Especially,india which produces more and more
commissions.Is it a different path of indian
democracy?
All these laws are for ending discriminations of
different types.But,discriminations are in new forms
and sabotaging the letter and spirit of democratic
norms.look at the fate of all those commissions.
--- Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There seems to be a presumption that Laws are
> answers to all social
> questions. Unfortunately, in the context of the
> intersection between
> modernity and hegemony, we seem to be stuck within
> universal prescriptions
> between agents from the communist parties to
> religious institutions to
> IMF/WB ro corporations...
>
> 2008/5/15 C.K. Vishwanath
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> > A large number of anit-discrimination commission
> are
> > coming up.Whither the future Of these
> > commissions?State and civil society are moving
> into
> > two directions.
> > --- CK Vishwanath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > DEALING WITH DISCRIMINATION
> >
> > by Tarunabh Khaitan
> >
> > The Equal Opportunity Commission is an idea whose
> time
> > has come.
> >
> > [Photo]R.V. Moorthy
> >
> > [Photo caption]Justice Rajinder Sachar presenting
> > the report of the committee he headed, which
> > studied the Muslim community's condition in
> > India, to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New
> > Delhi on November 17, 2006.
> >
> > THE Expert Group set up by the Ministry of
> > Minority Affairs "to examine and determine the
> > structure of an Equal Opportunity Commission"
> > submitted its report in February, in which it has
> > proposed a draft Equal Opportunity Commission
> > Bill (EOC Bill). The group, chaired by Professor
> > Madhava Menon, was set up to suggest a workable
> > institutional structure for an Equal Opportunity
> > Commission as recommended by the Justice Rajinder
> > Sachar Committee's "Report on Social, Economic
> > and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of
> > India" (November 2006). The report, while being
> > rooted in Indian circumstances, has drawn from
> > the experiences of countries that have had
> > anti-discrimination laws for years and is an
> > important and positive milestone in our
> > understanding of strategies to respond to
> > discrimination.
> >
> > Before analysing the features of the proposed
> > Bill, a brief clarification on the meaning of
> > discrimination is needed. Traditionally,
> > discrimination has been criticised because it
> > results in inequality. However, an autonomy-based
> > understanding of discrimination looks at what is
> > wrong with the act of discrimination itself. This
> > is a more persuasive moral foundation for
> > anti-discrimination measures.
> >
> > We "discriminate" in all aspects of life, and,
> > most of the time, there is nothing wrong with it.
> > We choose not to make friends with bullies or
> > insensitive people. Few of us will want to have a
> > violent person for a partner. Professor John
> > Gardner explains that what sets apart legitimate
> > discrimination from illegitimate discrimination
> > on the basis of caste, sex, race, place of birth,
> > gender identity, nationality, disability,
> > religion or sexual orientation is that the latter
> > unfairly impairs a person's autonomy.
> >
> > A fundamental tenet of liberalism is that human
> > beings are autonomous beings who have the right
> > to shape their lives according to their own
> > wishes so long as they do not impair the autonomy
> > of others. Everyone has to author his/her own
> > life and make lifestyle choices. When these
> > choices are authored by someone else and imposed
> > upon a person, one's fundamental right to
> > autonomy is violated. All the grounds considered
> > to be illegitimate bases of discrimination have a
> > single thread running through them: they are
> > inextricably linked to one's exercise of personal
> > autonomy. The illegitimate grounds of
> > discrimination are either ordinarily beyond the
> > control of the individual or are such fundamental
> > life choices that a non-consensual, externally
> > enforced change would be imposed only at a very
> > high personal and emotional cost and, therefore,
> > should effectively be treated as beyond the
> > control of the individual.
> >
> > Now, if individuals are discriminated against on
> > any of these grounds, they are being denied
> > opportunities for things beyond their effective
> > control. If one is denied a job because one has a
> > short temper and cannot work in a team, one's
> > autonomy is shaped by choices one has made
> > oneself. However, if one is denied a job because
> > of one's sex or caste or sexual orientation,
> > one's autonomy is violated for no fault of the
> > individual concerned. Clause 2(g) of the Bill,
> > therefore, correctly defines "deprived group" as
> > "a group of persons who find themselves
> > disadvantaged or lacking in opportunities for
> > reasons beyond their control". While this
> > definition could be interpreted so as to include
> > fundamental life choices that are effectively
> > beyond the control of an individual, the Bill
> > should expressly specify "fundamental choice" in
> > addition to "beyond their control" in order to
> > remove all doubt.
> >
> > Locating illegitimate discrimination in the
> > violation of personal autonomy responds to
> > concerns about prohibiting discrimination in the
> > private sector. When any effort is made to
> > regulate behaviour in the private sector, an
> > equality-versus-liberty debate is raised where
> > the equality of deprived groups seems to be in
> > conflict with the liberty of employers to run
> > their businesses as they wish. However, with the
> > explanation just provided, it is liberty at stake
> > on both sides of the balance, which makes
> > comparison easier.
> >
> > Should a private employer's liberty to commit an
> > unjust act (by illegitimately discriminating) be
> > held superior to applicants' liberty to author
> > their own lives without being punished for things
> > that are beyond their effective control? Viewed
> > in this manner, the answer is much more obvious.
> > It is worth noting here that all that employers
> > are being asked to do is to not take into account
> > illegitimate factors, which are irrelevant from
> > the business point of view anyway. Race or caste
> > has no relation to one's ability to perform, and
> > the private employer can still rely on the
> > relevant abilities of the candidate. This is not
> > an argument for providing reservation in the
> > private sector although the possibility of such
> > an argument being made cannot be denied either.
> > The Menon Committee report is, correctly, "of the
> > firm opinion that the jurisdiction of this
> > Commission should not be limited to the public
> > sector" (paragraph 4.6).
> >
> > India has grappled with the question of
> > discrimination right from the moment it started
> > making its Constitution. The Constitution clearly
> > prohibits discrimination by the state, and this
> > is enforced directly by the Supreme Court and the
> > High Courts. The success of this constitutional
> > prohibition is a mixed bag, but in comparison
> > with all other efforts, there is no doubt that
> > this has been the best implementation strategy.
> > The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (CRA),
> > prohibited discriminatory acts in the private
> > sector on the basis of untouchability, on pain of
> > criminal punishment. Similarly, the Equal
> > Remuneration Act (ERA), 1976, prohibited
> > discrimination against women in employment,
> > recruitment and pay. This provision is also
> > backed by criminal sanction.
> >
> > The Persons with Disabilities (Equal
> > Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
> > Participation) Act (PDA), 1995, is a much more
> > sophisticated piece of legislation, which drew a
> > lot from global experiences. The Act prohibits
> > discrimination in the public and private sectors
> > and demands that reasonable accommodation in
> > terms of special facilities (such as wheelchair
> > access) be made for disabled persons. It also
> > provided for a dedicated enforcement agency.
> >
> > In the 21st century, newer claimants to
> > non-discrimination have emerged. A petition filed
> > by the Naz Foundation, demanding that the state
> > be prohibited from discriminating against gay
> > people on the basis of their sexual orientation,
> > is pending in the Delhi High Court. Increasing
> > activism by transgender people has brought to
> > light gross discrimination on the basis of gender
> > identity. The culmination of this historical
> > churning and the immediate catalyst for the EOC
> > Bill was, of course, the Sachar Committee report,
> > which detailed the widespread discrimination in
> > India against Muslims.
> >
> > This historical review offers several lessons.
>
=== message truncated ===
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
