Hiring Of Visible Minorities For "Diversity" Has To End


A recent case of visible minority “diversity hiring” by the City of Richmond. B.C. highlights the nonsense of such hiring all across Canada and the absolute necessity that this policy end.

Richmond is the 25th largest city in Canada and is located just south of Vancouver. Since high immigration levels were introduced in 1990, Richmond's population has grown from around 126,000 to 185,000—an incredible 46%. This increase is almost completely attributable to immigration from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China. Richmond has effectively replaced Vancouver's historic Chinatown as a gathering place for Chinese and become the area's new Chinatown–although inflows of large numbers of Chinese into other Metro-Vancouver suburbs have made those areas close runners-up.

Richmond, B.C. has decided that its fire department workforce must change from being predominantly white male to reflecting “the community it serves”. Currently, Richmond has 191 firefighters to serve its population. Admittedly, some of these firefighters have displayed juvenile behaviour, and this situation has to change. But how is the hiring of recently-arrived visible minorities, the unstated purpose of this policy, going to achieve that goal?

The Richmond Fire Department had to apply to a B.C. Human Rights panel to get permission for a “diversity” plan which allows 75% of new jobs in its fire department to go to visible minorities and women. The plan will last from 2007 to 2010.

Here's what's wrong with the “Visible Minorities” part of the plan:

(1) The plan is blatant queue jumping and is brazenly unfair to people born here. Most of the visible minorities will probably be recently-arrived immigrants. There are already many people born here (including our First Nations) who are probably interested in these jobs and have formed a line-up. No one who has recently arrived here is entitled to an instantaneous share of the country's resources. Like everyone else, immigrants should stand in line and present their qualifications, not be preferentially escorted to the front of the queue by a sanctimonious B.C. Human Rights panel and zealous, self-righteous municipal officials.

(2) Contrary to what immigration advocates may preach, federal immigration policy should not be putting private or public employers in Canada into the position of being forced to provide jobs for people from other countries. The first responsibility of our federal government and of employers is to Canadian citizens. This has been a long-established principle which was decided upon after much conflict, but which is being seriously undermined. When our federal government panders to the recent immigrant vote, employers should stand up and protest. By granting jobs to recently-arrived on the grounds of “creating workplace diversity”, Richmond is accepting the notion that it be a hiring agency and that all that outsiders need do is arrive and reflect their presence, particularly their coloured skin presence, in order to get employed. What kind of employment qualifications are (A) “being present” and (B) skin colour? Other governments at all levels have illogically done what Richmond is proposing, but that shameful precedent does not excuse the immorality of their actions. The claim of “systemic discrimination”, often used to justify race-based actions, has been thoroughly discredited.

(3) For over two years, Canada's “labour shortage” lobby has been trying to frighten and stampede the country into not only perpetuating our high immigration levels, but also increasing them. As critics have pointed out many times before, there may be a few areas where it is helpful to bring temporary workers into Canada. However, it is more adviseable to use our own educational institutions to train our own high school graduates, our underemployed and our unemployed (particularly Canada's First Nations) to fill these jobs. Bringing in large numbers of outsiders discourages our own people from taking required training. If our government accepts the “labour shortage” lobby's demands (most of which are blithely echoed in our media without a demand for concrete figures), high immigration numbers will continue. This will perpetuate the arrival of more people Canada does not need and more absurd calls such as the Richmond one for “more racial diversity” in the workplace.

(4) Finally, what has happened in Richmond is a symptom of a much larger national issue. To claim that Richmond's fire department must become racially diverse is to echo the demand that Canada must become racially diverse. What would countries like China or India think of Canadians telling them that their populations lacked diversity and that the lack of white people there was a problem? If Canadians had made such statements there, they would justifiably have been summarily deported—-if not dispatched to other less pleasant ends. Yet in Canada, immigration advocates who have proclaimed “lack of racial diversity” as a major Canadian “illness” (and “racial diversity” as a sign of “wellness”) have been sympathetically listened to. In fact, they have had their way with Canada. They now arrogantly compare Canada to a laboratory in which a unique social experiment is underway. In the past, this experiment would have been properly called “colonization”, not the current sugar-coated term, “the creation of a racially diverse country”.

(5) The big questions many Canadians ask are these: (A) When were Canadians ever asked if they wanted to be a part of this colonization experiment? (B) What sane person would want to elevate colonization and the enormously trivial notion, “the creation of more racial diversity”, to the status of national goals?

(6) On behalf of the potentially-displaced firefighter job-seekers in Richmond and of job-seekers all over Canada who will not get hired if “diversity” policies are implemented, let us ask one important question: How should our displaced react to the betrayal of their lives and their country by the host of immigration advocates and “diversity” promoters within our borders?

We suspect that the future that Canada's betrayed will prescribe for immigration advocates and “diversity” promoters will be diverse, but not pleasant.