Is It Really Discrimination?

Tweet

People discriminate all the time. We discriminate against people, places, beliefs, and opinions of a multitude of subjects. Sometimes, it is necessary. Whenever we apply for a job, the potential employer must make a choice. This could be considered a form of discrimination even if it is discriminating against someone they don't believe is capable of carrying out the required task. This makes perfect sense, of course. There are, however, some examples of discrimination which are not what they appear to be. In the UK, it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of race, disability, sexuality, age, gender or religious beliefs. In the case of race, gender (except in one to one care roles) or sexuality, discrimination is illogical as these things are irrelevant I most situations. Age, religious beliefs or disability might make a difference to some things, though. For example, it's accepted that we discriminate against age so that we don't have 8 year olds in nightclubs or toddlers buying alcohol. It would also be perfectly reasonable not to offer a job to a blind person if the job required driving. As for religious discrimination, it is possible that a person's beliefs may be incompatible with certain things. The point of this discussion, though, is that tricky area in which someone thinks they have a case for illegal discrimination but, as a matter of fact, there was another reason. That reason could be simply that you don't like the person, which is still a form of discrimination, and have nothing to do with age, gender or anything else. I remember a boy at school. Other children didn't like him and neither did many adults. This was because he was a horrible person and a bully. He also happened to be Asian in a predominantly white, British community. He'd play the race card and accuse others of being racist although he, himself, was racist. There were other Asians in the community and most were accepted. This particular boy didn't seem to understand or realise that it wasn't his race but his attitude which people didn't like. More recently, I've been working with a blind lady. If you've read a recent rant of mine, you'll know a little about her! Anyway, she had complained that a taxi driver had refused her because he wouldn't take her guide dog. Now, I do know that some taxi drivers won't take dogs including working dogs. Whether that is, or should be, their discretion is debatable. What is not debatable is that this particular woman is a pain and I have to wonder if taxi drivers knew her and refused her because of her as opposed to discriminating against her disability or her guide dog. Then there are all sorts of invisible disorders such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, autism, etc. Of course, it is wrong to discriminate against those things but let's take dyslexia - it can be a difficult thing and I know a few people who have it who have been accused of being stupid. While that is unfair in itself, I also know some dyslexic people who are actually not very bright. It's perfectly possible, of course, to be dyslexic or dyspraxic or dyscalculic or autistic or anything else but also be a good, intelligent person. It's also possible, just as those who do not have these things, to also be not very clever. Having dyspraxia doesn't mean that a person is clumsy or lazy but it also doesn't mean that they can not also be those things, just as having dyslexia doesn't make a person stupid or incapable of learning but nor does it mean they can't also be stupid or that they are capable of learning. So, do you agree with the way in which I have defined discrimination? Or does discrimination have to fit certain criteria?