🚀 go-pugleaf

Pierre Breton (breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU) wrote:

>In article <1993Sep1.160425.1272@mdivax1.uucp>, mdivax1!robinson@pobox.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>|> Pierre Breton (breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU) wrote:
>|> >(...)
>|> >Have you ever wondered what it means to be equal in liberties 
>|> >but not equal in power?
>|> 
>|> I do not expect to be equal in power to everyone else; e.g. the president
>|> of Motorola is much more powerful than I am. What I do expect is to have an
>|> equal *opportunity* at achieving those things that I deem important (which
>|> may or may not include power), and I also expect to be treated equally
>|> before the law. I *especially* expect to be treated equally without regard
>|> to my gender, race, or religion (or lack thereof). 

>The notion of equality is very attractive although it remains vague.  
>What are the quantities that are meant to be equal?  

Equality of opportunity and equality before the law wrt race, gender and
religion. The latter is easy enough to do. The former requires quite a bit
more work to define and implement. For example, I would argue that a child
who does not have access to a decent education is being denied equality of
opportunity; others would probably disagree w/ me. This is admittedly a
grey area, but the calendar issue and the SC ruling are not grey at all.
They are both clear examples of double standards wrt gender; and such
double standards, by definition, deny equality.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson