Can a positive discrimination be used to overcome ethnic discrimination?

“Positive discrimination is regarded as the preferential treatment of members of a minority group over a majority group, either by sex, race, age, marital status or sex orientation.”

Could this thing be positive? Could discrimination be a positive thing at all?

Correct answer is no. It is not right to favour one group of people over another, no matter of the reasons you are doing it. This regards to positive discrimination as well. There are so many laws protecting minority groups by race, gender, sexual orientation and so on, but actually no laws protecting the majority of ordinary people. Why is that? Probably laws are protecting minorities so heavily that at some point they start discriminating the majority.

I will illustrate my thoughts by giving an example with Eastern Europe. Everyone knows about the ethnic conflicts that are taking place on the Balkans. There are many minority groups which cannot or do not want to get integrated which causes many ethnic conflicts. Probably one of the most problematic minority groups the Eastern European countries all have is the Roma minority. There is a particular problem in these countries because the percentage of Roma population there is higher. Basically these people or at least most of them do not integrate to the countries they live in and do not even consider themselves as their citizens. Sometimes they cannot even speak the language properly. But the biggest problem is that they live a nomad life and do not follow the rules. They pay no taxes, do all kinds of fraud, riot, abandon their children or send them to beg or steal, etc. Basically they are living off the state.

This is a huge problem the Eastern European countries face with this minority. Unfortunately they cannot do anything about it. They cannot restrict the Roma because it would be considered as an act of discrimination by the Western European countries which suggest that the Roma population should be integrated. But let’s not forget the fact that in August 2010, France expelled from the country a number of Bulgarian and Romanian Roma families and with this act it violated their rights of European citizens which was an overt discrimination.  It also outraged the 2004 EU directive on freedom of movement. However France is one of the leading countries in the European Union and also one of its founders so it had the power to uphold the decision to export the “unwanted Europeans” even though the EU tried to take steps towards legal action against France.

Eastern European countries cannot do anything like that because some of them are new members of the EU and they are not in a position to take decisions which will be contested by the other EU member states. So here we come again with the Roma citizens extradited back to their countries. But the governments of these countries are not allowed to do anything against them because it would be considered as an act of discrimination. On the other hand they cannot integrate them because of the specificity of this ethnic minority as it is not amendable to integration. So here it comes the problem with positive discrimination. The majority of the population is discriminated against because for example if a Bulgarian or Romanian citizen does not pay their electricity bill, it will be switched off. But if a Roma citizen does not pay, nothing will happen to them.

Positive discrimination is even worse than the normal discrimination because you benefit just a small group of people at the expense of the society. That is why I think Eastern Europeans are not racists or discriminators they are the real victims of discrimination. And discrimination in any form cannot be a solution to a particular problem. Because problems do not have colour or gender and they cannot be solved this way.

Can a brutal murder be classified as a manifestation of justice?

 20 October 2011, Muammar Gaddafi is dead! A new era in Libyan history has begun. But one question remains…should it happen this way?

Undoubtedly Gaddafi was one of the world’s most cruel dictators. There would be no point in enumerating his acts, but a constant emphasis is put on the fact that he had shown no mercy to his own people.

Тhe Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor Ashraf

The number of victims of his regime is countless. Let’s not forget about Lockerbie bombings or the eight years of torturing the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian. All being topped up by their unfair trail.  Also the great number of killing, disappearing  or tortures in prisons, suffered by opponents of the regime. All which gave him an ironically sad nickname , “mad dog of the Middle East” by chance.

But let’s not get into headlines which were seen in newspapers the world over. However,  the brutal murder of anyone, no matter who they are, is still questionable.  The so called fighters of the temporary rule in Libya, who in the beginning of the conflict were determined as rebels by the press, are Libya’s heroes today.

But are they actual heroes? Of course, there has always been a debate over the right of killing someone in certain conditions…Are they the defenders of democracy or are they a blood-thirsty group of people with misunderstood ideals of freedom and justice?

The killing of Gaddafi

If the act of killing on its own may be rationalized, there is little room left for morality in the fact that they celebrated over his dead body. This can easily be considered inhumane and it may be argued if this is the first step for the “fighters for freedom” to become just like Gaddafi. With their act, they have also revoked the right of the victims of the colonel’s regime to see him brought to trial and sentenced for his crimes. They have revoked them the right for justice, and receiving what it might be seen as a more fair punishment than death.

The international Human Rights organisation “Amnesty International” has accused of war crimes not only Gaddafi’s regime, but the rebels as well. In a 122 pages report it is said that the rebels have kidnapped, tortured and murdered people suspected (not even proved to be) of loyalty to Gaddafi’s regime. They have also executed (without trial) a great number of mercenaries from Serbia, Russia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Croatia and so on. So we find ourselves questioning… can a wrong be made right by doing wrong? Can crimes against human rights be considered moral acts in an environment in which people were deprived of them in the first place?

The killing of Gaddafi…is it justice? Or is it an act of inhumanity preventing Libyans to break up with their past and put human rights in the heart of their new political system?

As for actual justice… for the triumph of it, a way of doing things ‘the right way’ (according to the democratic, western way of doing things), everyone should pay the penalty of their crimes, both Gaddafi’s supporters and opponents participating in the war. This means the colonel’s murder should be investigated and its authors hold responsible .

Equity and Freedom, values that a young state should hold dear in order to start a fresh, new chapter…can Libya manage to achieve it? Only time will tell…