Not really a surprise to be honest, already back at the time of COVID he asked full executive authority during the crisis only to relinquish them once the crisis was solved (or anway back under control).
Not that this assolve him from everything wrong (or bad) he did obviously.
That said, giving veto power to 5 member countries is a joke. China, Russia, US, Uk and France should not have this amount of power
I think you are confusing NATO with ONU here.
It has been proven time and time again that women, immigrants and disabled are less likely to be hired even when they have the same level of qualification. So the real people having a “bonus” are white males. If we can’t break this bias the easy way, the hard way with quotas it is then.
Except that quotas bring in a lot of other problems and are useless for the worker (source, my wife).
Would you like to have quotas for doctors or surgeons or nurses ?
Are you sure that in such cases (like many others where you need years of studies or experience) your hard way is the right path ?
Anyway I would keep out the disabled, they are entirely another categori with very peculiar problems when speaking about jobs.
Have you taken a look at those quotas? They are always worded “When candidates have the same qualifications, X will be given preference in hiring”. Nobody is given a job just for who they are.
Then you are not talking about quotas, you are talking about some sort of racism because X is hired based on the fact that he is in a specific group of people.
Quotas mandate that you have a certain ratio (simple example: 50/50 ratio between man and women) and force you to hire to reach that ratio, even if the candidate has not the right qualifications.
A common misconception. Take the article I linked previously: Everyone can apply for a rental apartment. However people with foreign sounding names are not given equal chance of receiving said rental.
The common misconception is that everyone is entitled to the same outcome. It is not possible (nor desiderable to be honest). Since I suppose that the1000 dollars paid from a white man are not less valuable then the 1000 dollars paid from someone with a foreign sounding name, the landlord make the decision based on other factors, like “this tenant will be able to always pay the rent on time ? Or he will damage the property ?”
If historically a certain group of people is a headache to rent to I think the landlord is in his rights to try to avoid it. We can discuss if or why a certain group could be an headache to rent to and what to do to try to solve the problem but the landlord is simply making a decision trying to avoid as much problems he can.
It’s in fact the whole premise of the Civil Rights Movement in the US: Yes, slavary and even segregation was abolished but people still were and are discriminated against on the basis of who they are.
To be honest, people are discriminated also based on what they do. Except for the Black Friday, how many times have you seen a crowd of white men ransacking a shop and stealing everything ? Not to say that white people don’t steal, but they had not (or have less of) some types of behavior and that reflects on every member of the group.
People don’t want to be discriminated ? They are right, but once the law abolish discrimination it is up to them to not give reasons to be discriminate, because the law can say that you are not an asshole but if you continue to be an asshole I will treat you like an asshole, law or not.
“You have problems now? Too bad, maybe in a couple years we can help.” Do I really have to comment on this?
Do whatever you want. But it was demostrated times and again that laws written to solve a problem in the here and now without thinking in the long term often have unplanned outcome that are worse then the initial problem.
Coupled with the last paragraph: Have you considered doing both? Helping people in the here and now and also working on long term solutions? Kind of like when breaking a bone a doctor gives you painkillers for the immediate relief and a cast to support the long term healing process?
Except the situation is something like “I can (try) give you a painkiller now but I have no idea how to heal your bone in the long term”, but I agree that this should be the path.
No, but you can prevent a good chunk of stupid people from doing stupid stuff by outlawing the stupid stuff.
You can try, and I agree that we should, but in a structural way, not to just solve the $EMERGENCY_OF_THE_DAY
Immigrant is also a “verified” category. We have a whole federal ministry dealing with immigration related topics.
Also here in a form or another.
This is not about giving bonuses but eliminating disadvantages.
You give a “bonus” to an immigrant in the moment you decide that a certain number of jobs must be assigned to them.
You give a “bonus” to a woman in the moment you decide that a certain number of jobs must be assigned to them.
You give a “bonus” to a man in the moment you decide that a certain number of jobs must be assigned to them.
All are bad it nothing else because you cannot be sure that for that specific job there are enough qualified candidates of the right category to fill all the available positions. Sure, you can ask people to study (help them, offer incentives etc.) for that position, but you cannot force them to study for that position.
Eliminating disadvantages means that everyone has the opportunity to try (and I totally agree with you that we must aim for this), not that someone could have it easier.
An immigrant has disadvantages ? Maybe, but to eliminate them you need to work on the causes and this need years, it cannot be done “just because” by law, the end result will be xenophobia (too easy to shout “immigrants takes our jobs”) and the immigrant will still have the same disadvantages the next time since you only closed your eyes on the causes, simply ignoring them without resolving them, hoping they will go away. And sometimes to solve the causes you need to take some unpopular decisions.
Prejudice and outright xenophobia is a very real thing here still.
It was a problem also here, and probably it still is. And there are reasons, like there are reasons where you are. Not that they were/are justified or reasonable, but people (intended as masses) are stupid. And stupidity cannot be solved by law.
No, disabled is normally a “verified” category protected by specif laws, but everything else should be equal opportunity, which does not mean equal outcome.
What she said, basically, is that in an imaginary ranking for the job, you cannot give a bonus to someone based on the fact that he is a immigrant.
Maybe another reason is that the center left continually ignore what the people are asking their government to do or that the center left is completely dissociated from the reality.
I mean, if with a war going on in the middle east and all its consequences on the international commerce, the left’s (Italian to be precise and fair) priority in the european parliament is the battle over the air trasport of musical instruments (source in Italian) maybe there is a reason beyond the “someone is doing campaigns against center left and green parties”
Also, as long as the center left in some way justify crimes “just because the criminal is from $UNLUCKY_GROUP_OF_THE_DAY”, I think the situation is pretty clear.
On the other hand also the Russian aircraft and drones are only 500 km away, it work both ways.
It is not, EU already told Slovakia the plan is illegal.
Which make sense since the same social media companies want the right to moderate what they want.
What happen is that the social media companies on one hand say “the network is ours, so we can remove what we don’t want” and on the other hand say “we are not responsible for what the user write” but you cannot have both.
Or simply say “look we are not touching anything is published, we are a medium. That content is illegal ? Fine, here the data we have to identify the user and if a judge say so, we will remove it since it is illegal”. Nobody think to accuse or fine a telephone company because a pedo uses a their network to commit crimes.
Maybe, but if the OS say that the user is a minor and they show the content anyway they are responsible.