Editor: I believe our honourable local member of parliament’s (John Aldag) heart is in the right spot, however, I’m cautious about the ultimate goal that could be reached as a result of certain possible actions that may follow.
I’m all for equality and will stand and fight against discrimination in all its forms when it is credibly proven to me. I am wary though, of any system of quotas that could be enacted based on gender or race.
If we think about this for a minute, we realize that this is the definition of racist and sexist. To say that there must be equal representation in an elected body of officials based on race or gender, and not on merit, strikes me as antithetical to the process of equality.
What we need is equal opportunity, not egalitarianism. Give the job to whomever is best suited and qualified for it, not to the person that will fill a certain demographic you think is under represented.
If it turns out an elderly white man is best for the job, fine, vote for him in clear conscience. Same thing goes for a young Asian woman, or a middle aged Hispanic man. To me, the content of a person’s character is what matters, as well as their work ethic and the life experience they bring to the table. Race and gender are not even on my radar when casting a vote, and if they are on yours, maybe you should look in the mirror.
It would be great if John Aldag’s commission finds a way to promote more women and minorities to participate in the process of running for candidacy, I’m absolutely for that.
It’s almost always a positive thing when more people participate in democracy, but let’s be careful in not setting up a system where we deny rights to a group based on their race or gender just for the sake of redistributing it to others. This is truly the definition of discrimination.
Equal opportunity is the key, not equality of outcome, which ultimately leads to discrimination of someone.