In her budget speech two weeks ago, Finance Minister Selina Robinson noted that her 颅government had adopted 鈥渇ive foundational principles鈥� to guide all aspects of policy making.
They are, in order: 鈥淧utting people first; lasting and meaningful Aboriginal reconciliation; equity; a better future through fighting climate change; and a strong, sustainable economy that works for everyone.鈥�
Some of this is uncontroversial, if not banal. If you鈥檙e not putting people first, who or what are you putting first? Aliens?
Some of it is revealing. 颅Building the economy is this government鈥檚 last priority, not its first.
But one aspect is 颅disturbing. Note the third principle 鈥斺�渆quity鈥�.
Now why should that concern us? Isn鈥檛 equality one of the basic rights built into our 颅constitution?
Yes, but the government isn鈥檛 promising equality. It is 颅promising equity, an entirely 颅different notion.
Equality is about the rights of individuals. Equity is about the rights of groups, whether they be gender-based, ethnicity-based, age-based, or whatever.
To promote equality, you 颅outlaw discrimination. To 颅promote equity, you champion discrimination.
Here鈥檚 an example. In her budget, Robinson wanted to foster entrepreneurialism. She set aside $300 million for this purpose.
But it turns out not everyone qualifies equally. For Robinson specifically earmarked the money for female and minority entrepreneurs. This is 鈥渆quity鈥� at work.
Why should this bother us? Shouldn鈥檛 we want to see female and minority entrepreneurs 颅succeed?
Yes, of course. But it matters how you go about it.
By all means level the 颅playing field by removing unfair 颅obstacles that affect some groups more than others. If women or minority would-be entrepreneurs can鈥檛 get bank loans on the same terms as men, for instance, put a stop to that.
If landlords won鈥檛 rent store space to them, put a stop to that.
In other words, tackle 颅discrimination at its roots and remove those obstacles.
But that鈥檚 not what Robinson is doing. She鈥檚 using the power of the purse to selectively advance the interests of one group over others.
One of the dangers in this style of thinking is that it 颅tribalizes society. We are not to see each other as individuals and entitled to equal treatment.
Rather we are to see 颅ourselves as members of a demographic or racial group with historical grievances to settle, or unearned benefits to surrender.
But down this road there will never be peace. If your status in society is group-based, then the group must survive even if, in practical terms, substantial 颅progress has already been made.
In this view of things, past grievances are never fully righted. The 颅beneficiaries of past injustice, such as 颅colonialism, can never fully atone.
You see this in the emergence of terms like 颅鈥渕icroaggression,鈥� 鈥渕icroinequities鈥� and 颅鈥渦nconscious bias鈥� to keep 颅ever-diminishing grievances alive.
The embracing of equity theory is no accident. Rather, it is the foundation of identity politics.
You win elections not by appealing to the needs of 颅individual voters, but by sorting them into persecuted groups, then telling them you will spurn their persecutors.
Why adopt such a divisive strategy? Because, to the extent practical, the original goals of progressive parties have been largely accomplished. 颅Unemployment insurance has been introduced, universal health care enacted, income 颅supplements set up, and publicly funded pensions installed.
But with equity theory, a fertile new field for political activism has been opened. This was the disguised intent of last week鈥檚 budget.
