Louisiana JP Refuses Interracial Marriage License

[lisab]

I like how this thread has been so swiftly and subtley derailed.

Ah...it has something to do with kittens born from mixed marriages, I think.

 

[Galteeth]

Only if you have this theory that inheritance, property, tax and hospital visiting rights should be correlated with where you put your penis.

.

My point was that people should be able to freely enter into contracts. Let's say for example, that I decide I want to hold joint property with a friend of mine. We're not in a relationship or anything, we just think it would be a good idea to have some joint property. Why not? Furthermore, what if I want to bestow hospital visiting rights on a friend? What if I don't want my "wife" to have common property with me? Why shouldn't people be able to make these decisions for themselves?

I could see that the issue of child custody could come up, but I think the laws with regards to that should be the same whether a couple is married or not.

 

[Galteeth]

From the government's view, I suggest replacing 'marriage' as legal concept altogether. We let marriage remain in the domain of the church or other similar societal institutions, and they could (and should) continue to rigorously speak out about the boundaries of marriage. The government could reasonably call an attempt to label 25 'female partners' a single tax unit as bogus if it chose, but should otherwise but out. I think it is mistake to have the government as the final arbiter of what is or is not a 'family'.

I agree, and I think people should be able to have plural marriages if they want to. Many people may not consider that marriage, but so what? Everybody should be free to define their relationships as anything they want.

 

[jobyts]

From the government's view, I suggest replacing 'marriage' as legal concept altogether. We let marriage remain in the domain of the church or other similar societal institutions, and they could (and should) continue to rigorously speak out about the boundaries of marriage. The government could reasonably call an attempt to label 25 'female partners' a single tax unit as bogus if it chose, but should otherwise but out. I think it is mistake to have the government as the final arbiter of what is or is not a 'family'.

But what if a religion chooses to ban marriage of interracial or some specific races in their church?

 

[Galteeth]

But what if a religion chooses to ban marriage of interracial or some specific races in their church?

Well, I would say, don't go to that church. But you can see the problem with the logic, "I disagree with the tenets of this religion so i should have the right to modify it"

EDIT: I meant for those who believe in that religion. You are of course, free to start a modified version of that religion.

 

[Alfi]

My partner and I are 'married' as per our agreement. We said so to each other and no one else matters.
WE said 'F' to the government and the legal system.
BUT... just by being together for the last 25+ years, we are 'married' as per the government of Canada ( common law ) and have all the advantages of the tax system that the 'religion' or government ( civil) married people do.
We are fine with this, and as you may have noticed, Ii made no mention to race, gender or religion in this declaration. None of those factors matter.

This 'Justice of the Peace' in the original post should take this in consideration.
WE don't require his or anyone's acceptance of our joining.
We consider our choice as ours.

 

[turbo]

The archdiocese aside, how do you know 'they' are Christians? Maybe 'they' are some lumberjacks out in the woods that have never seen the inside of a church.

We live in a small town, and we know the people who collected signatures for the petition against same-sex marriage, and we know the groups that organized against it, and the people who write letters to the editor.

We also know which groups distributed the invitation-only tickets to the "Yes on 1" rally at the Augusta Civic Center. BTW, the general public was not welcome, nor the press. What we do not know is where all their funding comes from - that also is held private.

 

[mgb_phys]

My partner and I are 'married' as per our agreement. We said so to each other and no one else matters.
... just by being together for the last 25+ years, we are 'married' as per the government of Canada ( common law ) and have all the advantages of the tax system that the 'religion' or government ( civil) married people do.
We are fine with this, and as you may have noticed, Ii made no mention to race, gender or religion in this declaration. None of those factors matter.

But remember you are a subject of a foreign monarchy with an official state religion - you aren't in a free, open, democratic country with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion like the people in this thread.

 

[jobyts]

WE said 'F' to the government and the legal system...and have all the advantages of the tax system.

This does not sound good to me.

 

[xxChrisxx]

But remember you are a subject of a foreign monarchy with an official state religion - you aren't in a free, open, democratic country with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion like the people in this thread.

Ok time to jump in ad wave the flag a little bit here.

It's all subjective. I'm English, by the same criteria you are basically saying I'm living in an opressive, closed, undemocratic country and I have to be Christian or i'll be strung up by my testicles and have my head put spike on Traitors Gate.

