Breast feeding in public

[ronthecivil]

I passed my drivers test, so until I break the law and they say that I can't anymore, it is my right. But I guess that could be a privilege. so in that sense so is life if I commit a crime they can take that from me too.

[Glen Carrig]

PM me when you start that one. I'll be sure to call you out for your 'N Sync fetish.

[Wetcoaster]

I know there not! I just think they should be! I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I understand how and why things are, and they have a point. I just don't think that long term it's a good way of doing things in the long term.

It's impossible to know how much exposure a nursing women intends to be displaying since it's illegal to ask. The wardrobe malfuction may indeed be intentional, but you don't get to know.

The law thinks that even putting a women in a position to say "the wardrobe malfunction is intentional" is over the line. Doesn't really say much about the ability of a women to stand up for herself. Kind of a 1950's looking out for the little lady way of thinking for me.

[Sharpshooter]

I passed my drivers test, so until I break the law and they say that I can't anymore, it is my right. But I guess that could be a privilege. so in that sense so is life if I commit a crime they can take that from me too.

[ronthecivil]

The US tried the all rights are equal doctrine - the Bakke case resulted and they have yet to sort that mess out. Fortunately we learned from their error.

Why should it even interest you since the intention is to feed a child?

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

I think it's within your rights to tell people engaged in a PDA to get a room. After all, how would we know the saying if nobody did?

[Wetcoaster]

I'm going to go ahead and answer your questions.

1. Not saying the baby can't would just like some discretion used for the comfort of the other patrons.

2. I don't think they should feed in a bathroom or even a different room just using a suitable amount of coverage, blanket if the child will use it or just not lifting your shirt up beyond what's necessary.

3. Why is it offensive? It's not offensive, it's just inappropriate in public. Sure the law says it's fine but the law doesn't need to take in account for common courtesy. I don't have to get out of my seat for an elderly or disable person but I do. Why? It's just common courtesy the same courtesy that I'd like when a mother is feeding her child. Why does it have to be an issue? I'm sure there's lots of things other people do that are perfectly legal that make you uncomfortable. Does that mean that you shouldn't be allowed to ask them to stop doing it or maybe find another way to accomplish it in which makes it more comfortable for you?

Honestly, the complete and utter lack of any courtesy to the people who find it uncomfortable from you is utterly ridiculous. You act as if you're being told to feed formula and hang your head in shame for you're disgusting acts.

[Wetcoaster]

I passed my drivers test, so until I break the law and they say that I can't anymore, it is my right. But I guess that could be a privilege. so in that sense so is life if I commit a crime they can take that from me too.

[Sharpshooter]

In your subjective opinion it is inappropriate.

Society speaking through our laws disagrees. This is one of the things that we have identified as a right so the question of inappropriate has already been dealt with.

So in this case asking someone to do something that is their right is not allowed - it is discrimination and it is prohibited.

If it offends your delicate sensibilities - too bad so sad. If you choose to open your mouth and complain then can be consequences.

There are people uncomfortable with mixed race couples - I know as my significant other is Chinese and I have encountered such bigots. However this is also a protected right since it involves race.

Several years back when we were shopping a store cashier made a derogatory remark towards her about "sticking to her own kind" - huge mistake. The cashier, the store and the company never knew what hit them.

I made certain to extract a personal apology, an apology from the President on behalf of the company, an undertaking for sensitivity training for staff and a nice gift card. The option was going to be a blizzard of adverse publicity, a Human Rights Tribunal hearing and a civil damage claim. The company chose to to comply with my demands - and then they fired the employee as I also demanded. Sometimes a nuclear deterrent is the best option and I look on it as an educational tool for bigots.

Feel free to practise discrimination - just recognize that one day you may well make a mistake as to time and place as well as taking on the wrong person that could end up costing you.

[CanuckinEdm]

There's actually a fairly elaborate system of rules in place and failure to comply with them can and will result in your driving PRIVELEGE being revoked.

[Wetcoaster]

LOL. You're absolutely hopeless.

How is public courtesy forcing my opinion on others? You know what, f@ck everyone else. I'll do whatever I want, whenever what I want, without considering those around me.

I'm not the type that would ask people to stop kissing people in public or breast feeding, I for one have no issue with it whatsoever. I'm arguing for principle, logic, rational, and now it looks like I'm also arguing for sanity.

I don't even want the laws changed to make courtesy mandatory, if you've read my previous post, though it should be obvious to everyone that courtesy isn't a discriminatory nor human rights issue nor a legality issue just as how one wouldn't talk loudly while riding a bus.

The real slippery slope is how something as simple and universal as public courtesy is now somehow a violation of your rights in this province.

Cue the violinists! or maybe the fiddlers this time!

[Wetcoaster]

I feel that the human rights tribunal is rife for abuse (See SFU sports coach, public destruction of) and as such the rules that can get you in there should be fully explored.

I don't know about the Bakke case I just feel that long term the rules have to be the same for everyone, and just because laywers can't figure something out doesn't mean I am going to abonded my philosophy. The fact that it doesn't actually match our governments philosophy is within my rights.

How it interested me was the fact that someone was in danger of being dragged into a human rights tribunal for what he thought, rightly or wrongly, was a wardrobe error/malfunction. I can understand refusing service or a job or badgering until you get your way as a legitimate way to get in trouble but a simple request counting as harrassement is over the top, unequal, and rife for abuse. It's not the 1950s, I am fairly certain women can stand up for themselves without having to have big brother government step in on their behalf. I don't think that's a radical position.

