Here’s the news story from Canoe. (H/T Blazing Cat Fur)

Excerpt:

A stay-at-home mother trying to re-enter the workforce after nine years away says she can’t understand why the federal government would stop her from applying for a job simply because she is white.

Sara Landriault, a sometime family activist, says that with her kids in school full time she decided to start looking for work outside of the home.

While surfing on the federal government job website, Landriault says she found a position at Citizenship and Immigration Canada she felt she was qualified for but was blocked from submitting her resume because she was not an aboriginal or visible minority.

“I was flabbergasted,” Landriault said in a telephone interview from her home in Kemptville, Ont., just south of Ottawa. “It was insane. I’m white, so I can’t do it?”

Landriault says she has seen job postings in the past that encourage certain groups to apply.

“Which is fine, it’s an equal opportunity position,” Landriault said. “But an equal opportunity employer does not stop one race from applying.”

Do you know why racism only works for the government, and not for private business? It’s because the government has no competitors, so they can do whatever they want without having to worry about the lower productivity for choosing a worker based on racial concerns.

This book review of Robert P. Murphy’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism” makes the point.

Excerpt:

The free market cannot be blamed, an often-repeated argument tells us, for racial discrimination. Quite the contrary, those who discriminate pay a penalty. If an employer refuses to hire people of a certain race or religion, he will pay a penalty.

If an employer has an opening that pays $50,000 in salary, and the Christian applicant will bring in $51,000 in extra revenue while the Muslim will bring in $55,000, then to discriminate against the creed of the latter will cost the employer $4000 in potential profits. (p. 31)

This point, though expressed characteristically well by Murphy, is well known; but it must withstand an objection.

The argument relies on the fact that businessmen aim at maximizing profits; but to do so, must they not endeavor to satisfy consumers? Here precisely the problem arises. What if the consumers themselves hold discriminatory views? Will it not be to the interest of businessmen to satisfy them? Suppose, e.g., that customers in a restaurant would prefer not to be served by blacks. Why would a restaurant owner interested in profit risk the loss of his business by hiring black waitresses?

Murphy again responds in convincing fashion to this difficult problem.

But in cases like this the free market … still punishes discrimination — only this time the customer pays the “racist fee”: the customer pays extra (in the form of inferior service) to be served by a white waitress who is worse at her job than a better-qualified black candidate. (p. 32)

It does not follow from this that people will be unwilling to pay the price: but the fact that the market imposes a cost tends to deter discrimination by consumers. (One might object that this does not cover the case of a black waitress who is an equally good server as her white competitor; in this situation, will not consumers be able to satisfy their prejudiced tastes without penalty? But here the owner has an incentive to hire the black waitress by offering her a lower salary. So long as his loss of business is outweighed by his lower costs, he will do so.)

If a private business discriminates in hiring, they have to pay more for less productivity. If a consumer discriminates against non-racist businesses, they have to pay more for the same quality of product or service. The free market punishes racism already.

I should also point out that the Wintery Knight is not white. I look more like Bobby Jindal – but less handsome. I oppose racism and the Government of Canada is racist.