With regards to this all of the above is wrong.

Considering that fact that I can go wherever I want, vote for who I want, marry who I want no questions asked, worship who I want or be as atheistic and bash religion as much as I want. I am as free as anyone on this thread, the only difference between the US and ourselves is that we don't need to harp on about it, stiff upper lip and all that.

The Monarch is merely a figurehead and weild no real power. We vote in the party we want to govern us, who are all as useless as one another (but that's politics). As much as I feel I have to defend agaisnt what you just said, I'm in a state of dispair at the way England is run at the moment.

Aside from trivial things, the basic freedoms between the US and England/Canada are very very little.

And can I just say that it's incredibly blinkered of you to believe that the US is the only free place on the planet.EDIT:
Strictly within the regards to this thread and the OP topic, one might argue the UK/Canada is more free. As this kind of situation just doesn't come up, no one would ever DARE stop a mixed race marriage. Some may argue otherwise, this is case is an exeption as opposed to the rule, and that's fair enough becuase I agree.

 

[Monique]

But remember you are a subject of a foreign monarchy with an official state religion - you aren't in a free, open, democratic country with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion like the people in this thread.

The people in this thread can be from any country..

 

[Zantra]

"swinging the topic back on track"

There is no valid argument over whether the statement was racist or not. 2+2=4 and his statement was racist. Those facts are incontrovertible.

To argue that the statement has good intentions is a irrelevant. Last time I checked if you kill someone who is already dying you still go to jail- Ask Kevorkian.

The argument of "protecting the children" of this couple is itself flawed. Let's just ignore for a second that the year is 2009 and the country is America. Let's ignore the fact that this JOP has no authority, legal or otherwise, to dictate whether the couple CAN marry. His argument is that "the children will sufffer". That's not a valid justification for denying a marriage.

Well what about poor people marrying?
Young people?
Tempermental people?
Black people?
American Indians?
Jews?
Gays?
Lesbians?
Stupid people?
Racist JOPs?

I could go on but.. the children of all of these people will likely "suffer" in some way- Especially that last one ;) Should we ban all of these marriages? In fact I challenge you to find more than a handful of children who haven't SUFFERED in some way at some point in their lives, due to their parent's mistakes. Why don't we just give all of these couples a vasectomy too while we're at it?

Wave bye bye as you slide on down the slippery slope. Watch out for that landing!

AND THEN THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT TO TAKE.

I'm not religious but I'm a fan of that line

Justifying racist behavior by saying you're protecting them from racism doesn't make much sense does it? It's shooting someone and saying you were triyng to save them from being shot by killers. It's a very weak argument, and a sign that today's racist is contained only by the fear of the well deserved backlash he or she would invoke by speaking his or her true mind.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My point was that people should be able to freely enter into contracts. Let's say for example, that I decide I want to hold joint property with a friend of mine. We're not in a relationship or anything, we just think it would be a good idea to have some joint property. Why not? Furthermore, what if I want to bestow hospital visiting rights on a friend? What if I don't want my "wife" to have common property with me? Why shouldn't people be able to make these decisions for themselves?

I could see that the issue of child custody could come up, but I think the laws with regards to that should be the same whether a couple is married or not.

You already do have such rights. It just requires a lawyer and its expensive. Marriage is a quick and easy way to change your legal relationship with a person which grants you certain rights due to that relationship. Otherwise anyone can technically have all the same benefits, it just costs a lot more.

EDIT: Strictly within the regards to this thread and the OP topic, one might argue the UK/Canada is more free. As this kind of situation just doesn't come up, no one would ever DARE stop a mixed race marriage. Some may argue otherwise, this is case is an exeption as opposed to the rule, and that's fair enough becuase I agree.

Its something I have never heard of happening in my life time here in the US until now. I'm sure it may have happened. I am also sure that there are racists in the UK and Canada so I would not be so sure that something of the sort has not and would not happen there.
edit: as a matter of fact someone from the UK has made quite similar arguments to the one made by this JoP on this very board.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"swinging the topic back on track"

There is no valid argument over whether the statement was racist or not. 2+2=4 and his statement was racist. Those facts are incontrovertible.

To argue that the statement has good intentions is a irrelevant. Last time I checked if you kill someone who is already dying you still go to jail- Ask Kevorkian.

