NS Parliament Chamber [IC]

[Agarntrop]

“Madame Speaker, business sever the public and as such should have no right to deny service on ethnicity, religion, or any other innate traits. If a business wishes to be a private club then they can be more discerning”

Hear!

Madame Speaker, I am in full support of this bill. Allowing businesses to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, gender, and religion would result in a slippery slope towards segregation in the style of apartheid South Africa or the pre-civil rights American south.

"Hear hear!"

[New Lindale]

Madame speaker, this mandate requiring a diversity plan is contradictory to the bill's mission, along with several other problems. Not only is it a form of discrimination, but also will create tensions that we are claiming to eliminate. As my previous experience in the private sector, I can assure you that businesses do not care about identity politics, or any other factors on employees, and on the basis of their abilities. This will only make relations is this regard worse, as now those who had reached these positions from hard work will be doubted since the assumption will be that they were only selected for the position because of a social program.
With this exception, I agree with my colleague in that this bill is exceptional. It is very thorough in which is what I have been advocating for; a thorough, objective, but not very complex.

“Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the insinuation that our business people are completely free from prejudice-I world ask him if he really believes us to be so superior that we are free of the bias that plagues the rest of humanity.”

Madame Speaker, I would like to reiterate my main point to the honourable gentleman; mandates of these nature will increase the racial divide, as in the public will go by the assumption that a POC who had gained the position did not do so by qualifications, but by their skin colour which actually is racist. Also, this is non-specific, so this meaning we are forcing businesses in some cases, to have more males in a female-dominated workplace or whites in a black-dominated workplace, but I'm against it either way. Something no one considers is that Asians are also negatively impacted in this regard.
If you want true equality, then this will not be neccesary. If you allow the companies who are really persecuting to continue the practice then they will go out of business because the public does not want to support that kind of organisation. Why are we underestimating the power of the convictions of the public? It's the same with so many other things like green energy, there are so many businesses that are fighting climate change without government intervention because the public is supporting. Asperian bank would not exist if people were not concerned.

[The Archipelago Territory]

“Madam Speaker, as an NPP member myself, I support this bill. It gives exceptions that when race is required for a job (such as a movie company wanting only white or only black characters) then the bill can be voided.”

[Nova Anglicana]

“Madam Speaker, as the author of this bill, I rise in defense of it. It sets out clear protections for individuals in multiple protected categories while still defending the rights of private and religious institutions. Diversity requirements for public institutions are in keeping with the idea that governments should give their citizens a fair shake and redress some of the discrimination issues that have plagued people of color and other groups for many years. For private institutions, diversity in management is encouraged and suggested, but not required. I do not believe this bill poses an undue burden upon private employers or educational institutions and I urge all my colleagues to support it. Thank you.”

[Rebels and Saints]

Madame speaker, this mandate requiring a diversity plan is contradictory to the bill's mission, along with several other problems. Not only is it a form of discrimination, but also will create tensions that we are claiming to eliminate. As my previous experience in the private sector, I can assure you that businesses do not care about identity politics, or any other factors on employees, and on the basis of their abilities. This will only make relations is this regard worse, as now those who had reached these positions from hard work will be doubted since the assumption will be that they were only selected for the position because of a social program.
With this exception, I agree with my colleague in that this bill is exceptional. It is very thorough in which is what I have been advocating for; a thorough, objective, but not very complex.

“Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the insinuation that our businesspeople are completely free from prejudice-I world ask him if he really believes us to be so superior that we are free of the bias that plagues the rest of humanity.”

"Madame Speaker, does it matter if we're free from that bias? A business should be allowed to run with whatever bias or prejudice it wishes. The Members who support this bill wish to trade freedom for equality. That's not a balanced trade."

[New Lindale]

“Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the insinuation that our businesspeople are completely free from prejudice-I world ask him if he really believes us to be so superior that we are free of the bias that plagues the rest of humanity.”

"Madame Speaker, does it matter if we're free from that bias? A business should be allowed to run with whatever bias or prejudice it wishes. The Members who support this bill wish to trade freedom for equality. That's not a balanced trade."

Madame Speaker, this is precisely my point, and although now I had misinterpreted the mandate, I still find the practice to be very flawed. I also wish to ask the author of the bill on the after, what precisely will we be doing to 'encourage' businesses to pursue this practice?

[Crylante]

“Madam Speaker, while I oppose section 2e I think this bill is a great step towards bringing about a more equal society.”

[The Archipelago Territory]

“Madam Speaker, while I support this bill, section 3 is extremely flawed.

‘Mandates that public higher educational institutions have and pursue a plan to ensure diversity in their undergraduate and graduate student body on the basis of the following characteristics: race, color, sex, disability.’

I will be voting aye however because I support the other provisions mentioned in this bill, and I will make an amendment.”

