Affirmative action set for Ottawa overhaul

Time to review the employment policy in the government of Canada. I am glad that someone is more open-minded for revision.

Nick Aveling, National Post · Thursday, Jul. 22, 2010

The Conservatives have ordered a review of federal government affirmative action policies, saying the public service should hire based on merit, not race or ethnicity.

Cabinet ministers Stockwell Day and Jason Kenney announced the review of the Public Service Employment Act, along with any related practices and policies, on Thursday. “While we support diversity in the public service, we want to ensure that no Canadian is barred from opportunities in the public service based on race or ethnicity,” Mr. Day, the Treasury Board President, said in a statement.

Mr. Kenney, meanwhile, was more blunt in his calls for a meritocracy.

“I strongly agree with the objective of creating a public service that reflects the diversity of Canada, and with fair measures designed to reach that goal. But we must ensure that all Canadians have an equal opportunity to work for their government based on merit, regardless of race or ethnicity,” said the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Under the current policy, the federal government targets four “employment equity groups” identified in the Employment Equity Act as being reflective of Canada’s wider diversity: visible minorities, aboriginals, people with disabilities and women. The Public Service Commission of Canada says on its website that most positions are open to all applicants, but that “from time to time, certain positions may be limited to applicants from members of employment equity-designated groups.”

According to the commission’s latest figures, published in 2009, 18.8% of public service employees are visible minorities, 4.2% are aboriginal, 3.3% are people with disabilities and 57.1% are women. Canada-wide, according to the 2006 Statistics Canada census, 16.2% of Canadians are visible minorities, 3.8% are aboriginal and 51% are women. There were no statistics for people with disabilities.

Yesterday’s announcement prompted outrage from the Opposition Liberals.

The Liberals characterized the move as an attack on affirmative action.

“I just think it’s a shameful case of political pandering at the expense of a lot of groups, whether it’s aboriginal Canadians, new Canadians (or) Canadians with disabilities — all of whom we need in the public service,” said Human Resources critic Michael Savage. “They talk about having diversity in the public service, but they have no commitment to it.”

Mr. Day, who is also minister responsible for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, dismissed Opposition concerns on Thursday.

“As usual, the Opposition is being accusatory, narrow-minded and judgmental because we’ve said we’re looking into something. They’ve gone ballistic based on their own prejudices,” he told the Post. “I can’t account for an irrational response to us doing the responsible thing.”

Mr. Day said the review, to be undertaken by the Treasury Board, was prompted by constituent complaints of discrimination.

“We’ve got competing interests here that are both Charter-based and court-based. Fundamentally, of course, people should not be discriminated against because of ethnicity. At the same time, we want to be inclusive and we want to embrace everybody,” he said.

The review is expected to proceed as quickly as possible, beginning with an investigation into how current policies are being “manifested … day-to-day” within the public service, as well a summation of court rulings related to the Employment Equity Act and related policies.

National Post
.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Affirmative+action+overhaul/3311196/story.html#ixzz0uTg1XyhD

一名中大學生﹕大學「政治中立」，為了什麼？

In human beings, we do share the pretty much same values: caring for each others; no killings of people; respecting other people...

In modern world, these values would be implemented in the ethics and laws.

In the universities, they are responsible to enrich and nurture these values so that it will pass on to the next generations for the betterment of human race.

They are the conscience of the society.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong has lost its direction and mission, this is a lesson to learn...

一名中大學生﹕大學「政治中立」，為了什麼？


【明報專訊】中文大學管理層否決了中大學生會申請永久擺放新民主女神像的要求，說堅持大學「政治中立」的原則，而且得到了29位高層以不記名方式投票一致通過。筆者雖就讀於中大，卻百思不得其解，為什麼大學需要「政治中立」？


大學固然有責任保障校內的表達自由，任何人不可以因不同意見便隨便打壓對方。然而，這自由永遠是有限制的。在外國，一些挑起種族仇恨的言論或蓄意傷人的行為便被合理地禁止，為的是「種族共融」和「和平溝通」這兩個大原則。另外，香港的法律雖然也保障言論自由，但說謊以致他人受傷——誹謗——也是法律上禁止的。這些事例也指出了表達自由也不是沒有任何限制的，問題在於限制的理由是否合理。那麼，中大管理層以「政治中立」為由不讓雕像永久放在校園內又是否合理？