The argument of "protecting the children" of this couple is itself flawed. Let's just ignore for a second that the year is 2009 and the country is America. Let's ignore the fact that this JOP has no authority, legal or otherwise, to dictate whether the couple CAN marry. His argument is that "the children will sufffer".

Well what about poor people marrying?
Young people?
Tempermental people?
Black people?
American Indians?
Jews?
Gays?
Lesbians?
Stupid people?
Racist JOPs?

I could go on but.. the children of all of these people will likely "suffer" in some way- Especially that last one ;) Should we ban all of these marriages? In fact I challenge you to find more than a handful of children who haven't SUFFERED in some way at some point in their lives, due to their parent's mistakes. Why don't we just give all of these couples a vasectomy too while we're at it?

Wave bye bye as you slide on down the slippery slope. Watch out for that landing!

AND THEN THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT TO TAKE.

I'm not religious but I'm a fan of that line

Justifying racist behavior by saying you're protecting them from racism doesn't make much sense does it? It's shooting someone and saying you were triyng to save them from being shot by killers. It's a very weak argument, and a sign that today's racist is contained only by the fear of the well deserved backlash he or she would invoke by speaking his or her true mind.

So being concerned about people and having misguided ideas about how to help them equates to being hateful and intolerant. I see.
And you know this mans true mind do you? Just as he knows what will truly happen to the children of the couple he refused to marry?

 

[Office_Shredder]

It just occurred to me this could be the basis for a graph theory question.

Basically, stable marriage problem, but with the added condition that certain people, despite liking each other more and willing to break up with their partners to hook up, are not allowed to be matched.

 

[Zantra]

So being concerned about people and having misguided ideas about how to help them equates to being hateful and intolerant. I see.
And you know this mans true mind do you? Just as he knows what will truly happen to the children of the couple he refused to marry?

No I do not know his state of mind, but I can make reasonable assumptions. If 50 people tell me the sky is blue and I don't look outside first, It may be green, but I can make a reasonable assumption based on the avaiable evidence that it is indeed blue.

He made a "misguided" racist statement that hasn't been refuted, so I can reasonable assume that the statement is true. I can therefore also assume that this encompasses his state of mind, which makes the statement that he is a racist valid. Also I noted that not only did he not refute his first comment, he reinforced his stand. Saying you're not something when in fact you are, doesn't make it any less true.

And actually you made my point. If he doesn't know for sure what will happen to the children, he had no rights to make any kind of assumptions that would lead to his decision.

All I'm saying is that if you start from any point where race is a factor, you end up at racism. well intentioned or not, that's what it is.

 

[ideasrule]

All I'm saying is that if you start from any point where race is a factor, you end up at racism. well intentioned or not, that's what it is.

You might want to check the definition of racism, as well as the many posts addressing the same point.

 

[Hurkyl]

All I'm saying is that if you start from any point where race is a factor, you end up at racism. well intentioned or not, that's what it is.

If that's how you are using the word "racism", then the word doesn't have a negative connotation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

All I'm saying is that if you start from any point where race is a factor, you end up at racism. well intentioned or not, that's what it is.

Bull****. You can not take well intention (if misguided) concern and turn it into hatred and intolerance. You are jumping to conclusions.

You can make reasonable assumptions off of what 50 people said to you?

You believe that the assumption made by the judge, that mixed race children are more often discriminated against, is nonfactual and a poor assumption. How many people told him that this poor nonfactual assumption was the truth do you think? If he heard it from at least fifty people black, white, and mixed would that suddenly make it a reasonable assumption?

Apparently, you think your assumptions about a man whom you do not know and only have a few comments in a sensational news item to go off of are quite reasonable so I have no idea how you can quibble with an assumption that is at least equally ignorant.

 

[Sorry!]

I still do NOT understand how people will continue to claim that the action of the judge was not a RACIST act. It is AGAINST people of MIXED RACE. Why are you all focusing on the legalities of 'oh it treats white/black people the same' WHO CARES that was NOT the JoPs REASON for refusing to grant them the license...

Like I said in a previous post. Racism is NOT in the actions it's in the REASONING for the actions. This one is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT a racist reasoning.

 

[Sorry!]

You believe that the assumption made by the judge, that mixed race children are more often discriminated against, is nonfactual and a poor assumption. How many people told him that this poor nonfactual assumption was the truth do you think? If he heard it from at least fifty people black, white, and mixed would that suddenly make it a reasonable assumption?