[Nova Anglicana]

"Madame Speaker, does it matter if we're free from that bias? A business should be allowed to run with whatever bias or prejudice it wishes. The Members who support this bill wish to trade freedom for equality. That's not a balanced trade."

Madame Speaker, this is precisely my point, and although now I had misinterpreted the mandate, I still find the practice to be very flawed. I also wish to ask the author of the bill on the after, what precisely will we be doing to 'encourage' businesses to pursue this practice?

"Madam Speaker, this is a statement that the government finds it valuable for upper management to represent more closely the demographics of the country and to promote opportunity for all. Such practices, if pursued by private business, will result in a more just society where everyone has the chance to move up. At present, there is no enforcement mechanism because it is not a requirement. Perhaps the member would like to propose an amendment outlining what he thinks would be appropriate ways to encourage businesses."

“Madam Speaker, while I support this bill, section 3 is extremely flawed.

‘Mandates that public higher educational institutions have and pursue a plan to ensure diversity in their undergraduate and graduate student body on the basis of the following characteristics: race, color, sex, disability.’

I will be voting aye however because I support the other provisions mentioned in this bill, and I will make an amendment.”

"As to my other colleague's question, Madam Speaker, what is flawed about this section? It simply ensures that public institutions' student bodies reflect the nation at large, something fundamental to promoting economic opportunity by diffusing it across society."

[New Lindale]

Madame Speaker, this is precisely my point, and although now I had misinterpreted the mandate, I still find the practice to be very flawed. I also wish to ask the author of the bill on the after, what precisely will we be doing to 'encourage' businesses to pursue this practice?

"Madam Speaker, this is a statement that the government finds it valuable for upper management to represent more closely the demographics of the country and to promote opportunity for all. Such practices, if pursued by private business, will result in a more just society where everyone has the chance to move up. At present, there is no enforcement mechanism because it is not a requirement. Perhaps the member would like to propose an amendment outlining what he thinks would be appropriate ways to encourage businesses."

“Madam Speaker, while I support this bill, section 3 is extremely flawed.

‘Mandates that public higher educational institutions have and pursue a plan to ensure diversity in their undergraduate and graduate student body on the basis of the following characteristics: race, color, sex, disability.’

I will be voting aye however because I support the other provisions mentioned in this bill, and I will make an amendment.”

"As to my other colleague's question, Madam Speaker, what is flawed about this section? It simply ensures that public institutions' student bodies reflect the nation at large, something fundamental to promoting economic opportunity by diffusing it across society."

Madame Speaker, in response to my colleague, I am saying the practice is discriminatory in that we are requiring a certain amount of people on this basis which one cannot control. As I have mentioned before, it defeats the purpose, because not only does the public become in doubt of those who have gained the position, but this mandate there is no longer the guarantee that we are allowing someone this position because we think they are competent enough to do so. Speaking of demographics, this will only make this issue worse. How about the current crisis in South African farmers for example, or the fact that this policy for areas that are majority white will bar some other racial groups from getting seats they would have earned through work. If you want to talk about white privilege, then this is the real way to go. Then this will have the knock-on effect of segregation since the public will begin to go into areas that are the majority of their own race or other groups, and we no longer have a diverse society. These types of policies are going to tear apart the society of Saint Hilda.

[The Archipelago Territory]

"Madam Speaker, this is a statement that the government finds it valuable for upper management to represent more closely the demographics of the country and to promote opportunity for all. Such practices, if pursued by private business, will result in a more just society where everyone has the chance to move up. At present, there is no enforcement mechanism because it is not a requirement. Perhaps the member would like to propose an amendment outlining what he thinks would be appropriate ways to encourage businesses."



"As to my other colleague's question, Madam Speaker, what is flawed about this section? It simply ensures that public institutions' student bodies reflect the nation at large, something fundamental to promoting economic opportunity by diffusing it across society."

Madame Speaker, in response to my colleague, I am saying the practice is discriminatory in that we are requiring a certain amount of people on this basis which one cannot control. As I have mentioned before, it defeats the purpose, because not only does the public become in doubt of those who have gained the position, but this mandate there is no longer the guarantee that we are allowing someone this position because we think they are competent enough to do so. Speaking of demographics, this will only make this issue worse. How about the current crisis in South African farmers for example, or the fact that this policy for areas that are majority white will bar some other racial groups from getting seats they would have earned through work. If you want to talk about white privilege, then this is the real way to go. Then this will have the knock-on effect of segregation since the public will begin to go into areas that are the majority of their own race or other groups, and we no longer have a diverse society. These types of policies are going to tear apart the society of Saint Hilda.

“Madam Speaker, I agree with every word the honorable member just said, which is why I will vote ‘aye’ but then amend the bill.”

