- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill Saturday that would have made California the first U.S. state to outlaw caste-based discrimination.
Caste is a division of people related to birth or descent. Those at the lowest strata of the caste system, known as Dalits, have been pushing for legal protections in California and beyond. They say it is necessary to protect them from bias in housing, education and in the tech sector — where they hold key roles.
Earlier this year, Seattle became the first U.S. city to add caste to its anti-discrimination laws. On Sept. 28, Fresno became the second U.S. city and the first in California to prohibit discrimination based on caste by adding caste and indigeneity to its municipal code.
In his message Newsom called the bill “unnecessary,” explaining that California “already prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, and other characteristics, and state law specifies that these civil rights protections shall be liberally construed.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Y’all, by banning this, someone who is the victim of caste discrimination has to first prove that caste discrimination even exists.
And every victim will have to prove this every time.
Yeah, it’s a terrible idea. You want such discrimination to be legally responded to using existing non-discrimination law, not something specific to it.
You completely misunderstood.
Because there is nothing specific to caste discrimination in existing law the victims will need to prove discrimination even exists in order to actually use existing non-discrimination law. Without specific protections the burden is on the victim to prove they were victimized at all.
Without specific protections the burden is on the victim to prove they were victimized at all.
I don’t understand. How would the new law have helped people who can’t prove they’re being discriminated against? How would that work?
It would create a clear burden of proof by defining caste discrimination in exact terms, which they could then use to make their case.
Without specificity, they have to prove caste discrimination exists and then prove that they meet the criteria.
What would this law have done to change it? How would it be applied? I hope that doesn’t sound like a bad faith question because I’m actually curious.
National origin/ancestry: Dalit. Seems covered?
deleted by creator
I wonder how much lobbying came from the tech industry where caste discrimination is definitely a thing
I’m in the tech industry, but not in California and I have never seen cast discrimination. How does this happen in California and gore is it not illegal based on current laws as Newsom is saying?
Here is a fun game: Your job probably has an org chart that lets you see the employee hierarchy. Now, realize that Indian last names almost always denote cast. Understand how to discern cast from names and take a look at your org chart.
I am a white tech worker, so I didn’t think much of cast discrimination since I personally never saw even a hint of it at my job. But then I looked at our org cart and oh boy… I now am firmly in the camp that says cast discrimination should be regulated.
We had some “prince” or something. He was horrible at his job, lost his temper often. He even yelled “How dare you put your feet up in my presence” once. This was a big company to. He was protected by his fellow caste members. Never fired. He eventually went back home instead because he didn’t like not being treated well in the US. Even those who protected him were glad he left.
“How dare you treat me like mere human?!”
Some people need to be reminded that we all bleed the same color.
I heard about the bill a few weeks ago on The Daily. Shortly after I was on LinkedIn and noticed that some of the devs from my company and a company that mine contracts with would only list a last initial. It made me wonder if the reason for that was because of caste discrimination.
I work in AAA games now. We don’t have a lot of Indians.
I wonder if it’s actually worse when names indicate how high someone was born or if it just makes identifying it easier. That said, that’s awful and either way I’d be happy if something was done about it.
“Unnecessary”
what
Eh I see why people would have a visceral reaction to the veto but he (probably) has a point: if the existing laws can already be applied to caste discrimination as they are currently written it isn’t technically necessary, having said that I don’t see what it would hurt to add caste discrimination specifically. Any lawyers feel free to chime in on other side of the argument.
“Can be” is not necessarily “will be”. You can bet your ass that next time someone brings a caste discrimination suit up the defendent’s lawyers will point to the explicit lack of laws against caste discrimination to try to get their client off. Whether that has a high chance of success is besides the point - it is much more ambiguous than it would be with a law explicitly addressing the issue. It had gone through the legislature. All he had to do was sign. It’s a big “the fuck” moment.
hmm, I mean, the law does explicitly mention discrimination based on ancestry. the caste system is just a structure of ancestral discrimination. one could argue that caste is interchangeable with ancestry for the purpose of this law. i can see why he wouldn’t want a different law to ban every synonym and foreign language word for a thing that’s already banned.
There will always be a lawyer who will use any ridiculous argument to get their client off, that is literally their function. By the same argument the opposing counsel can point to the governors statement that other laws should be applicable, can’t they?