So now the JoPs action is justifiable because he is being LESS detrimental to people of mixed race by trying to prevent them from being born. My god I feel like using a reference to WW2.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I still do NOT understand how people will continue to claim that the action of the judge was not a RACIST act. It is AGAINST people of MIXED RACE. Why are you all focusing on the legalities of 'oh it treats white/black people the same' WHO CARES that was NOT the JoPs REASON for refusing to grant them the license...

Like I said in a previous post. Racism is NOT in the actions it's in the REASONING for the actions. This one is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT a racist reasoning.

Racism connotes hatred and intolerance. If a person does something out of concern for a person's (or potential person's) well being how does that make the person racist? Would you lump a person who is genuinely concerned for people's welfare into the same category as KKK members and NeoNazis?

I hate racists. I think that they are ****ing rotten scumbags and have had occasion to really want to punch some in the face. But if I were to direct my hatred at people based on assumptions and ignorance I would be no better than they are. I don't know this judge. I am not going to decide to hate him based on a few stupid comments.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So now the JoPs action is justifiable because he is being LESS detrimental to people of mixed race by trying to prevent them from being born. My god I feel like using a reference to WW2.

How about you pay some attention. Read my posts. I have over and over again said that the man was misguided and that he should not have done what he did. How have I justified anything? I am attacking other people's justifications for making assumptions about someone they do not know.

 

[Monique]

If a person does something out of concern for a person's (or potential person's) well being how does that make the person racist?

..

I am attacking other people's justifications for making assumptions about someone they do not know.

You are assuming that he did this out of concern and sympathy.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You are assuming that he did this out of concern and sympathy.

I am not really assuming anything. I am pointing out what he said. That is what he said is it not? That he does not think it is wise to have mixed children due to the discrimination that they suffer? He may be making excuses, I do not know and neither do you, but I think you can generally condense the point here to "I am concerned for their welfare" rather than "I hate mulattoes".

Yeah maybe he is a racist. I don't know. As I already pointed out I had a friend who was against intercultural marriages. She was definitely not racist. She was an artist who loved to travel and learn about other peoples cultures and even went to college outside of the country. But I should assume that this man is racist? Why? Because he's an older white southern male in a position of authority and not a young idealistic female artist? I am keeping an open mind. I refuse to hate a man whom I know so little about.

Funny thing is that we'd had a few drinks and were getting a bit cozy with each other when she decided to mention this. I wound up arguing with her about it for nearly an hour before she told me to stuff it and left me to sleep on the couch alone. :-/

 

[Monique]

I am not really assuming anything. I am pointing out what he said. That is what he said is it not? That he does not think it is wise to have mixed children due to the discrimination that they suffer? He may be making excuses, I do not know and neither do you, but I think you can generally condense the point here to "I am concerned for their welfare" rather than "I hate mulattoes".

As said, people suffer for many different reasons. He choose one characteristic to select people on, which is unethical. There happens to be a word in use that defines people who think people of another race have a different level of personal achievement and discriminate upon that. You can argue how well the definition fits, I've made suggestions that are more subtle.

Yeah maybe he is a racist. I don't know. As I already pointed out I had a friend who was against intercultural marriages. She was definitely not racist. She was an artist who loved to travel and learn about other peoples cultures and even went to college outside of the country. But I should assume that this man is racist? Why? Because he's an older white southern male in a position of authority and not a young idealistic female artist? I am keeping an open mind. I refuse to hate a man whom I know so little about.

You are making so many assumptions here, I would feel the same if it had taken place anywhere else. What would the children of your friend say if she told them no, you can't marry that person because the skin color doesn't match. Would they say "thanks mom, you are so considerate". I think she would have a real problem, no matter how loving and caring her children think she is.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As said, people suffer for many different reasons. He choose one characteristic to select people on, which is unethical. There happens to be a word in use that defines people who think people of another race have a different level of personal achievement and discriminate upon that. You can argue how well the definition fits, I've made suggestions that are more subtle.

And what pray tell has the man said of anyone's level of personal achievement? So from his ideas about mixed marriages you have come to the conclusion that he "has a problem with" mixed race people, "wishes that they did not exist", and is making his decision based on believing these people have a "different level of personal achievement". I can not for the life of me determine why you have a problem with this man, you both seem to be able to tell so much from so little.

