Positive discrimination is defined in the context of the allocation of resources or employment as the practice or policy of favouring individuals belonging to groups which suffer discrimination. In order words, it means treating one person more favourably than another on the basis of their sex, race, age, marital status or sexual orientation. Can something positive come out of this?
There is the school of thoughts that those that have suffered some form of discrimination in the past should now be allowed to discriminate against others. The question then to ask is does the society eradicate discrimination by adding more discrimination? It does not make logical sense as this approach only transfer all the hurts, pains and troubles from one group to the other thereby creating more division, mistrust and anger.
Does anyone clean up dirty laundry by adding more dirt, treat a poisoned patient by giving more poison, reverse the effects of black-slavery by enslaving the whites, address the past deprivation of women to vote by depriving men the right to vote, balance the effect of apartheid by destroying the lives and confiscating the properties of white South Africans or do you resolve school shootings by allowing more assault weapons in schools? Positive discrimination tends to destroy the fabric that binds people and communities together the same way the quota system as practiced in some countries, has only deepened
division, created hatred, encourage mediocrity, eroded trust and enshrined nepotism.
It would be hypocritical for women in politics solely by virtue of their gender elected through women-only shortlist to claim to fight against discrimination or legislate for equal-pay for equal work. How can they look their male constituents in the eye when they are effigies of gender discrimination. The irony in the British society is that female soldiers are advocating to be at per with their male counterparts so that they can take on combat roles in the front-lines, yet female politicians are seeking the easy and discriminatory route to get into politics. Should there therefore be black-only, Muslim-only, LGBT-only, Jew-only or disabled-only shortlists? Would women elected solely based on gender be taken seriously in politics or women in the boardrooms employed because they are females earn the respect of their employees or share holders? What level of self esteem would they have knowing that they are in that position or office not by merit or hardwork? Should a black man or woman therefore be selected in a team sport because of the colour of their skin and not because they meet the criteria to earn that position?
As a society we need to build bridges not walls, project inclusive policies not division, fight for equal rights and opportunities for everyone not only for a specific gender or group. Blacks should project the view that “All lives matters” not just blacks, Jews should fight and speak out against racism and not just antisemitism, women should fight for equal pay for equal work for all workers not just women and the MeToo campaign should address sexual exploitation of both men and women not just women.
We are different but equal, a fact that should be reflected and projected in our society, enforced by our leaders and legislated by our governments. As Martin Luther Jr said, we should strive to realise the dream where we are judged by the content of our character and not by the colour of our skin, and if I may add, neither should we be judged by our gender, religion or sexual orientation. We are created in the image of God and should see others as God sees them, not by their outward appearances but by what is in the heart. How do you see or encouraging others to see in people?