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.”

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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.

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • AngryHumanoid@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        A governor’s statement isn’t codified in law. It’s just the opinion of an official.