You are making so many assumptions here, I would feel the same if it had taken place anywhere else. What would the children of your friend say if she told them no, you can't marry that person because the skin color doesn't match. Would they say "thanks mom, you are so considerate". I think she would have a real problem, no matter how loving and caring her children think she is.

What assumptions have I made? And my friend would not have said that to her children, you are assuming. I also note that I argued with her about the subject and angered her. So what are you getting at here?

 

[Monique]

And my friend would not have said that to her children, you are assuming.

O my god. Hypothetically speaking if a mother were to say that to a child, should the child accept it and say "mom, you are so loving".

Don't be stupid. People are allowed to speak up for their opinion and I am glad that people live in free countries where they can do so, it does mean that you need to take responsibility for your actions.

 

[ideasrule]

O my god. Hypothetically speaking if a mother were to say that to a child, should the child accept it and say "mom, you are so loving".

Don't be stupid. People are allowed to speak up for their opinion and I am glad that people live in free countries where they can do so, it does mean that you need to take responsibility for your actions.

If her kids somehow didn't know that children of interracial marriages are usually misfits, that would be useful information, would it not? I think I'd want to know that before marrying somebody.

I don't know whether the JoP had good intentions (though there is no evidence to the contrary) or got his facts right (seems like he did), but it doesn't matter. What I see here and on the news is people blindly applying the label "racist" because he was not numb-skulled enough to ignore the differences between blacks and whites. People seem to be opposing racism just because everybody else is doing it, not because they actually know what the word means or why it's "bad".

Insisting that blacks and whites are equal and insulting everybody who disagrees is an example of closed-minded prejudice, and it's similar to the prejudice that racists have. Even now, nobody has provided evidence that this JoP is racist even though I've asked two times. Sure, a lot of people typed in capital letters and said that it was "incontrovertible", but I don't listen to them any more than I do to creationists who insist "but it's obvious that life is too complex to have evolved! It's OBVIOUS!"

 

[BobG]

All I'm saying is that if you start from any point where race is a factor, you end up at racism. well intentioned or not, that's what it is.

Testing a person for sickle cell anemia because they're black and have a higher incidence of it would be racist?

Perhaps, since recent ancestors from West Africa is a lot more significant than race itself. Sickle cell anemia isn't inherently linked to race. It's linked to regions that have a history of malaria (sickle cell blood cells give a person increased resistance to malaria).

It would still seem irresponsible to ignore an increased possibility to have sickle cell anemia.

Your interpretation doesn't follow the accepted definition of racism, anyway. Racism is the belief that racial characteristics create superior races and/or inferior races. You might legitimately argue that the JoP's reasoning isn't racism in itself, since it could be his reaction to racism in his community, but his reasoning is based on racist beliefs either way.

 

[Monique]

Let's reference the Office of the United Nations High Commissionar for Human Rights, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm" .

"Resolved to adopt all necessary measures for speedily eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, and to prevent and combat racist doctrines and practices in order to promote understanding between races and to build an international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination,"

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm#part1" "In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

If you ask "are you a mixed race couple" and say "I won't marry you because of it" you are violating the above convention.

 

[George Jones]

If her kids somehow didn't know that children of interracial marriages are usually misfits

Because this is a response to a post, I'm not sure if you're putting this froward as true. If so, you have to provide a valid source, not just (perceived) anecdotal evidence.

or got his facts right (seems like he did)

Again, you have to provide a valid source, not just (perceived) anecdotal evidence, that his facts (according to the AP news article)

most interracial marriages do not last long ... "those children suffer"

are correct.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Testing a person for sickle cell anemia because they're black and have a higher incidence of it would be racist?

Perhaps, since recent ancestors from West Africa is a lot more significant than race itself. Sickle cell anemia isn't inherently linked to race. It's linked to regions that have a history of malaria (sickle cell blood cells give a person increased resistance to malaria).

It would still seem irresponsible to ignore an increased possibility to have sickle cell anemia.

Your interpretation doesn't follow the accepted definition of racism, anyway. Racism is the belief that racial characteristics create superior races and/or inferior races. You might legitimately argue that the JoP's reasoning isn't racism in itself, since it could be his reaction to racism in his community, but his reasoning is based on racist beliefs either way.

