Mr. Ambien Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I disagree - nothing "politically correct" or "nitpicking garbage" about this. Your stereotyping and "reasoning" are precisely what is being targeted for change by the Ontario legislature - it is one of the major reasons for the OHRC being enacted in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derr12 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 What is so puzzling about it? She is clearly an irritable scrunt looking for a pissing match. If what i saw up the thread was true and she refused the offer of service from another employee not bound by the muslim faith... seems kinda like she is bullying these guys because they are different doesnt it? I would certainly understand if I was placed in the same position. People of religion can offend easely and common canadian courtisy demands that i try and respect them. I would have thanked them and gone next door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derr12 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Stereotyping and my "reasoning" are human nature, something no dumb ass law can change. Maybe this time the person didn't have tact enough to find a way around it but given how it would be perfectly legal for a female only taxi cab service clearly discriminating against men, I prefer government to let a business hang itself monetarily (if it's really bad business) than pretend the pompous and easily circumvented politically correct way of engaging in extensive behaviour modification is really a solution or even that viable, when the rule itself is a form of discrimination in practice. I guess though as far as a lawyer is concerned, the more intrusively involved government is the better off we are. Not for me, no thanks. Some of us know how to deal with discrimination and the sort without nanny government holding our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niloc009 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 So I guess Muslim men should be prohibited from cutting anyone's hair, since they can't cut women's hair, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 I think this has been beaten to death by now. It's pretty cut and dry as far as I'm concerned, religious freedom however crazy trumps right to service, the fact that the barber didn't employ a female stylist is the bigger issue. *unfollow* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 So you are saying that religious officials can refuse to marry a gay couple because they have an exemption under current law. What happens if the human rights tribunal rules in favour of the barber? Will that create a precedent that says barbers can refuse to cut womens hair because of religious reasons? And is this one of the situations where religous freedom must yield to the public interest? Is refusing to cut a woman's hair on par with denying gay marriage? ie. is this really a frivlous challenge by the complainant since there are plenty of other men barbers who will cut womens hair. Why she choose this particular barber to go after is puzzling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Stereotyping and my "reasoning" are human nature, something no dumb ass law can change. Maybe this time the person didn't have tact enough to find a way around it but given how it would be perfectly legal for a female only taxi cab service clearly discriminating against men, I prefer government to let a business hang itself monetarily (if it's really bad business) than pretend the pompous and easily circumvented politically correct way of engaging in extensive behaviour modification is really a solution or even that viable, when the rule itself is a form of discrimination in practice. I guess though as far as a lawyer is concerned, the more intrusively involved government is the better off we are. Not for me, no thanks. Some of us know how to deal with discrimination and the sort without nanny government holding our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Your stereotyping and "reasoning" are not human nature and it is precisely that sort of thinking that the law can target and change. We have chosen to set out rules for businesses to serve the general public based upon equality and provision of services without violating certain grounds that have been designated as discriminatory. I am in favour of government intervention that mandates equality and many without this sort of enforcement mechanism many have no effective means to deal with discrimination. Personally as white male Anglo native born Canadian and being the in majority. I have not experienced discrimination but I have most certainly seen it operate against members of the classes set out in human rights codes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 What is so puzzling about it? She is clearly an irritable scrunt looking for a pissing match. If what i saw up the thread was true and she refused the offer of service from another employee not bound by the muslim faith... seems kinda like she is bullying these guys because they are different doesnt it? I would certainly understand if I was placed in the same position. People of religion can offend easely and common canadian courtisy demands that i try and respect them. I would have thanked them and gone next door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 As a white male Anglo native born in Canada and spending as much time in the US as I have in Canada, and having experienced discrimination myself as a white person, and with my wife as a Chinese woman, I can still say with the utmost confidence this type of thinking is what's fundamentally wrong with the politically correct movement. Utopia-minded beliefs about changing discrimination particularly when completely unnecessary (as in can be corrected socially or by directly affecting the business' bottom line) and hardly amongst the harmful variety, is exactly the type of intrusive nanny government crap that is and should be resisted as much as possible. You also are choosing for a business how to run itself based on non-business related reasoning, and considering the businesses running away from Quebec, it's proof in the pudding how too much government intrusion chases businesses away. I guess to a lawyer there is no such thing as too many laws, but thankfully I don't look to government to help me solve the most simple problems I may encounter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 So you mean the taxi's are driven by women? MIND = BLOWN! Seriously though, it might seem a bit silly, but I have no problem with that. Just as I have no problem with men-only barber shops. If there are ample amounts of the same service that can be conveniently found elsewhere, I don't see the big deal. Maybe that way of thinking is a bit of a slippery slope, but I don't see how 1 Muslim barber, refusing to cut the hair of one woman because it goes against his religious beliefs, will send Canada back to the stone age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Good for you. And my partner is Chinese as well and I am quite able to defend her against racist morons if I happen to be present. However not everyone is equipped for self-help remedies and that is why we have compliance, enforcement and educational bodies such as the various iterations of the human rights tribunals to enforce their rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Someone's getting touchy. Where in this case does this person need government's help with the oh-so-essential service of a hair cut at a barber shop.. a place known for specialising in cutting men's hair as it