Scottish⑦Canuck 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 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...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 You take an incredibly narrow and parochial view of the case. Since the law applies to all businesses offering services to the public in Ontario, why would a barber shop be exempt? It is easily resolvable... by the business complying with the law. That to me is common sense. If a business is afraid of providing services equally to all members of the public without discrimination, then IMHO such fear is a good thing. These matters do not require lawyers generally and the tribunal members are paid a yearly salary to handle such matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Why is a business being afraid of conducting, well.. business.. within the field they specialise a good thing? Oh right, because some think government authority should be extended to babysit and micromanage non-events such as what occurred here. Oh goody, utopia fantasyland. This is exactly the kind of thing where government has intruded too much into business matters to be nitpicking for a business what constitutes discrimination based on exercise of other freedoms by denying service. A person's individual liberty has not been encroached upon whatsoever because service has not been extended to them, a business and it's owner(s) have their own freedom to make choices as well. Subjective and liberalised interpretation of "rights" in this matter places itself within the business to make business decisions it has no place doing, and I hope it changes for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 They are free to conduct business.. just not in a manner that denies equality or employs discriminatory practises. The Ontario Human Rights Code says that every person has the right: • to equal treatment in the five social areas named in the Code • to be free from discrimination or harassment on any of the listed grounds of discrimination named in the Code. The five social areas are: • Employment • Housing • Goods, Services and Facilities • Contracts • Membership in trade and vocational associations (such as unions). The grounds of discrimination are: • Race • Colour • Ancestry • Place of origin • Citizenship • Ethnic origin • Disability • Creed • Sex, including sexual harassment and pregnancy • Sexual orientation • Gender identity • Gender Expression • Family status • Marital status • Age Seems pretty basic if one believes in equality and discriminatory behaviour being constrained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Here's the thing for me. Yes, technically, this woman is "right". But there should be some consideration as to "why" she was denied service. Was it maliciously intended or rude? Doesn't appear to be? Was it a seemingly innocent case of someone put on the spot who was caught in a difficult situation? Seems to be. Will this have a serious negative impact on this woman's life? If it does, she really needs to get one. Get over yourself already lady. The world could use becoming a kinder, gentler place but that won't happen as long as we have angry overreactions to rather harmless incidents. When we learn to look beyond the immediate rights/wrongs of a situation and learn to bend, it'll be a start. Do you know how she could have contributed to that kinder/gentler world?......with a friendly smile and an "oh, I understand. No worries, I'll pop around the corner then...no big deal". She'd have a haircut and this man could carry on with his business. We all have options and sometimes the simple one that uses empathy and understanding goes a lot further in the end than googling legal options and rights. But everyone wants to cash in on things these days and it's getting pretty ridiculous. This lady's haircut is hardly something worthy of further action even if she has a case. It was a haircut that she didn't get, not life saving medical treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Here's the thing for me. Yes, technically, this woman is "right". But there should be some consideration as to "why" she was denied service. Was it maliciously intended or rude? Doesn't appear to be? Was it a seemingly innocent case of someone put on the spot who was caught in a difficult situation? Seems to be. Will this have a serious negative impact on this woman's life? If it does, she really needs to get one. Get over yourself already lady. The world could use becoming a kinder, gentler place but that won't happen as long as we have angry overreactions to rather harmless incidents. When we learn to look beyond the immediate rights/wrongs of a situation and learn to bend, it'll be a start. This lady's haircut is hardly something worthy of further action. Even if she has a case. It was a haircut that she didn't get, not life saving medical treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemy Time Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 In Canada women have the same rights as men. I suggest this 'barber' move back to a Muslim country rather than force the will of his own culture onto ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 That's nice and all except the services provided for men and women and the training/practice involved aren't exactly equal, which utopian interpretation of equality doesn't take into account either. It's pretty basic for people who wish to use nonsensical methods of behaviour modification and political correctness implemented through excessively broad language without regard to the sensibility for all involved in the equation. This doesn't produce equality it produces special treatment, which, again, is counter-productive to business and freedoms for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 594 Bay Street: Terminal Barber Shop. 655 Bay Street: Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. I wonder if she was able to fit her immediate complaint within her lunch hour? This was a setup job by an attention whore. Wouldn't doubt if she's a racist too. Either way, she's doing people who she thinks she's helping here a real disservice. Now excuse me while i demand to use the john in a females-only fitness center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 594 Bay Street: Terminal Barber Shop. 655 Bay Street: Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. I wonder if she was able to fit her immediate complaint within her lunch hour? This was a setup job by an attention whore. Wouldn't doubt if she's a racist too. Either way, she's doing people who she thinks she's helping here a real disservice. Now excuse me while i demand to use the john in a females-only fitness center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 According to reports she asked for a haircut in a style that the barbershop provided: Faith McGregor walked into the Terminal Barber Shop on Bay St. in June to get a haircut — the “businessman,” short on the sides, tapered, trim the top. The shop, like many barbers in Toronto, doesn’t do women’s haircuts. But McGregor, 35, said she wanted a men’s cut. Shop co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers said the same thing. “For me it was just a haircut and started out about me being a woman. Now we’re talking about religion versus gender versus human rights and businesses in Ontario,” said McGregor. No special treatment involved - just provide the exact same service that they do for other customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 If it wasn't clear by the bold, what you ascribe to as "equal treatment" was not there any more than equal treatment for, as mentioned for relevance, a man being denied services at a woman-only fitness centre due to being a man. It's not a service provided to women barring some exceptions made with the business itself. Going to a business that already caters to men and complaining about human rights due to gender discrimination, regardless of what comes out of their mouth as an excuse, is amazingly stupid but not surprising in the least bit with this dramatic and caricatured joke of an interpretation of "rights". No surprise if this situation happened in the reverse, or in the applicable fitness centre scenario, the guy would have been told to bugger off and not waste the court's time.. rightfully. This complaint is not about equality it's about special treatment and clearly setting out to find a business to attack due to personal problems someone has with who runs the business. She filed a human rights claim saying she "felt like a second class citizen". LOL. Really. Surely as an obvious lesbian she should understand more than others that tolerance is, given people have rights to be religious too. Then there's the fact that the barber recommended another place that would cut her hair. Nope. She wants a fight over trivial crap. Pretty much everyone knows this is not about human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Man Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Fast forward 20 years and instead of looking to get your hair cut by qualified people to do the job. You now go wherever your particular religion deems it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks since 77 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I do not see this as petty... it is a fundamental right that services to the public be provided in accordance with the principles of equality without discrimination. Simply because this particular fact pattern related to a haircut does not make it any less worthy of protection. The problem is that she was refused a service available to the public on a ground prohibited by law and it appears there is no viable defence to the complaint. We have laws and procedures in plce to enforce such rights so people are not required to engeage in self-help remedies. Personally I might find it much more satisfying to give this barber a whack upside the head but that is not how we do things in a civilized society Services 1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Man Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 That's because you see it as a form of income where as the rest of us rational folk don't. Your allegiance to the law blinds you to common sense sometimes. Pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks since 77 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Count me out of your perception of rational folk than. I fail to see how agreeing with this woman and how she was discriminated againisn'tint rational? I have walked into many hair salons(for those who insist on gender distinctions for places to get hair done) and had my hair cut without the slightest hesitation from either male or female staff. Does she not have the same rights as a man in this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Because she wasn't discriminated against. She was offered another haircut by a different employee and refused. Seeing as the shop in question is surrounded by other hair establishments she was not inconvenienced in any way. The only ones that win in these long ridiculous suites are the lawyers.I agree with the a frivolous suit law, with an added clause that the lawyer be chastised for not having the common sense to refuse. This woman,and I use the word lightly, is nothing more than unscrupulous opportunist who is willing to bankrupt a business that has been a respectable member of the community for decades. Frivolous suite is frivolouse. I'm not arguing court of law with you Wet, I'm arguing court of common sense, something the Courts have apparently lost hold of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks since 77 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 You are inventing facts and making unwarranted and baseless assumptions as it seems many posters here have done. Ms. McGregor was not offered a haircut by another barber because all the barbers in the shop were Muslim: The barbers, who are all Muslim, told her their religion didn't allow them to cut the hair of a woman who is not a member of their family. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/15/toronto-haircut-mcgregor.html It has been reported that several months later she was offered a haircut at another shop: The barbershop suggested a solution to McGregor toward the end of August, offering her a haircut from a barber willing to do so. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1288023--woman-denied-haircut-goes-to-human-rights-tribunal-of-ontario Other shops being nearby and convenience is not relevant as all businesses offering services to the public must comply with the Human Rights Code to provide equal access without discrimination subject to very limited exceptions that do not seem to apply to this case. Like the vast majority of complaints filed with human rights tribunals, lawyers are not involved. The system is designed for persons to be able to file complaints and represent themselves with online forms: http://www.hrto.ca/hrto/ Besides lawyers do not get rich off these sorts of cases. There is no court or law suit but rather a specialized tribunal specifically designed to handle these matters which first attempts a resolution by way of mediation that is set to go ahead sometime in February. If that fails, an adjudicator appointed by the Human Rights Tribunal will decide the outcome. And in this particular case Ms. McGregor is not seeking an award of damages or that the shop change the services (men's haricuts) offered. She is asking the tribunal to force Terminal Barber Shop to offer its men’s haircuts to both genders, and suggests in her application that the shop post a sign indicating it serves both men and women. She is not seeking money. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1288023--woman-denied-haircut-goes-to-human-rights-tribunal-of-ontario There are already rules in place to dismiss baseless claims under the rules of procedure for the tribunal: RULE 19A SUMMARY HEARINGS 19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed. This is not one of them since prima facie there is a breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The owner of the barber shop is not disputing the factual underpinnings of the claim and admits he does not dispute McGregor’s complaint but says being forced to cut a woman’s hair would violate his freedom of religion and for no other reason. “We live for our values. We are people who have values and we hold on to it. I am not going to change what the faith has stated to us to do. This is not extreme — this is just a basic value that we follow,” said Karim Saaden, co-owner of the Terminal Barber Shop. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1288023--woman-denied-haircut-goes-to-human-rights-tribunal-of-ontario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Just an opinion wet, just an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.