You seriously want to pick over the definitions of racism and racialism. Technically what he said isn't racist, it is racialist.And your "is this racist" example is <inset insult here>.
It's blatantly obvios that isn't racist/racialinst/whatever, so why ask. It's obvious its not, for the following reason:

You arent testing them becuase they are black. You are testing them becuase being black they have a higher risk.
There is a subtle but cruical difference there.
A racist/racialist test would be testing a black person for AIDS purely becuase they are black, and "all those blacks in Africa have it." It doesn't matter if they are responsible people who've not slept around or used IV drugs, or been anywhere remotely near someone HIV+.

Now if this person has come over from a country with a prevelent AIDS problem, say Zimbabwe, then there is a greater statistical chance of them being HIV+. If you did the test for this reason it would NOT be racialist.

 

[Galteeth]

You already do have such rights. It just requires a lawyer and its expensive. Marriage is a quick and easy way to change your legal relationship with a person which grants you certain rights due to that relationship. Otherwise anyone can technically have all the same benefits, it just costs a lot more.

There's a bit more to it then that. For example, in New Jersey, there is currently a law that requires employers to cover spouses under health insurance plans. Now, I am personally against this law. But Gay couples, who can get civil unions here, don't have the same right.

Now even if they got it, this law still discriminates against single people, or unmarried couples. Furthermore why should the government force any business to adopt a specific health care plan? But that is a little off topic.

The point is, once the government starts awarding benefits to special groups, these group are naturally going to start competing with each other for a bigger piece of the pie. If everyone had the same rights, regardless of whether they were married, single, straight, gay, black, white, whatever, these issues wouldn't come up. There would still be discrimination and racism of course, but it wouldn't have any teeth.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you ask "are you a mixed race couple" and say "I won't marry you because of it" you are violating the above convention.

If and only if the purpose or effect is to nullify or impair the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

By that convention, simply being a distinction based on race is not sufficient to be racial discrimination.

 

[Monique]

If and only if the purpose or effect is to nullify or impair the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

By that convention, simply being a distinction based on race is not sufficient to be racial discrimination.

Please explain yourself because that does not make sense.

 

[Hurkyl]

Please explain yourself because that does not make sense.

Reorganizing Article 1.1 gives:

In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any X which has the purpose or effect of Y​

If something is merely an X, it is not "racial discrimination". Only if it is both X and has the purpose/effect of Y does it satisfy Article 1.1's definition of "racial discrimination".

People have been arguing all thread that the JoP deserves condemnation simply because his actions were X often without any reference to Y. Some have even explicitly stated that X is all that matters. That is what I oppose.

X and Y are, of course, defined by:

X = distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin​

Y = nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.​

 

[mheslep]

If and only if the purpose or effect is to nullify or impair the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

By that convention, simply being a distinction based on race is not sufficient to be racial discrimination.

Please explain yourself because that does not make sense.

Making, say, a test available for sickle cell anemia to blacks is a distinction based on race, not racial discrimination.

 

[Sorry!]

Making, say, a test available for sickle cell anemia to blacks is a distinction based on race, not racial discrimination.

This has already been made clear?

I don't see how it is relevant. Testing people who have been scientifically proven to have a higher risk for a disease means nothing...

To say that because of your race and the race of your potential children I will not allow you to marry, is a RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. This is based SOLELY on races.

And ideasrule like I said before I would be GLAD for you to post some articles PROVING that people of mixed race get treated worse than any other person. From my personal experience and research I am quite convinced it is the OTHER way around.

As for when I said I felt like making a WW2 comparison it was because, I'm pretty sure, that Hitlers rationale for everything was because it would BETTER the world. So I guess that Hitler wasn't a racist or even prejudiced in any way either... he must've just read his fact sheet wrong.

 

[Monique]

Reorganizing Article 1.1 gives:

In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any X which has the purpose or effect of Y​

If something is merely an X, it is not "racial discrimination". Only if it is both X and has the purpose/effect of Y does it satisfy Article 1.1's definition of "racial discrimination".

People have been arguing all thread that the JoP deserves condemnation simply because his actions were X often without any reference to Y. Some have even explicitly stated that X is all that matters. That is what I oppose.

X and Y are, of course, defined by:

X = distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin​

Y = nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.​

Denying marriage would be Y. I have the fundamental human right to be treated equally under the law (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/" ). Marriage falls under the law. If I can't marry someone based on race (X), the equation is compete.

