2014年9月3日星期三

蘇賡哲:赤裸裸的歧視

8月27日多倫多明報     
    一名叫Steven的中國移民,在澳洲悉尼開設咖啡店,並登廣告聘請咖啡師。應徵者Nilson是黑人,Steven拒絕聘用,還清楚告訴對方理由是不請黑人, 因為白人顧客不會喜歡黑人沖泡的咖啡。Nilson當然很憤慨,立即公開講述遭受種族歧視的情況,店內顧客紛紛上前安慰他,並馬上離開,表示以後都不會再光顧這間咖啡店。一位咖啡店的職員亦立即辭職不幹。 
    在美、加、澳、紐這幾個華人熱門移民國家中,澳洲的種族歧視氛圍是比較濃厚的。但那是不脫「白澳思想」的白人對有色人種的歧視,而且只能說是一股潛流。白澳思想主要排斥的是亞洲勞工,1973年這種歧視性移民政策才畫上句號。這次咖啡店歧視黑人事件,為黑人出頭鳴不平的,不論是當時店中顧客,還是其後在咖啡店臉書留言的,大多是白人。他們難免會有點意外:「想不到我們不歧視你,讓你來澳洲開咖啡店,喝你的咖啡,你卻歧視起黑人來了。」 
    我想,澳洲白人固然有支持、同情黑人Nilson的,但亦難免有些人和Steven一樣歧視黑人,但他們會約束自己,即使不聘用黑人,也會另尋借口,不會像Steven這樣赤裸裸說出真正原因。Steven之肆無忌憚,是因為歧視黑人在中國會被視為「正常」,「沒有理由不請白人請黑人」。然而在中國的正常事,到西方世界仍不懂得改絃易轍,就會被杯葛,甚至被視作犯罪行為。Steven受到教訓,應該有所收斂,但要真心改變自己的思想,可能就不容易了。

6 則留言:

匿名 說...

The excuse for reject hiring is white does not like black barister. It does not imply the chinese owner is racist against black.

K 說...

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00014/Html/Text#_Toc374610008

15 Employment

(1) It is unlawful for an employer or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of an employer:

......

匿名 說...

Yes it is against the law. But nothing imply the chinese owner is racist against black as the author suggested. It was a decision based on economic and profit. The chinese owner may as well has a black wife but for financial reason, reject black applicants..

K 說...

//The chinese owner may as well has a black wife but for financial reason, reject black applicants.. //

The point is that does the definition of "Racial discrimination" in the law exclude "for financial reason"??

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00014/Html/Text#_Toc374610008

9 Racial discrimination to be unlawful

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
......

K 說...

It doesn't matter what you think or what you believe, as long as you DID what the law says, it would be "Racial discrimination" because the definition of "Racial discrimination" does not base on what you think or what you believe, it's based on what you DID.
It's therefore you may believe you could get financial lost or even you really got financial lost however, it doesn't change what you did was not Racial discrimination.

龍象般若 說...

傻瓜才告訴你,我為何不請你!