A governor’s statement isn’t codified in law. It’s just the opinion of an official.
Sure, but I’d love to hear a smart lawyer use a governor’s statement while arguing before a jury.
We have laws that ban harming someone and we also have laws that ban killing someone. Clearly there is overlap between harming and killing yet we have laws for both. Laws must be made to clarify these situations, otherwise as we’ve seen recently the courts can just interpret them however they want based on the judge’s personal views, even if it means completely reversing decades of existing precedent.
Like I said, I don’t see the harm in spelling it out even if it is superfluous, it does make me wonder if he vetoed it for another reason and doesn’t want to say.
The reason is silicon valley, where managers of Indian descent routinely hold back people from lower castes. Seattle were the first to ban caste discrimination, and Amazon and Microsoft were not supportive of that.
In that case the difference is one of severity both of the crime and the punishment. If you’re not making caste discrimination a more serious offense than regular discrimination (which I don’t think we should) then the law is redundant.
I read this as hammering (🔨) and I was like… we have a law specifically for that??
Can the existing laws be applied to caste discrimination? They haven’t been so far.
Do we know that? Is there case law?
No, there has so far been one lawsuit that it still being litigated. There is a legal argument that caste discrimination would be protected by existing law, but that theory hasn’t been tested yet.
Does that mean caste discrimination does not exist in the USA? Or does it mean no one has yet felt like the law would be on their side?
As a American - we don’t really get the need. It’s a law specifically for indians and their culture. Which is problematic because laws shouldn’t be laser targeted to specific cultures or regions.
Rather than push a law, instead push for education. If you’re discriminated against by your boss because you’re of a different caste, you have tools for that.
As an Indian I completely disagree. Caste discrimination should’ve died a long time ago, and it being a socioeconomic + cultural thing makes it difficult to target with discrimination laws.
Just amend the bill to ban any religious based discrimination where someone is considered lesser.
you have tools for that.
Quitting?
Without being able to prove that your irrelevant “caste” was the cause of unfavorable treatment, your argument is just that they don’t like you. They would have to say that they are discriminating against you because you have “lesser” lineage, which they won’t.
Are they being applied to caste discrimination though?
I don’t know, that’s where we would need a CA lawyer to chime in. Obviously that’s where this issue could go either way.
This is exactly why conservatives said they vetoed enshrining gay marriage in federal law. Instead of owning up to being bigots, they said “oh but the law already covers that”.
I’ve come to learn that “the law already covers that so it’s unnecessary” is a smoke screen and deflective argument.
If there are laws that ban discrimination for any reason, why should there be more laws banning discrimination for specific reasons?
The laws don’t ban discrimination for ‘any reason’, they ban discrimination for a number of reasons with the specification that those reasons should be applied broadly. There is a distinct difference.
Exactly. It would be pretty stupid for a governor to say existing laws already apply when they don’t, but I don’t exactly trust any politician to tell the truth unless it’s politically expedient for them.
It’s one of those things where existing laws could apply, but are less effective than spelling it out when there’s an issue. Law, after all, is not about elegance, it’s about precision.
Someone elsewhere in the thread pointed out the US doesn’t acknowledge caste at all, so maybe that’s why they don’t want to codify caste discrimination as that alone could lend credence to caste even being a thing.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
I wonder if that was applied to everybody.
Well it says “all Men.” Explicitly excluding women and children. Of course one can argue that that the literal text wasn’t what was really intended by the founders. That would be “all White land-owning Men.” 250 years later, that intention is still writ large on American society, even though we like to pretend that “they obviously meant ‘all People.’”
Here’s hoping the California legislature can override that veto.
All men are equal, it’s just that some are more equal than others /sarcasm
Remember kids, if the law doesn’t specifically mention something, you can’t trust the implication that it should be covered.
deleted by creator
But at the same time, what exactly does caste discrimination even look like? Just writing a law against it doesn’t make it not a problem.
I get the feeling that someone who is facing caste discrimination (whatever that looks like) is also unlikely to be able to take legal action against the perpetrators due to the cost.
This is the worse of the two vetoes I read; what would the addition of the bill cost anyway?
“already prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, and other characteristics, and state law specifies that these civil rights protections shall be liberally construed.”