The 1967 Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional (as was mentioned before) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia" :
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."[/color]

 

[BobG]

You seriously want to pick over the definitions of racism and racialism. Technically what he said isn't racist, it is racialist.


And your "is this racist" example is <inset insult here>.
It's blatantly obvios that isn't racist/racialinst/whatever, so why ask. It's obvious its not, for the following reason:

You arent testing them becuase they are black. You are testing them becuase being black they have a higher risk.
There is a subtle but cruical difference there.



A racist/racialist test would be testing a black person for AIDS purely becuase they are black, and "all those blacks in Africa have it." It doesn't matter if they are responsible people who've not slept around or used IV drugs, or been anywhere remotely near someone HIV+.

Now if this person has come over from a country with a prevelent AIDS problem, say Zimbabwe, then there is a greater statistical chance of them being HIV+. If you did the test for this reason it would NOT be racialist.

You're ticked off because I presented an argument in the form of a question? I mean, you're correct the answer is obvious.

You're probably not ticked off at the argument, itself, since you presented essentially the same argument, except with statements vs any bs questions. Except for one minor problem with your testing scenario.

US HIV statistics by race

US Sickle Cell Anemia statistics by race (scroll all the way down and click on Table 1)

Blacks are roughly twice as likely to have Sickle Cell anemia as they are to have HIV, but they have much higher rates for both diseases than other races in the US. I think testing blacks for HIV because of their race would be considered racist by many people. Screening for Sickle Cell Anemia in the 70's was considered racist by many people, as well. In fact, the distrust of genetic testing can be traced back to how the military and insurance companies handled results of Sickle Cell screening (http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/p443/p443_chap01.pdf ). (I would say that those days showed there have to be provisions to ensure patient privacy for any medical screeening program rather than that genetic screening shouldn't be used because of the chance of misuse.)

There are those that still take offense at classifying Sickle Cell Anemia as a black disease (the prevalence clearly does follow having ancestors from malarial regions; not by race). They take offense in spite of the fact that Sickle Cell screening has doubled the expected life time of those that suffer from Sickle Cell Anemia.

Hurkyl is right that many confuse making race based decisions with racism and the results of that confusion can cause harm. If associating screening of blacks in the US for Sickle Cell and for HIV based upon their race is seen as racism, then resistance to getting the necessary tests increases and fewer people with the highest risk get the tests.

Both tests could be rejected, either because one knows that their ancestors came from South Africa instead of malarial regions of Africa or because one knows their own sexual history and knows they have little to no risk of HIV. Both tests should receive higher prominence when treating black patients so they can consider the info and make a decision about their own personal risk.

 

[xxChrisxx]

You appear to have missed the whole point of my argument.

The fact you bothered to find statistics to 'disprove my testing scenario' makes it clear you just totally looked past the point. What is being tested is totally irrelevent.

The point was the motivation behind the testing/anything determines if its racist or not.

Sicle cell testing - racial based but fine because its proven that black people are sttictically/genetically more likely to have it.Testing for x PURELY BECUASE someone is of a specific racial origin is racialist.
Testing for x because someone is black AND is there fore like to be higher risk is not.

Do you not see the difference? the outcome is the same but the motivation is different.EDIT: Re-reading your post makes me unsure if you got the point I was trying to make or not acutally.

 

[Sorry!]

You appear to have missed the whole point of my argument.

The fact you bothered to find statistics to 'disprove my testing scenario' makes it clear you just totally looked past the point. What is being tested is totally irrelevent.

The point was the motivation behind the testing/anything determines if its racist or not.

Sicle cell testing - racial based but fine because its proven that black people are sttictically/genetically more likely to have it.


Testing for x PURELY BECUASE someone is of a specific racial origin is racialist.
Testing for x because someone is black AND is there fore like to be higher risk is not.

Do you not see the difference? the outcome is the same but the motivation is different.


EDIT: Re-reading your post makes me unsure if you got the point I was trying to make or not acutally.

I've posted this about 5x in this thread. No one seems to understand the subtle difference though.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I've posted this about 5x in this thread. No one seems to understand the subtle difference though.

i do :D

 

[ideasrule]

And ideasrule like I said before I would be GLAD for you to post some articles PROVING that people of mixed race get treated worse than any other person. From my personal experience and research I am quite convinced it is the OTHER way around.

