Tuesday, May 15, 2007

18 out of 19 London politicians prefer preferential treatment

Well, what's not to prefer about that?

London City Council voted last night to diversify its bureaucracy by bureaucratizing diversity. Negative consequences from Council's gesture "to transform city hall into a welcoming and inclusive place that embraces diversity in its workplace" are not expected, since London has already been shown to work just fine in the absence of any talent or ability at City Hall.

Although councillors were generally very well pleased with the effortlessness of pandering to a 3 percentage point gap in political correctness, perennial fly in the feel-good-ointment councillor Paul Van Meerbergen dismissed the shiny happy new racism:

"I consider this an affront to visible minorities … It's these types of policies that belong on the scrap heap of left-wing political ideology," Van Meerbergen said.

The auto parts sector — of which Van Meerbergen is a member — has succeeded by promoting minorities because of talent, not race, he said.

"It's done without artificial political constructs. It's done on merit — not skin colour," Van Meerbergen said.

Usher ignored his statements, saying, "Some comments don't deserve a response."
At least when we can't think of one.

The Motion (PDF):

Moved by Councillor Harold Usher, seconded by Councillor Joni Baechler.

That the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to provide a report that identifies and illustrates strategies that we will use to transform the City of London into a welcoming and inclusive city, which embraces diversity within its workplace and workforce and encourages the same in its departments, boards, commissions and affiliated community partners, leading to a just and integrated society where diversity is valued and dignity and integrity are sustained for all.

To think a city staff report can do all that! After that, they can get started on world peace and hunger.

1 Comment:

Mike said...

This racist crap wouldn't bother me so much if our council members would just speak plainly in favour of benefiting/punishing people on the basis of their race, instead of hiding behind such vapid euphemisms as "culture", "background", and "diversity".

All "racism" means is the ascription of moral or political significance to skin colour and other characteristic physical features of people from different parts of the world. I think that's a disgusting attitude, but since you don't, council, why not take back the night that's been cast on the term?

If it's the "appropriate... time" to move the city forward in a racist direction, why won't the supermajority Usher Contingent stand up and reclaim the word "racism" for their own noble cause, much as the homosexualists have done with "queer" and hip hop marketeers have done with "n-word"? Take it away from the white supremacists who have done the word such disservice for far too long.

Say it, Harold -- "I am a racist and I am not ashamed." Say it proud.