Lots of claims in this article but I'd love to hear more details. What part of the civil rights law protects against caste discrimination? How would this law jeopardize or put other businesses at risk?
Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
31–40 of 192 posts
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
People do not want to import this shit into the US. They left these systems behind, and making a law codifies the system into law, which is kinda fucked up. I myself have seen discrimination in non obvious ways (not Indian but exact same idea where your birth dictates certain societal ideas about you) , and would be absolutely pissed if anyone made a law that protects against that because discrimination is already pr…
> because discrimination is already protected against Some discrimination is protected against, but this statement is far too broad to be accurate. I can discriminate against you because of who you vote for or what car you drive or which NFL team you root for.
I think companies have very well established term for this: "culture fit".
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#33Very unfortunate.
I have heard lot of cases from friends in US about how they are discriminated based on caste and they can’t say anything because of backlash they might face.
Unfortunately, Unlike other kind of discrimination, caste based discrimination is hard to prove in courts. And on top of that they have to prove that caste based discrimination is illegal too, making it hard to bring justice.
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, what's wrong with having codified redundancy?
Because the law doesn’t work like a set of logical propositions where having redundancy is strictly zero harm. If the law says “no one should be discriminated against; and by the way specifically theogravity should not be discriminated against” that would raise some eyebrows about why this clarification is necessary, wouldn’t it? Also imagine ever simplifying the law to get rid of redundancies in the future. “caste d…
Not sure what's wrong with the eyebrow raising in the scenario you described.
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#35> “not only target and racially profile South Asian Californians, but will put other California residents and businesses at risk and jeopardize our state’s innovative edge.” How? Because south asians can't be caste-ist against others now?
They would be the only group “exposed” to this law. The vast majority of non-Indian people in California have very little idea how caste works, and how to identify membership, etc.
So now there’s this new law that de facto only applies to a specific ethnicity of Californians. I guess you could argue that all Californians—regardless of their ethnicity—are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of caste. But to me that sounds a lot like “all Californians, both rich and poor, are prohibited from sleeping under a bridge.”
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#36Massive massive massive mistake by Newsom.
I cannot be stronger in urging activists to retry this again.
A massive injustice. Shame on Newsom.
We MUST pass this.
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely. I'm trying to understand the resistance in good faith, but the article didn't explain their position very clearly. "It's already prohibited" - so why the fierce opposition? "Passing a law against discrimination of X will stigmatize X" - Imagine someone was making this argument for an existing federally protected class.
The one good faith argument is that Hindus feel targeted by it because, de facto, this is about higher-caste Hindus discriminating against low-caste Hindus. Whether or not that's particularly convincing or a reason not to pass it is debatable, but I think it's a valid reason that merits consideration. Any reasoning beyond this ends up being gobbledygook.
This is not a reasonable complaint unless there is no discrimination. If there is discrimination then it’s entirely reasonable to target it.
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely. I'm trying to understand the resistance in good faith, but the article didn't explain their position very clearly. "It's already prohibited" - so why the fierce opposition? "Passing a law against discrimination of X will stigmatize X" - Imagine someone was making this argument for an existing federally protected class.
People do not want to import this shit into the US. They left these systems behind, and making a law codifies the system into law, which is kinda fucked up. I myself have seen discrimination in non obvious ways (not Indian but exact same idea where your birth dictates certain societal ideas about you) , and would be absolutely pissed if anyone made a law that protects against that because discrimination is already pr…
>absolutely pissed if anyone made a law that protects against that because discrimination is already protected against
Why would this piss you off? It's a little redundant, I suppose, but that hardly seems particularly upsetting. Specifically, this bill looks like it updated CA's definition to clarify that ancestry based descrimination include caste, where caste was defined as:
>(aa) “Caste” means an individual’s perceived position in a system of social stratification on the basis of inherited status. “A system of social stratification on the basis of inherited status” may be characterized by factors that may include, but are not limited to, inability or restricted ability to alter inherited status; socially enforced restrictions on marriage, private and public segregation, and discrimination; and social exclusion on the basis of perceived status.
I'm not really seeing where the government is codifying you into a group you don't want to be in. The idea seems to be based on the discrimanator's perception of what groups you are in. Without this clarification, though, I'm not sure how Newsom (or anyone) can be confident of judicial interpretation of law, especially given that he notably was complaining recently about a judge's interpretation of the law.
>I would rather just fade away into time.
Would you say that most of the progress on dismantling caste-related issues has been by way of the government actively ignoring its existence?
I'm pretty American and thus largely ignorant about most things but especially India's history and how this issue has been addressed and changed over time, but American history doesn't have many examples of places where the things people discriminated on simply faded away. Most have required active efforts to get to where they are today and obviously where it's at is still not a great place.
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#39The large and vocal constituency activated against the bill is good evidence that in fact it is not already accounted for under existing civil rights law.
Whether or not it is already accounted for under existing law, this sort of reasoning is about as valid as "the large and vocal constituency against a bill requiring everyone to pledge allegiance to the US is evidence that people aren't loyal to the country" Better evidence would be someone who would have been eligible to bring a case under the new law having been denied justice under the existing laws.
You mean the many documented examples of caste discrimination who have been unable to do anything because caste discrimination is legal?
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#40If it’s already covered, what’s the harm in letting the bill go into effect?
Newsom's running for president. He can't have anything that can be considered restriction of religion on his record.