Damn, Lilley, have another cup of coffee.

Lilley is still trying to...what?  Something to do with one of his most recent kicks, employment equity in the public service.  Maybe he wants to revive those few weeks where a flurry of articles and letters to the editor resulted from his big exposé on how white, stay-at-home mothers with little education are just treated sooooo unfairly in the federal government hiring process. 

Except this latest article is so lacking in cohesion and coherence that it’s at times difficult to understand what point he is trying to make.  We are left to assume he’s saying employment equity is bad, hmm-kay?  Simply because that has been his stance since he started writing about this issue.

He starts by mentioning the US which is a mistake to begin with since they have affirmative action to address inequities, something quite different from our employment equity legislation.
But hey, let’s read on and see where he’s going.

In 1776, as the United States headed towards independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote the immortal words: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.”  While America has struggled to live up to those words at times, there is no doubt that they have acted as a clarion call, a shining ideal for the nation to live up to.  

OK...nice words, but they aren’t exactly respected in the US.

Regrettably, in Canada, we have no such thing.

WTF????  Lilley himself says a paragraph or so later:

Gender identity and gender expression would, of course, not be the only areas where you are prohibited from discrimination; there is also race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted. That’s already in the Human Rights Act.

Maybe Lilley skipped his morning coffee, or maybe he’s drinking decaf which just doesn’t have that kick, because he then abandons the US for a bit and does some more name dropping -

While once we would have looked to our British heritage as our source of liberty and equality before the law, today Canada is a country that grants differing levels of rights and freedoms based on who you are, your ethnicity, your religion, your gender or what you think your gender is.

WTFx2?????  So...what are you saying, Brian?  We should return to the days of British colonialism?  Granting equal rights since then is a bad thing?  Shall we go for strike three?

A bill before Parliament, which seems likely to pass, would add gender identity and gender expression to the prohibited grounds of discrimination protected under the criminal code and Human Rights Act.  The idea is to give greater protection to transgendered and transsexual citizens.  Whatever happened to the idea that all are equal before the law?

WTFx3?????  Is there some connection between those three sentences?  How does an attempt to include recently recognized groups who have until now faced discrimination indicate in any way that this results in the death of the belief that all are created equal before the law?

The criminal code provisions are currently shorter, but opposition parties and several activist groups want to expand them.  In 2008, the Liberals promised in their campaign platform, “an amendment to the Criminal Code to include ‘gender’ in the hate propaganda provisions to help end societal acceptance for those who would incite hatred against women.”

And that’s bad because...?

It was revealed this past summer that the federal government was setting aside jobs for certain groups.

Oh. I see.  All that undecipherable nonsense was just an attempt to make the old EE story from June look like it’s something new.

Some jobs were only open to aboriginals, some only to visible minorities, and some to women or the disabled. The government reviewed the process and declared while preference could be given to the protected groups no one should be denied the chance to apply for a job based on their race or gender.  Hiring, the government said, should be based on merit.  

OK.  We heard that.  From here on, I begin to suspect that Lilley added something to his coffee that’s usually reserved for experimenting on how far from reality you can project your thinking.

For some reason, the government has been accused of racism for advocating that everyone should be treated the same.

For some reason...sure, let’s just pretend this twisting of the truth hasn’t already been addressed.  No, Brian - and please take notes, I don’t want to have to repeat this in three months when you again try to revive this nonsense - the government hasn’t been accused of racism, it has been criticized for wanting to kill legislation that has been effective (but still is needed) in providing proportional representation in the public service.

You offered the US as a “clarion call” as though having fine words about equality enshrined in historical documents automatically translates to action, but your own “shining ideal” shows us every day that words aren’t enough to change the way people think or to eradicate their prejudices.  What might be self-evident to some is not embraced willingly by all.

While the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights before that say citizens of Canada shall be treated equally “without discrimination” based on issues such as race, religion or sex, the new regime says you will be treated differently based on those very same criteria.

No, no, no!  First off, there is no new regime, Brian.  There has been a re-examination and clarification of EE legislation and Ms. Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission explains - again (emphasis mine)-

The Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) sets the framework for staffing in the federal public service. It specifically provides for limiting the area of selection to employment equity groups where there are identified gaps. It is the view of the Public Service Commission that delegated departments and agencies have this statutory option, in addition to other tools, to address areas of under-representation.

Ms. Barrados added, “The core values of merit and non-partisanship are the cornerstones of all appointments to and within the public service. This applies to appointments of employment equity groups.” For merit to be met, the appointee must be qualified.

If a department determines that it's staff is not representative of the population, it may give preference to whatever minority group is not represented well, but if no qualified people in that group apply or pass the tests, then people outside that group are hired.

A true equality, one in the best Canadian tradition, would simply state that all people are created equal and should be treated equally before the law.    It would do away with all those special privileges and would re-establish a unique standard for all Canadians.

Sure, Brian, just like Jefferson saying it in the US automatically made everyone act according to those words, eh?  Virtually wiped out discrimination, did it?

Listen, Brian, everyone is created equal.  We shouldn’t even have to point that out.  But because not everyone - even today - believes that statement, we need laws to protect people from discrimination and change actions as well as attitudes.

Your intentionally obtuse words and repetitious tripe doesn’t help.  Denying that racism is still a big problem in Canada (except, of course, those who agree with you on this tend to be the same ones who constantly rant about anti-semitism being rampant throughout the world and Canada in particular) allows it to continue.

And just two more things because empty, vague phrases really, really bug me - what the hell does “a true equality, one in the best Canadian tradition” mean?  What does “re-establish a unique standard for all Canadians” mean?  You see, you can’t toss around words like “best Canadian tradition” and “unique standard” without explaining what those are and how they are relevant to what you are saying.

Seriously, couple of good, strong cups of coffee first thing in the morning - clears out the fog and confusion.

Or you can try writing about something else.  Like real travesties of democracy.