There happen to be two rather different dictionary definitions of the word “discriminate” but far too often they are conflated. One has to do with simply differentiating between one thing and another. The second use of the word has to do with an unfair or prejudicial treatment of another person, based on things like race, age, sex and so on.
Since too many folks are unable to keep these two definitions separate (that is, they are unable to properly discriminate!), let me offer two quick examples of this. The first has to do with the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team (I am originally from Wisconsin).
Let’s say I demand that the Bucks hire me as part of their NBA team. If for some reason they say ‘NO’ to me quite forcefully, they have discriminated against me. But of course they have very good reason to discriminate against me: I am in my 70s, I am overweight, I never played a game of professional basketball in my life, and I live in Australia! And I am not Black (the NBA is 75% Black).
The Bucks would be perfectly justified in discriminating against me. And by the way, are the Bucks and every other professional basketball team in America being discriminatory and bigoted and prejudiced because the majority of their players are Black?
Second example. Let’s say I own a large home and live there all by myself. My house has various spare rooms including extra bedrooms. Suppose an old friend of mine tells me he has fallen on hard times, lost his job, and is now homeless, and he asks if he can live with me for a while. I can let him stay with me if I so desire – but I do not have to.
Suppose a dozen drug addicts or gang members pound on my door, demanding that I take them in, feed them, look after them, and pay all their bills. I would be perfectly justified in saying ‘no’. It is my house and I decide who I let in and who I do not let in. There is absolutely nothing unjust or unfair about this. My house, my rules. I am under no moral or legal obligation to admit anyone.
The Federal Liberals and discrimination
I say all this because once again the mainstream media and leftist loons are screaming ‘discrimination!’ over something the Liberal Party and leader Angus Taylor have just said. Finally getting some moral and mental backbone, the Libs are now calling out open slather mass migration, and are seeking to distinguish between those who are welcome to come to Australia and those who are not. Part of their media release says this:
Leader of the Opposition Angus Taylor said the Coalition will protect Australians’ way of life and restore Australians’ living standards by reforming our migration system. “Since Labor came to power, Australia’s migration program has been in chaos. Numbers have been too high and standards have been too low,” Mr Taylor said.
“We have people in Australia who seek to undermine our country. The Coalition’s plan will change this for the better by restoring integrity, rebuilding confidence, and ensuring our migration system serves the national interest. “The Coalition will pursue a values-based migration scheme that puts Australian values first, and shuts the door to those who hate our country or abuse our legal system to stay here without a right to do so.”
Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Immigration Senator Jonno Duniam said the Coalition’s plan reinforces Australia’s right to choose who comes in and under what circumstances they come through enforceable laws. “Living in Australia is a privilege not a right,” Senator Duniam said. “Our plan will strengthen our borders, fix our broken migration system and ensure Australia is a safe and united nation.”
Makes perfect sense to me. This is not unfair or unjust discrimination. This is common sense, and something vitally needed lest Australia keeps going down the path of national and cultural suicide. It may have taken the Libs too long to finally take a strong stand on this, but I am glad they finally found the nerve to do so.
We all discriminate
The simple truth is this: we all discriminate all the time. And it’s a good thing too. No individual, family, community or country can last long if there is no sensible and rational discrimination going on. This is true on a national level and true on an individual level.
When I chose one woman to be my wife out of all the other women in the world, I discriminated in her favour and against all the others. When I bought my wife jewellery for her birthday, I got it from one store, discriminating against all the other stores. When I go out to a restaurant with my family, I choose a few menu items while discriminating against the rest.
When I told my children when they were young that certain things were off limits, I was being discriminatory. When I give some money to my grown-up children, but not to other people’s children, I have discriminated. When I decide to live in one city I have decided to discriminate against other cities.
Nations also must discriminate in all sorts of areas: who they take in and who they keep out; which nations they might send foreign aid to and which ones they do not; which legislation they pass and which legislation they reject; where tax dollars are spent and where tax dollars are not spent.
All of life is about making careful and thoughtful distinctions and engaging in wise and moral differentiations. As I wrote in an earlier piece on these matters:
Time was when a man could be praised for having discriminating tastes. It was a mark of being able to make fine differentiations. Discernment, judgment and careful evaluation also used to be regarded as virtues. But today of course the word discrimination has almost only bad connotations.
We are told we are not allowed to discriminate. Well, it all depends. There are plenty of things that we should discriminate against. We should discriminate against Nazis, paedophiles and arsonists. We should be discriminating when it comes to right and wrong. We should in fact discriminate all the time, in appropriate circumstances.
When I look both ways before crossing a busy intersecting, I am discerning, evaluating, discriminating. This is one clear understanding of the term. But the word discrimination also can mean a difference in treatment. I discriminate in favour of my children for example when I buy them ice creams but not all the other kids on the block.
We discriminate against rogue states – by means of economic sanctions for example – when they are not being responsible members of the world community. And all sorts of clubs, groups and institutions discriminate by allowing who they want in.
This is normally quite sensible and rational, and we do it all the time. We have normal Olympics, and we have para-Olympics. We have men’s events in the Olympics, and we have women’s events. We have spelling contests for those under a certain age, and for those over a certain age. For the most part no one has any trouble with this.
At least until recently. Now, because of various anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity legislation, we are getting into all sorts of strife. And when you add religious vilification laws into the mix, then you really do have trouble. https://billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/23/in-praise-of-discrimination/
Australia and the West has drifted so far from common sense and looking after their own citizens, that when Taylor very rightly and sensibly says we should be more discerning and discriminating in terms of who comes to Australia, the leftists and woke commentariat throw a hissy fit. Well, I am glad the Libs have finally found a bit of backbone and some clear thinking here.
Their plan might not be foolproof, nor a panacea, but they are not competing against any other panaceas here!
Many thanks for this. The tragedy is that many churches, as well as politicians, have been greatly influenced by the ‘no discrimination’ creed of cultural Marxism, and have utterly misapplied it in respect of the need of whether nations should control their borders or not. Another result of this secular creed is the idea that it is wrong for a nation to have a distinctly Christian identity. This raises all sorts of constitutional issues. For example, should there be non-Christian chaplains in the armed forces?
Finally. Some common sense.
Thanks Russell.
Many thanks for this. The tragedy is that many churches, as well as politicians, have been greatly influenced by the ‘no discrimination’ creed of cultural Marxism, and have utterly misapplied it in respect of the need of whether nations should control their borders or not. Another result of this secular creed is the idea that it is wrong for a nation to have a distinctly Christian identity. This raises all sorts of constitutional issues. For example, should there be non-Christian chaplains in the armed forces?
Thank you Peter.