Caste falls under that stuff already…
The protections are already there, and making a specific law just for this would only legitimize that caste is a real thing and not some bullshit Indians did to discriminate amongst themselves.
So the bill would have accomplished nothing.
Caste doesn’t fall under any of these. Because people are clearly willing to hire Hindu people born in India of any gender. So you aren’t discriminating against race, national origins, religion, color, or gender. Since the USA doesn’t acknowledge caste it can’t differentiate between two people of different caste just because of their caste.
The only thing you mentioned that might apply is “Ancestry” but I can’t find a description of it since it isn’t listed under the protected classes list.
Discrimination isn’t inherently illegal. For example, you totally can discriminate against people under the age of 40. Which does happen. Many landlords won’t rent to people under 30 and that’s perfectly legal.
But as you pointed out USA doesn’t acknowledge caste, so specifying caste discrimination would be bad, so making sure it can be prosecuted under the “general” discrimination laws makes more sense, doesn’t it?
There are no “general” discrimination laws. There are only protected classes. As I said earlier you totally can discriminate against people as long as they don’t fall under a protected class. And caste isn’t covered by the existing protected classes. So even if you can prove discrimination based on caste is happening, it wouldn’t be illegal at a federal level.
Outlawing something doesn’t legitimate something. It just acknowledges that it is happening and requires action. And caste based discrimination is happening. Currently it’s just legal.
No offense but I kinda feel like you know what I meant when I said “general” discrimination laws, as in “existing discrimination laws”.
From some quick googling “The California law bars discrimination on the basis on ancestry. Dalit lawyers believe that caste discrimination is covered under it. Legal scholars have also argued that caste discrimination is cognizable as race discrimination, religious discrimination and national origin discrimination.”
Like I said originally, I don’t see why specifying caste would be an issue. This hasn’t been tested in court in CA yet but clearly we can see why the argument is being made that existing laws already cover it.
If caste is none of those things, explain what you think caste is then…
Because I want to see your attempt at saying something that doesn’t fit the other protections already
Caste is a social hierarchy mainly based on the job your ancestors had.
In India there are 5 major caste categories but in total there are around 25,000 sub castes. Only the “untouchables” might be protected as they are often of different religion or ethnicity.
But the other 4 major castes are of the same race, ethnicity, national origins, color, gender, and religion. There is a tendency of darker skin colors being more prominent in lower castes but it’s not a defining property of caste and you can find people of any complexion in each caste.
But maybe you can tell me which current protected class would differentiate between someone of the Kshatriyas and the the Vaishyas caste.
“job your ancestors had” sounds a lot like ancestry.
It does seem like it would fall under “no discrimination based on ancestry”, but I feel like a lawyer could argue otherwise.
I’m gonna have to stick with my original answer then
The protections are already there, and making a specific law just for this would only legitimize that caste is a real thing and not some bullshit Indians did to discriminate amongst themselves.
You think “caste” is a real measurable thing and want us to pass laws that also act like it’s a real difference…
/thread
It would cost the votes of people who like caste discrimination.
Indigeneity was also part of it.
That would give Native Americans the right to claim all kinds of discrimination.
It might even affect fossil fuel explorations and water resources.
Can’t have that.
So Hindus?
Or anyone who likes discrimination for its own sake.
Specifically Brahmin hindus. Ie the elites
Uh no. That’s not true. Caste discrimination can happen without either party being Brahmin.
There are lot of intercaste hierarchies and dynamics.
They need an explicit law because many of the perpetrators of this crime are immigrants, and it should be grounds for immediate and permanent deportation.
deleted by creator
Let’s ban Zodiac sign discrimination or scientology thetan level discrimination! No! Giving these things recognition under law, even if negative, legitimized them.
This was a stupid law to begin with and Newsom is right for vetoing it. Stopping caste discrimination is an education and enforcement problem, not a legislative one.
I don’t understand - and I respect Newsom so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt - what’s the harm in having a specific law?
Because it would imply that this law would do anything to stop the problem. Caste discrimination is already illegal, so why does California need a redundant set of laws?
Sounds like more specificity can only help? I dunno, maybe it’s not worth the red tape and effort to implement.
Wow. He actually does have some common sense.