However, I agree it is what it is, and it's not like they don't figure it out on their own. After all, if the baby is on the right, you would be looking centre left. However, if the left fails, and suddenly your looking way right, there going to wonder what's going on. Typically they figure it out and fix it on their own.

Now if they are a free spirit going all out, I probably won't be talking to them in the first place (unless required to as a work function but the odds of seeing a women let along a nursing women let along a free spirit nursing women are so incredibly remote that I would almost have to talk to her if only for the sheer amazement factor).

[ronthecivil]

The rules cannot be the same for everyone because people are different. I am not female and I will not be in a position to breast feed a child so those rights will not impact me individually.

The Human Rights Code has identified certain personal and group characteristics which the provincial legislature has deemed worthy of protection - in other words you cannot discriminate against or harass persons based on those enumerated characteristics. They apply to some individuals and groups and not others. Such is life.

[Wetcoaster]

I think the rules can allow for differences without going straight to nuclear on the slightest dissent, as much as that option is apparently popular with you. I know life isn't fair but that doesn't mean we should strive for it to be that way.

Do you not find it troubling that as you mention voicing an opinion that is not consistant with this policy to the government can get you into trouble? Doesn't sound like the work of an open and honest democracy to me.

Do past explotation of the human rights tribunal as a nuclear option against innocent parties not disturb you at all?

[Likewise]

No, I don't kiss my mother with this mouth but I did kiss.....

Oooooh.....That was too easy of an opening Ron...i'll let you go unscathed this time.

Let it not be said that I am not above exercising restraint!

[ronthecivil]

There is no dissent here. If you tell a nursing mother to not nurse in public, cover her baby while nursing or go somewhere else then you have committed a discriminatory act.

Fairness in my lexicon means not acting in a discriminatory manner - and in this case the law clearly tells you what is discriminatory in your dealing with particular individuals. YMMV.

You are free to voice your opinion, lobby the government for change, write a letter to the editor, or even post on CDC. etc. Start a website, blog, etc. No one is stopping you from expressing an opinion at large subject to laws of general application such as defamation.

What you cannot do however is tell a nursing mother not to nurse in public, cover her baby while nursing or go somewhere else to nurse because that is discrimination directed at person who has protected rights (and it could rise to the level of harassment depending on the circumstances) and that discriminatory act is prohibited by law.

It bothers me when an innocent person is convicted in a court of law, it bothers me when civil courts are abused and it bothers me when the Human Rights Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction improperly or exceeds its jurisdiction. However we have appeal courts to deal with the former two and in BC the superior courts under Judicial Review Procedure Act to deal with the latter. Such is the nature of the Rule of Law and our system of courts and tribunals to set up to adjudicate disputes, make findings of fact and law and impose penalties where warranted.

[Hookman]

<br />They both can. Heck, the women can take her shirt off just cuz she feels like it. It's not against the law.<br />

[Wetcoaster]

Fair enough. You must have interpreted my statements about complaining as being directed towards a nursing mother as opposed to the government earlier when you mentioned the consequences of doing so. I was kind of wondering how thinking the new law (as in the law itself) prohibiting mentioning anything with regards to covering being automatic discimination and grounds for a human rights tribunal as being heavy handed could someone be problematic, last I checked I am allowed to disagree with a law. I could see harrassing random mothers about my political beef as being problematic. Granted I asked some pretty dangerous what ifs but it's was more in the interest of seeing what the boundaries of the law were as opposed to going out and actually practicing them.

I stand by my belief that this law is rife for abuse and regardless of the higher courts ability to "fix" the problem once you get dragged into the human rights tribunal the nuclear option is predeployed and no amount of fixing can bring it back to the way it was. Only a lawyer would actually think more court cases are a fix....

I prefer the common courtesy, common sense, and no courts option myself. To each his own I guess.

[Sharpshooter]

That's actually what I said to your mother last night

[ronthecivil]

The BC superior courts provide supervisory jurisdiction to lower courts and to administrative tribunals. That is our system. On the whole it works quite well when you consider how many cases pass through the courts and various tribunals on an on-going basis. the anomalies and sensational cases tend to be reported and the vast majority of cases that are mundane every day proceeding are pretty much ignored.

It is always open to the provincial legislature to change a particular decision or interpretation of the Human Rights Code or amend it if need be (subject of course as always of the Charter as it is the supreme law of Canada).

It is fine to have common courtesy and common sense however it has been my experience that those particular things are often quite uncommon these days. While you cannot for the most part legislate common sense and common courtesy you can legislate against discriminatory behaviour.

Courts and tribunals exist to enforce laws, ensure compliance with laws and where necessary impose penalties. In the example of a nursing mother they may come into play when someone commits a discriminatory act. Sometimes the possibility of a hearing is sufficient to obtain compliance as has occurred in the instant case of the Victoria mother and the bus driver. The media obviously played a role in the settlement in that case. The case also serves as tool to educate other people both within BC Transit and in other organizations that serve the public.

The result was obtained without the need for a tribunal hearing, much like the issue with my partner and myself was resolved. But without the Human Rights Code and the potential hammer of a tribunal hearing (and its attendant unfavourable publicity - and I can assure there would have been a good deal of unfavourable publicity had it been necessary to push ahead), it is unlikely corrective action would have been applied.

Part of the function of the Human Rights Tribunal is education, shaping behaviour to comply with the law and to a certain extent deterrence of discriminatory acts and behaviour.