[Nova Anglicana]

"Madam Speaker, this is a statement that the government finds it valuable for upper management to represent more closely the demographics of the country and to promote opportunity for all. Such practices, if pursued by private business, will result in a more just society where everyone has the chance to move up. At present, there is no enforcement mechanism because it is not a requirement. Perhaps the member would like to propose an amendment outlining what he thinks would be appropriate ways to encourage businesses."



"As to my other colleague's question, Madam Speaker, what is flawed about this section? It simply ensures that public institutions' student bodies reflect the nation at large, something fundamental to promoting economic opportunity by diffusing it across society."

Madame Speaker, in response to my colleague, I am saying the practice is discriminatory in that we are requiring a certain amount of people on this basis which one cannot control. As I have mentioned before, it defeats the purpose, because not only does the public become in doubt of those who have gained the position, but this mandate there is no longer the guarantee that we are allowing someone this position because we think they are competent enough to do so. Speaking of demographics, this will only make this issue worse. How about the current crisis in South African farmers for example, or the fact that this policy for areas that are majority white will bar some other racial groups from getting seats they would have earned through work. If you want to talk about white privilege, then this is the real way to go. Then this will have the knock-on effect of segregation since the public will begin to go into areas that are the majority of their own race or other groups, and we no longer have a diverse society. These types of policies are going to tear apart the society of Saint Hilda.

“Madam Speaker, first of all, the debate on South African farmers is irrelevant to this conversation, as we are discussing nondiscrimination and opportunity in education and employment, not land, and plays on racial fears that have absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. Secondly, the idea that unqualified students will be admitted to our nantion’s educational institutions is another scaremongering tactic that recalls decades-old arguments in the United States and colonial-era about the supposed mental inferiority of people of color. No unqualified students will be admitted. Students of color and other groups traditionally not afforded the opportunity of higher education earn their place at university just as much as any other student. All this act does is ensure they are given fair consideration and that the nation’s educational institutions reflect the diversity of our nation. My colleague thinks that this is like a game of musical chairs, where there are not enough seats for all. Far from it, we are adding chairs to the table of educational and economic opportunity so that all St. Hildans may have a chance at a better life.”

[New Lindale]

Madame Speaker, in response to my colleague, I am saying the practice is discriminatory in that we are requiring a certain amount of people on this basis which one cannot control. As I have mentioned before, it defeats the purpose, because not only does the public become in doubt of those who have gained the position, but this mandate there is no longer the guarantee that we are allowing someone this position because we think they are competent enough to do so. Speaking of demographics, this will only make this issue worse. How about the current crisis in South African farmers for example, or the fact that this policy for areas that are majority white will bar some other racial groups from getting seats they would have earned through work. If you want to talk about white privilege, then this is the real way to go. Then this will have the knock-on effect of segregation since the public will begin to go into areas that are the majority of their own race or other groups, and we no longer have a diverse society. These types of policies are going to tear apart the society of Saint Hilda.

“Madam Speaker, first of all, the debate on South African farmers is irrelevant to this conversation, as we are discussing nondiscrimination and opportunity in education and employment, not land, and plays on racial fears that have absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. Secondly, the idea that unqualified students will be admitted to our nantion’s educational institutions is another scaremongering tactic that recalls decades-old arguments in the United States and colonial-era about the supposed mental inferiority of people of color. No unqualified students will be admitted. Students of color and other groups traditionally not afforded the opportunity of higher education earn their place at university just as much as any other student. All this act does is ensure they are given fair consideration and that the nation’s educational institutions reflect the diversity of our nation. My colleague thinks that this is like a game of musical chairs, where there are not enough seats for all. Far from it, we are adding chairs to the table of educational and economic opportunity so that all St. Hildans may have a chance at a better life.”

Madame Speaker, I am disappointed that yet again we are brought back into the race debate. If you would like to be factually accurate when it occurs to the diversity programs at universities and the likes, you find that on the basis on whatever group students fall under, their requirements are either raised or dropped. This is unacceptable, and it also ridiculous that you think I am assuming that people of colour are inferior, when it is you sir who is saying we change the standards for them. If we want to be a fair society, we show everyone that there is no special treatment, and we treat them to the same standard as everyone else. You are belittling people of colour with this policy since you are effectively are saying they cannot handle being able to follow the same standards as everyone else. However, I would like to correct myself on the South Africa comment, since it is irrelevant.

[Martune]

“Order. The reading has concluded. Begin the division. Lock the doors!”

