3 ms·

Newsom pointed to ancestry, which covers caste perfectly because it's all about ancestry. > That this discrimination is occurring is not up for debate, it is o

Newsom pointed to ancestry, which covers caste perfectly because it's all about ancestry. > That this discrimination is occurring is not up for debate, it is objective fact Source for this so called objective fact? > which demonstrates the existing laws are not sufficient? Even it true it doesn't doesn't demonstrate that. There are strict laws against murder, theft, assault etc. and they happen quite frequently. The fact that they are occurring doesn't automatically mean existing laws are not sufficient. Is there any country in the world where crime has been totally eliminated by just passing a million laws?

olliej 3y ago
> Source for this so called objective fact? This law came about after a case about caste discrimination against Cisco was dismissed. Or you can do some basic searches of twitter and mastodon for first hand accounts. > Even it true it doesn't doesn't demonstrate that. There are strict laws against murder, theft, assault etc. and they happen quite frequently. The fact that they are occurring doesn't automatically mean existing laws are not sufficient. Is there any country in the world where crime has been totally eliminated by just passing a million laws? What? The whole point of this is that caste discrimination exists, and it happens, and it's not illegal. Pointing to things like murder, theft, etc is bizarre: all of those things are illegal, so when they happen the person responsible has broken the law. That's literally the point. Currently caste discrimination is not explicitly against the law, so your example would only ever be relevant if murder, theft, or assault were not already illegal. Seriously, I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It's also explicitly illegal to discriminate based on race and gender and that happens, but the victims can sue precisely because it is illegal.
- belltaco 3y ago
  Cisco case was dismissed coz it was made up bs. Not because of lack of laws. https://theprint.in/opinion/dismissal-of-cisco-case-proves-engineers-were-targetted-because-they-were-hindu-brahmin/1532070/ https://theprint.in/opinion/dismissal-of-cisco-case-proves-e...

olliej 3y ago

> Source for this so called objective fact? This law came about after a case about caste discrimination against Cisco was dismissed. Or you can do some basic searches of twitter and mastodon for first hand accounts. > Even it true it doesn't doesn't demonstrate that. There are strict laws against murder, theft, assault etc. and they happen quite frequently. The fact that they are occurring doesn't automatically mean existing laws are not sufficient. Is there any country in the world where crime has been totally eliminated by just passing a million laws? What? The whole point of this is that caste discrimination exists, and it happens, and it's not illegal. Pointing to things like murder, theft, etc is bizarre: all of those things are illegal, so when they happen the person responsible has broken the law. That's literally the point. Currently caste discrimination is not explicitly against the law, so your example would only ever be relevant if murder, theft, or assault were not already illegal. Seriously, I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It's also explicitly illegal to discriminate based on race and gender and that happens, but the victims can sue precisely because it is illegal.

belltaco 3y ago
Cisco case was dismissed coz it was made up bs. Not because of lack of laws. https://theprint.in/opinion/dismissal-of-cisco-case-proves-engineers-were-targetted-because-they-were-hindu-brahmin/1532070/ https://theprint.in/opinion/dismissal-of-cisco-case-proves-e...