is? This in no way whatsoever looks like a case that's out to protect someone's rights than bully a business with excessively liberalised political correctness. There are plenty of salons I'm sure that would gladly take her business, and certainly publicity alone was enough to make the business recant on it's decision as it may negatively impact customers from coming back or coming at all. No nanny government needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Touchy? Not likely. And there is your problem - you see the issue as a haircut and not a discriminatory practise that is prohibited by law. She is not required to go somewhere else - she is entitled to service without discrimination as required by law. There are minimum standards that businesses must meet and this is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 We have the Charter being part of the supreme law of Canada that compels the federal, provincial and municipal governments and their agencies to comply with equality and non-discrimination provisions. And we saw it worked with the issue of same sex marriage as the courts in most provinces and ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada forced recognition of same sex marriage. As the provinces have constitutional jurisdiction over property and civil rights within the province that applies to non-government entities, we have chosen to pass Human Rights Codes that like the Charter have primacy over all provincial laws as they relate to non-government entities. As in BC: Code prevails 4 If there is a conflict between this Code and any other enactment, this Code prevails. Since one cannot count upon governments or non-governmental entities to act in accordance with the precepts of basic equality rights and without discrimination, we set standards. I do not consider such standards to be a "nanny state" but rather matters of basic human rights. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Prime example of over-litigation and how it's crippling our society. The problem is that she did not receive a hair cut. So? Rather than taking the usual action of wasting money on courts, lawyers, etc. what we, by appointed commission i suppose, should do is assess the risk associated with these problems a determine whether this is even worthy of the time and money to be spent. Ie. A 'common sense' initiative. This would save a lot of time, money and needless attention that is currently being allocated to insignificant cases created by attention whores on a misguided crusade, for instance. Meanwhile, a simple apology would suffice to resolve most of these cases. That's why the Apology Act was drawn up and is in effect in provinces around Canada for the purposes of eliminating wasteful lawsuits. Sadly, most lawyers are unaware of this or choose to ignore it, for obvious reasons. However, the problem with our wasteful justice system starts with the judges. Rather than taking a neutral, sit on their hands approach to every case that they come accross, they should be forced to eliminate wasteful cases on their own. Ie. A 'GTFO' initiative. If somebody told me that they wanted to sue because they didn't get a prompt haircut from one place even though evidence shows that other perfectly accomodating resources are within a short walking distance, that is an automatic GTFO. We as a society need to re-learn how to resolve these petty issues on our own, how to determine who is wasting our time and money on needless lawsuits, and how to get judges to be less wasteful themselves with their approach to judging cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 We have the Charter being part of the supreme law of Canada that compels the federal, provincial and municipal governments and their agencies to comply with equality and non-discrimination provisions. And we saw it worked with the issue of same sex marriage as the courts in most provinces and ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada forced recognition of same sex marriage. Since one cannot count upon governments or non-governmental entities to act in accordance with the precepts of basic equality rights and without discrimination, we set standards. I do not consider such standards to be a "nanny state" but rather matters of basic human rights. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Prime example of over-litigation and how it's crippling our society. The problem is that she did not receive a hair cut. So? Rather than taking the usual action of wasting money on courts, lawyers, etc. what we, by appointed commission i suppose, should do is assess the risk associated with these problems a determine whether this is even worthy of the time and money to be spent. Ie. A 'common sense' initiative. This would save a lot of time, money and needless attention that is currently being allocated to insignificant cases created by attention whores on a misguided crusade, for instance. Meanwhile, a simple apology would suffice to resolve most of these cases. That's why the Apology Act was drawn up and is in effect in provinces around Canada for the purposes of eliminating wasteful lawsuits. Sadly, most lawyers are unaware of this or choose to ignore it, for obvious reasons. However, the problem with our wasteful justice system starts with the judges. Rather than taking a neutral, sit on their hands approach to every case that they come accross, they should be forced to eliminate wasteful cases on their own. Ie. A 'GTFO' initiative. If somebody told me that they wanted to sue because they didn't get a prompt haircut from one place even though evidence shows that other perfectly accomodating resources are within a short walking distance, that is an automatic GTFO. We as a society need to re-learn how to resolve these petty issues on our own, how to determine who is wasting our time and money on needless lawsuits, and how to get judges to be less wasteful themselves with their approach to judging cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 There was also common sense in the marriage issue where clergy weren't forced to perform a marriage not in accordance with their belief. Access denied. Not here. Since one cannot count upon governments or non-governments to act in accordance with the precepts of basic equality rights we're going to use government anyways to set subjective standards so that liberalised interpretation of it can increasingly intrude upon businesses and re-interpret what a logical bias is in denial of a service. I guess I better go see a gynaecologist and when I get denied I should sue, because life is oh so unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 The argument that this lack of a haircut provided is violating her fundamental rights etc. is an example of what i mean when i say waste. Of course a lawyer will take her side, another will take the muslim's side, a judge will sit on his hands while taking it all in, this needless garbage lawsuit, and then rule in favour of... Who cares? After this waste is made, and these people get what's coming to them, and the lawyers and judges get paid for being trumpeters of their 'heroic' agenda behind the waste, the rest of us will have our rights and freedoms affected negatively by the outcome. And the level of fear will rise. Fear of litigation. The combination cripples our society even further. All because the person had an easily-resolvable problem that isn't worthy of anyone's attention, let lone a lawsuit. Where does it end? With the realization that common sense should indeed prevail and take back it's rightful place in our society. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.