On 02/01/2011 1:35 PM, Warp wrote:

>    Well, I'd say the problem is one of basic principles of human rights.
>
>    One of them is "innocent until proven guilty". If the basic assumption
> is that "if an employer doesn't hire enough members of a minority group,
> it's probably discrimination" that's an assumption of guilt by default,
> which is the completely opposite to what it should be.
>

Employers have no human rights they are not human.
By that I mean, people (who have their own indisputable human rights) 
have a function as an employer.
Owing to the past history of employers is it not understandable that 
they are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent?

>    The accuser (in this case the government imposing the quotas) has the
> burden of proof, not the accused (in this case the employer). That's
> judicial procedure 101. It doesn't matter what statistics may say. You
> can't go making guilty-by-default assumptions.
>

Oh! Yes you can. (It is still the panto season ;-))


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message