新民主女神像是為了紀念89年確實發生的北京學生運動而建。這雕像除了表達對自由、民主、公義的追求外，也是對六四事件中有學生被殺的史實作見證。那就是說，雕像是一個真相的呈現，並無造假。而它的存在也不會對任何人造成身體上的傷害。作為大學的一分子，我們同意言論自由，為的正是對真理的追求，並希望藉此為人類謀求幸福。任何人只要不傷害別人，又以真實的資料表達意見時，我們不但不應阻礙，而且應該鼓勵。如果只因為政治上敏感，便拒絕一件見證歷史的藝術品在校園內擺放，恐怕難以言之成理。當然，只符合「真實」和「不傷他人」的條件不足以讓藝術品永久留在中大，要理解大學為何應該容許永久擺放，我們需要再思大學的身分及其功能。

「政治中立」是對大學的一種侮辱

大學作為一個追求真相的地方，卻在真相面前擺出「政治中立」的牌匾，非但不是風浪中的保命符，更是對大學之所以為大學的一種侮辱。只有那些財力有限的民間組織，在面對政權的壓迫時，才有資格說「政治中立」，為的只是在不受政府打壓下服務市民。然而，一個財雄勢大、制度上相對地自主、以追求真相服務市民的大學組織，在六四事件上面對國家不斷地嘗試消滅21年前的真相，哪有資格說什麼「中立」！


「大學之道：在明明德，在新民，在止於至善」（《禮記．大學篇》）這句說話中，有三句是中文大學其中兩間書院的院訓。可能有人輕佻地說：「現在誰理會這些道德理想？」然而，這不等於中大便沒有理由堅持這些理想。一所大學，不是什麼價值都不提倡便是好，而是應該問什價值是一所大學理應強調的。公帑資助的中大，有特別的責任為市民對當權者說出真相。如果大學的「政治中立」等於「認同暴力鎮壓學生」、等於「不承認歷史真相」、等於「嘲笑無權力的人民」的話，大學便永遠不應該說什麼「政治中立」。這是大學應有的性格，也是中文大學傳統獨有的性格。因此，請中大管理層不要一錯再錯，讓「新民女」永久地安放於校園吧。


（讀者來函）

Matt Hartley: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to blame for privacy mess

It is always human nature that there is some part of our life that we may or may not want to disclose at some different time with different social groups.

In modern term, we simplify it as "privacy".

I admire Mark's vision and I call it "communism" of modern media.

I understand more why he put "Friends" as the core connecting step in Facebook but its future survival is worrisome if it deviates much from the nature of human being.

Fine tuning is needed and he seems to be listening...


Matt Hartley: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to blame for privacy mess

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3084666#ixzz0pHpTeljJ

Matt Hartley, National Post
Published: Friday, May 28, 2010


The big mess surrounding Facebook's privacy controls -- the disgruntled users, the angry government watchdogs, the organized boycotts -- should all fall squarely on the shoulder's of the company's 26-year-old founder and chief executive.

After all, Mark Zuckerberg is the one with the vision of a world where the Internet is no longer a private and anonymous experience, but rather a social tapestry, where people share their daily digital travels with not only their friends, but the rest of the world.

He's the one who wanted to make it so that Facebook's nearly 500 million users would be forced to share more of themselves with the outside world. He's the one who believes that social norms are changing, that privacy is no longer the default setting coveted by Web users and that "a world that's more open and connected is a better world."

Clearly, this recent backlash over privacy at Facebook is all his fault.

Then again, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to condemn Mr. Zuckerberg.

Truth is, many of us still don't really understand Facebook. Sure, we know it's a site where we can chat with our friends, share pictures and play games that allow us to cultivate small armies of farm animals, but when it comes to understanding just how intertwined Facebook has become with our day to day lives, with the fabric of our emerging connected culture, we just don't know what to make of it.

Not anymore, anyway.

Never before has the world seen something like Facebook. Not since the birth of the Internet itself has such a disruptive technology changed the way we interact and experience the world around us. Average users and privacy watchdogs have only recently begun to understand the intricacies of the House that Zuck Built.

For many Web users -- including more than 15 million Canadians -- Facebook is their base of operations on the Web. Facebook is literally the public face they present to the world, it is their social circle and it is a perpetually updated yearbook all rolled into one. It's the little piece of online real estate they can call home.

In just six years, the population of Facebook has exploded from a few thousand Ivy League students to eclipse the combined populations of the United States and Canada. Indeed, among certain demographics in North America, non-Facebook users are something of an anomaly.

It barely classifies as a social network anymore. Facebook is a category unto itself. An island nation in cyberspace, governed by Mr. Zuckerberg from the company's Palo Alto, California headquarters.

