discrimination from one person towards another. And society, our government, any authority, should make this possible. After all, it is them who want us all to be equal! But not equal in that sense.

If one person, or government, is allowed to attack another then every government should be allowed to attack whomever they want to attack.

If one legal person, individual or company, is allowed not to pay taxes then every citizen should be allowed not to pay taxes.

If one person, or a news corporation company, is allowed to broadcast what they believe is true then everybody else should also be allowed to voice their vision on truth, the world and life.

If one person, or manufacturing branch, is allowed to make a certain product then every person should be allowed to produce that or any other product.

If one person, or authority, is allowed to make choices about how children should be educated then every person should be allowed to make their own choices about the education of their own children.

Equality is ‘the same status, rights, and responsibilities for all the members of a society, group, or family’. But all the members of a family are not ‘equal’, and can never be equal. A parent is not the same as a child or a grandparent. What about members of any group or society, can they be equal? The expression ‘too many chiefs and not enough Indians’ already indicates two ‘different’ types of people within a group. There are too many people trying to manage or organise something, and not enough people willing to actually do the work. How is the authority proposing to achieve providing the same status, rights and responsibilities to the chiefs and to the Indians? And what effect will that have, suppose it were possible, on the group, on society?

If, at this point, you are unable to see the madness in the idea of equality, as defined by the authority, you better go back to sleep. There is nothing further you need to know about life and the proper way to organise it. And maybe the authority is also waking up to the impossibility of implementing their version of equality as they are beginning to use a different word for what they are setting out to achieve. Equity refers to ‘fairness or justice in the way people are treated, and especially freedom from bias or favouritism, as in ‘governed according to the principle of equity’’. Equality refers to ‘the quality or state of having the same rights and opportunities’. Does it truly make any difference? A definition of equity, which contains the words ‘fairness’, ‘justice’ and ‘governed’, tells me someone is in charge. Someone decides what is fair, what is just and how it should be governed. Forget it. It’s all a play on words to make you believe it is something different, something better.

The truth is simple. We are all different, not the same. We all have different needs, not the same. We all need to be treated differently if you want to be ‘fair’ and ‘just’ to all of us.

Allow me the same freedom as you give yourself. That’s fair. Now we are equal.

Allow me the freedom to be different from you, to express myself differently, to make different decisions from you and to behave differently from you. That’s fair. Now we are equal.

When people make a choice, prefer one thing over another, they clearly make a distinction between the two things. That means, they discriminate one thing against the other. Preference is the fact of liking or wanting one thing more than another, or an advantage given to someone or a group. That means, to discriminate. Why am I no longer allowed to do that? Who decides to tell me that it is wrong and deserves punishment?

Whoever it is, has made a choice too, prefers ‘equality’ over ‘distinction’, or discrimination. That preference is, per definition, discrimination! Which begs the question: why is their discrimination more acceptable than mine? Why do I deserve to be punished and they to be honoured?

They honour their own ideas. Allow me to honour my own ideas.

They allow themselves to make choices. Allow me to make my own choices.

Stop discriminating against me.

It’s not because I am different that I don’t deserve the same rights as others, even though the authority tells me I’m not allowed to be different.

Further Information

Patrick Quanten MD has been a general practitioner since 1983. The combination of medical insight and extensive studies of Complementary Therapies have opened new perspectives on health care, all of which came to fruition when it blended with Yogic and Ayurvedic principles. Patrick gave up his medical licence in November 2001.
Patrick also holds qualifications in Ayurvedic Medicine, Homeopathy, Reiki, Ozone Therapy and Thai Massage. He is an expert on Ear Candling and he is also well-read in the field of other hard sciences. His life's work involves finding similarities between the Ancient Knowledge and modern Western science.

Order Your Copy https://www.activehealthcare.co.uk/publications/order-your-copy

Design & Hosting door DV-Webdesign

Credit Acknowledgement

Originally published at https://www.activehealthcare.co.uk/literature/mind-spirit/266-discrimination