Vielfalt, Gerechtigkeit und Inklusion stehen auf dem Prüfstand – und Pierre Poilievre ist bereit, die Diskussion voranzutreiben
https://www.thestar.com/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-are-coming-under-scrutiny-and-pierre-poilievre-is-ready-to-push/article_88c9c6ad-6472-4bac-abc7-fab14c2de221.html
16 Kommentare
I look forward to hearing how a dude who lost the most winnable election in Canadian political history is a champion for meritocracy. He really should have some sage advice on how to win against overwhelming odds…
If by „push the conversation“ they mean fight culture war nonsense then, yes. Pierre Poilievre is more than ready to pretend to be a member of the GOP.
Well thats exciting, I think the UPC and CPC actions as of late are showing that they are expecting some vulnerability in that Carney will produce disareable economic results. .
Problem for them and as much as Pierre would love people to beleive Carneys entire draw was the Trump factor, Canadians prioritize and risked to vote for Carney were based in Economics .
If the UPC and CPC are beginning to double down on divisional social issue vulnerabilitys (north pacific crude being one ), then in my opinion they see Carney catching economic headwinds in the future .
The guy who lost his own riding then got airdropped into a riding that would vote dog in if they were conservative talking about merit.
Not even funny when you consider his own riding tossed him because they were tired of him and doing nothing for him.
In my view, staking out a position on ‘DEI’ writ large is dumb, or at least supremely unhelpful.
In this sense, DEI proponents are at least partially the authors of their own misfortune. By directing their advocacy toward an abstract, umbrella concept, they have allowed what should be a bunch of discrete, largely anodyne conversations about human resources policy to become one large front in the culture wars.
Umbrellas obscure. They also act as lightning rods.
The reality is that some DEI initiatives are worthy and some are not. Some are supported by evidence and some are not. Some are actually called for by the groups they purport to ‘uplift,’ while others are transparent make-work projects for consultants and bureaucrats of dubious expertise.
Asking me if I support ‘DEI’ is a bit like asking me if I like pets. Like, are we talking about a golden retriever or a tarantula? Because that very much effects my answer.
Let me get this straight. Pollievre didn’t get the job he wanted based on failing the basic qualifications. A job with no requirements for diversity, equity, or inclusion.
The guy who believes „you should only get the job if you have the merits“ didn’t meet the merits, so he pushed someone else out of their job (who did meet the merits), and then applied instead to a job that would be more favorable to „people like him.“
The fuq?
Didn’t this dipshit have to retreat to a safe place to “win” a seat that was guaranteed to him? How conservatives can look and this guy and think he’s a leader will always baffle me. How embarrassing.
When he says „push“ – does he mean he will propose a bill for people to work off? or just yell from his side of the isle and not actually offer a sustainable plan?
Looking at his 23~ year history, he proposed one bill over 10 years ago. Sad, how does he pass performance reviews
[removed]
I work in DEI. Have for 26 years. The idea that anyone is hiring people who do not meet merit just because they’re „diverse“ is overblown. Where I work at least, you absolutely have to meet merit *first*. Then all other things being equal, that’s when DEI comes into play. He is solving a problem that doesn’t really exist.
Wasn’t this guy who moaned about being compared to Trump?
There was a sense that PP would moderate come election but instead he doubled down on the same tired culture war crap. Despite that it seems clear the CPC isn’t going to learn from their mistakes and that alone makes them unqualified.
I am no fan of PP and he should be the last person complaining about people getting jobs they aren’t qualified for. That being said some DEI policies are discriminatory and I would be fine with us toning that back. I am all for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
There’s a nuanced conversation to have here about the value of DEI programs in achieving their goals as evidence suggests that they, largely, may not be effective in actually increasing diversity; but PP is where nuance goes to die. Plus if you believe things were merit-based prior to DEI and/or affirmative action initiatives, I have a bridge to sell you.
This is what he wants to spend his time doing?
He just keeps coming up with ways for me to not want to vote for him and showing why I didn’t in the last election.
Are we debating DEI? Or are we ‚debating‘ what PP says is DEI?
Is DEI a problem? Only when its done half-heartedly by corporations who don’t truly care. Top companies use DEI for business reasons, and ignore the noise.
DEI only works if there is a common baseline.
A common starting point.
Everyone is welcome in my house.
My house only holds a certain amount of people. So not everyone can get in at the same time.
So just because I turn you away does not mean I am against DEI.
If you are disrespectful to my house rules, you will be asked to leave. This does not go against DEI.
If you cause damage you will be asked to leave. This does not go agains DEI.
If you are rude to my guests you will be asked to leave. This does not go against DEI.
This is what I mean from a common starting point. If everyone is ok with following the rules. DEI works just fine.