The problem is, the laws of Facebookland keep changing.

Over the past six months, Facebook has unleashed a number of alterations to its privacy controls that not only made more of its users' personal data public by default, but also swelled the company's privacy options to 50 buttons, 170 choices and a word count that surpassed even the United States Constitution.

This week, Facebook bowed to public pressure and simplified its privacy settings, creating one single page where users can control whether their information can be seen by their friends, friends of friends or everyone on the Web.

Facebook also enabled users to block outside software developers -- the makers of the addictive games and quiz features that have become a staple of the service -- from accessing their personal information.

To ensure that companies aren't viewing your details, however, means shutting down your Farmville account and deleting the "Which Simpsons Character Are You?" application for your profile.

Still, if you talk to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, even with the changes announced this week, Facebook is actually more open today than it was a year ago when the office concluded its 14-month investigation into the site's privacy controls, forcing sweeping changes.

Just how upset are users? When four New York-based college students started taking donations to help fund a project that would develop an open sourced Facebook rival where users' data would remain private, they raised more than $100,000 in a matter of months.

"Quit Facebook Day," an online protest started by a pair of Toronto men, will take place on Monday. As of press time, nearly 25,000 Facebook users had pledged to permanently erase their profiles from Facebook's database.

Facebook's citizens are angry. Many feel betrayed by a site which started out by offering them a chance to reconnect with long lost friends, organize parties and share photos in what felt like a closed, personal -- even private -- setting.

It's as though Facebook has broken an unwritten social networking contract with its users.

According to some philosophers, including the 17th century writer Thomas Hobbes, society or "the social" is only possible through the social contract, whereby citizens agree to surrender certain freedoms in exchange for order, peace and a relief from chaos.

With Facebook, users were willing to enter into the social networking contract offered by the company. In exchange for a personal homepage, a mechanism for connecting with friends, users were willing to let Facebook make money by helping marketers advertise to them based on the information in their profiles.

As Facebook's audience grew, so did the company's value to marketers. Based on the information at Facebook's disposal, advertisers could tailor their marketing to smaller and more targeted groups. Instead of advertising on car Websites outside Facebook, marketers could have their messages appear beside only the Facebook profiles belonging to users who said they liked Honda Civics or Ford Mustangs, thereby maximizing the return on their investment.

The problem is, Facebook kept changing the terms of the user contract. Information that wasn't meant to be public became widely available. Default settings were changed so that more information could be shared with the wider Web.

Of course, this was all part of Mr. Zuckerberg's plan to gradually spread Facebook's tentacles across the Web, through new social features and open graphs. The idea was that Facebook would become the default social standard that would blanket the Web.

Mr. Zuckerberg's vision is a world where newspaper Websites can show you stories recommended by your Facebook friends, where retailers can suggest items you might like based on your Facebook interests and where Internet radio stations customize playlists based on your favourite bands and the songs your friends say they like.

Just as newspapers and magazines are only as valuable to advertisers as their reader base, Facebook's value lies in its collection of members. Mr. Zuckerberg knows this. Without its captive user base sharing their lives with each other and with Facebook, the company wouldn't be worth an estimated US$15-billion.

Facebook's challenge lies in finding ways to encourage its users to open up about themselves, to share more information publicly, safe in the knowledge that it's not just good for Facebook, but it's good for them too.

But after this recent user backlash, questions are now being raised about just how social we're willing to be online. In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post this week, Mr. Zuckerberg admitted that perhaps Facebook moved too quickly in its quest to find new ways to "connect with the social Web and each other."

Mr. Zuckerberg believes that the social norm has evolved over time and that people are less concerned about privacy and more willing to share today than ever before.

Maybe he's right. How else do we explain our obsession with Facebook, reality television, blogging and services like Twitter?

Of course, the mere existence of Facebook as a central tenet of Western culture will continue to alter our notions of privacy. Things we consider private today may seem inconsequential in five years time.

Still, how social is too social? It's a question that will need to be answered by not just Facebook, but also by Twitter, Foursquare and other social connection services. As social networking gravitates towads mobile devices and smartphones -- and advertisers are able to target users based not just on their information, but also their location -- people will have to decide just how plugged into the social Web they're willing to be.

If anything, this recent rebellion from the citizens of Facebookland shows that at least some users aren't quite ready to share in Mr. Zuckerberg's vision of the future.

At least, not yet.

mhartley@nationalpost.com



Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3084666#ixzz0pHop9PRA