That was never my belief. I've been asking for factual information on the treatment of mixed-race children throughout the thread, and the anecdotes that were posted suggested they do get treated worse. If you have any information to the contrary, please post it; those anecdotes might not be representative.

As for when I said I felt like making a WW2 comparison it was because, I'm pretty sure, that Hitlers rationale for everything was because it would BETTER the world.

That's also the alleged rationale for all politicians, peace activists, philanthropists, scientific expeditions, child care programs, social security nets, health care programs, spacecraft ...what else? The fact that Hitler claimed X is good/true doesn't prove X is not good/true.

 

[xxChrisxx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Time to lock the thread. We all lose.

 

[ideasrule]

Sicle cell testing - racial based but fine because its proven that black people are sttictically/genetically more likely to have it.


Testing for x PURELY BECUASE someone is of a specific racial origin is racialist.
Testing for x because someone is black AND is there fore like to be higher risk is not.

Do you not see the difference? the outcome is the same but the motivation is different.

By the same reasoning:

Condemnation of interracial marriages - racial based but fine IF its proven that mixed children are more likely to be ostracized

Condemning interracial marriages PURELY BECAUSE one of the partners is black is racist
Condemning interracial marriages because one of the partners is black AND his children are therefore more likely to be ostracized is not

 

[BobG]

You appear to have missed the whole point of my argument.

The fact you bothered to find statistics to 'disprove my testing scenario' makes it clear you just totally looked past the point. What is being tested is totally irrelevent.

The point was the motivation behind the testing/anything determines if its racist or not.

Sicle cell testing - racial based but fine because its proven that black people are sttictically/genetically more likely to have it.


Testing for x PURELY BECUASE someone is of a specific racial origin is racialist.
Testing for x because someone is black AND is there fore like to be higher risk is not.

Do you not see the difference? the outcome is the same but the motivation is different.


EDIT: Re-reading your post makes me unsure if you got the point I was trying to make or not acutally.

I don't think I've ever said anything that disagreed with your point. I disagreed that considering race automatically made a decision racist (or racialist).

I just found it ironic that you would use HIV screening as an example of a racialist decision. There was an initial negative reaction to sickle cell screening of blacks and any suggestion that blacks should be screened for HIV generates a very strong negative response. Both have strong statistical correlations, yet both have causes unrelated to race.

I do find your distinction between racialist/racist to be a little confusing, though. Part of that is unavoidable since both words have changed meaning rather drastically from pre-WWII days.

 

[xxChrisxx]

By the same reasoning:

Condemnation of interracial marriages - racial based but fine IF its proven that mixed children are more likely to be ostracized

Condemning interracial marriages PURELY BECAUSE one of the partners is black is racist
Condemning interracial marriages because one of the partners is black AND his children are therefore more likely to be ostracized is not

I was waiting or this one coming and have the short yet perfect response.You can have children without getting married. Making that excuse for denying marriage feeble and ultimitely futile.

I would have to agree that on reflection, if the JoP was just misguided to believe that he was helping the unborn/unconceved child. Then he is an idiot.

However unlike the liklyhood of genetic conditions and reasons for testing, the JoP being human can engage in the practise of lying and pretending.Either way the JoP 's reasoning is feeble. The jury is out on if he is a lying racist or misguided moron.

I don't think I've ever said anything that disagreed with your point. I disagreed that considering race automatically made a decision racist (or racialist).

I just found it ironic that you would use HIV screening as an example of a racialist decision. There was an initial negative reaction to sickle cell screening of blacks and any suggestion that blacks should be screened for HIV generates a very strong negative response. Both have strong statistical correlations, yet both have causes unrelated to race.

I do find your distinction between racialist/racist to be a little confusing, though. Part of that is unavoidable since both words have changed meaning rather drastically from pre-WWII days.

I could have used any condition/whatever to make my point. However HIV was the first that comes to mind, as it's rampant amongst black people in africa (especially in places like zimbabwe), its also still got a stigma about it in the west. Sickle cell doesn't have a stigma attached to it, so is less 'shocking' an example.

To be honest I just lump everything under racist usually, as the two words have so many different meanings and connotations that it's confusing to keep up.

 

[mgb_phys]

Either way the JoP 's reasoning is reasoning feeble. The jury is out on if he is a lying racist or misguided moron.

Don't be too hard on the guy - he could be both!