Employment and Education Non-Discrimination Act
Author: Salomon Kombila Berggren (SHAPC)
Sponsors: Anders Kaj Ehnström (SLP-R), James Penta (Green), James de Clairmont (SDP), Austin Miller (SHAPC)

---

---

A bill to prevent discrimination in employment and education

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED, as follows:

---

---

§1 - Definitions

1. Race/Color - an individual's skin color, ancestry, or perceived shared physical traits with a distinct group of humans
2. Sex - Physical characteristics that identify an individual as male or female, as defined on their birth certificate
3. National origin - the nation an individual was born in
4. Disability - a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities
5. Sexual orientation - who an individual is sexually attracted to
6. Public employer - a governmental or quasi-governmental agency that employs individuals

§2 - Employment

1. It is illegal for public employers to discriminate against applicants for employment in all cases on the basis of the following characteristics: race, color, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation.
2. If a public employer determines that an individual's age, disability, or language proficiency would prevent them from completing the tasks associated with the job and has sufficient evidence to support this, then they may refuse to hire that individual. If there is no or not sufficient evidence, then the public employer may not use those characteristics as reason not to hire that individual.
3. It is illegal for private employers to discriminate against applicants for employment in all cases on the basis of the following characteristics: race (except if the job in and of itself requires a particular race, such as a character in the film industry), color, sex (except if the job in and of itself requires a particular sex, as in the film industry), religion, national origin, sexual orientation (except as defined in section 2e of this act).
4. If a private employer determines that an individual's age, disability, or language proficiency would prevent them from completing the tasks associated with the job and has sufficient evidence to support this, then they may refuse to hire that individual. If there is no or not sufficient evidence, then the public employer may not use those characteristics as reason not to hire that individual.
5. The right of religious organizations to hire or dismiss individuals on the basis of their religion or sexual orientation shall be protected, if the religious organization has sufficient evidence to prove that these characteristics would interfere with the mission or values of the organization.
6. Mandates that public employers have and pursue a plan to ensure diversity in management or higher levels of employment on the basis of the following characteristics: race, color, sex, disability.
7. Encourages private employers to have and pursue a plan to ensure diversity in management or higher levels of employment on the basis of the following characteristics: race, color, sex, disability.

§3 - Education

1. It is illegal for public educational institutions to discriminate against applicants for admission in all cases on the basis of the following characteristics: race, color, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, age, disability, or primary language.
2. It is illegal for private educational institutions to discriminate against applicants for admission in all cases on the basis of the following characteristics: race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, or primary language.
3. Mandates that public higher educational institutions have and pursue a plan to ensure diversity in their undergraduate and graduate student body on the basis of the following characteristics: race, color, sex, disability.
4. Encourages and affirms the right of private higher educational institutions to have and pursue a plan to ensure diversity in their undergraduate and graduate student body on the basis of the following characteristics: race, color, sex, disability.

§4 - Enforcement

1. The Equal Employment Commission shall be the body that oversees the provisions of this Act with regards to employment. Individuals shall submit complaints and evidence that this act has been violated and employers shall submit evidence to the EEC. The EEC shall have power to assess fines to employers for violation of this act and issue legal remedies and relief for individuals harmed under this act. The decisions of the EEC shall be determined to be final in regards to complaints under this Act unless otherwise specified by the courts.
2. The Equal Education Board shall be the body that oversees the provisions of this Act with regards to education. Individuals shall submit complaints and evidence that this act has been violated and educational institutions shall submit evidence to the EEB. The EEC shall have power to assess fines to employers for violation of this act and issue legal remedies and relief for individuals harmed under this act. The decisions of the EEB shall be determined to be final in regards to complaints under this Act unless otherwise specified by the courts.
3. The Equal Employment Commission shall consist of five (5) individuals, appointed by the Prime Minister and confirmed by a majority vote of parliament, for three (3) month terms.
4. The Equal Education Board shall consist of five (5) individuals, appointed by the Prime Minister and confirmed by a majority vote of parliament for three (3) month terms.

Code: Select all

[color=green]Aye:[/color] [ ]
[color=red]No[/color] [ ]
[color=grey]Abstain[/color] [ ]

[Borovan entered the region as he]

Aye: [X]
No [ ]
Abstain [ ]

[Alozia]

Aye: [X]
No [ ]
Abstain [ ]

[Van Hool Islands]

Aye: [X]
No [ ]
Abstain [ ]

[New Lindale]

Aye: [X]
No [ ]
Abstain [ ]

[Rebels and Saints]

Aye: [ ]
No [X]
Abstain [ ]

[The Liberated Territories]

Aye: [ ]
No: [X]
Abstain [ ]

[Kowani]

Aye: [X]
No [ ]
Abstain [ ]

[Puertollano]

Aye: [X]
No []
Abstain [ ]

[Agarntrop]

Aye: [X]
No [ ]
Abstain [ ]

[Crylante]

Aye: [X]
No [ ]
Abstain [ ]

[Vedastia]

Aye: [X]
No [ ]
Abstain [ ]