|
|
其实,澳洲很多反歧视的法律都是有的,但华人总是相对比较低调,遇事宁愿息事宁人,不愿拿起法律武器去给那些人一些教训,结果给人觉得软弱可欺(龙应台就写过一篇"中国人,你为什么不生气"),能拍案而起,为了尊严而较真的华人是太少了.
很多澳洲白人(尤其是英裔),他们的歧视并非那种很露骨的做法,而是在言语间暗藏的"傲慢与偏见",其中,在工作场所以英语不好来攻击非英语系国家移民最常见.
这段时间,我们那就出了这么一桩事,一个能力很一般的本地白人主管(英裔),为了掩盖其能力不足,不断攻击同组的非英语系国家移民英语写的不好,刚开始大家也就忍了,可无论报告怎么改,她总能挑些刺来说事.大家气不过,一翻有关条文,发现原来这也是一种 INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION, 于是就联合向UNIT HEAD反映,并表示不排除采取进一步的起诉行动,结果那家伙当场就蔫吧了.
所以, 行动最重要,为了咱们自己的切实利益,也为了咱们的后代免遭不公正的待遇,对身边的 DIRECT OR INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION,大家都要敢于拍案而起.
下附关于那个关于语言方面 INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION的条文,给可能用的着的朋友一个参考:
Another form of indirect discrimination is where a person with a
particular attribute is treated less favourably because of an imposed
requirement that they cannot comply with, but which a person who does
not have that attribute can comply with.
/Kumaran v Rail Infrastructure Corporation & Anor / (2005) NSWADT
Mr Kumaran was Sri Lankan by birth and upbringing. English was not his
first language. He was contracted as an estimator at Rail Services
Australia (RSA) for three months. After three months, RSA advised Mr
Kumaran his contract would not be renewed.
Mr Kumaran's supervisor at RSA, Mr Gill, gave evidence that Mr Kumaran
was not employed because of his poor writing skills.
Mr Kumaran complained to the Anti-discrimination Board that RSA had
discriminated against him on the ground of race. He argued that the
apparently neutral requirement imposed upon him by RSA with regard to
the standard of his written English expression was indirectly
discriminatory.
The Tribunal noted that Mr Gill required all of the estimators employed
by RSA to have a reasonable standard of English expression that would
neither convey inaccurate information nor compromise RSA's professional
reputation and that writing needed to comply with a certain standard.
The Tribunal found that it was reasonable to expect the written work of
an estimator to convey information that was accurate and correct.
However, they found that the requirement "that the form of Mr Kumaran's
written expression conform to Mr Gills' expectations" in terms of syntax
and form of English expression used, was not reasonable. Furthermore, Mr
Gill had not given Mr Kumaran any clear or consistent instructions as to
what was expected of him in relation to his use of grammar and syntax.
The Tribunal said, "It will often in business be reasonable to require
that written English be of a certain standard. But such a requirement
might be unreasonable in circumstances where, as in this case it was,
its terms are such that compliance with it is a matter of subjective
judgement by another person, and that person fails to given guidance as
to how the requirement might in future be complied with".
The Tribunal therefore concluded that RSA had indirectly discriminated
against Mr Kumaran on the ground of race in that they had "required Mr
Kumaran to comply with a requirement which such a substantially higher
proportion of persons not of Mr Kumaran's race were able to comply".
The Tribunal found that Mr Kumaran had been indirectly discriminated
against on the basis of race. It awarded him damages of $2,000. |
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
发表于 18-3-2007 02:56:29
收藏
赞
踩
楼主
