Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Woman Denied Haircut, Files Human Right Complaint


  • Please log in to reply
240 replies to this topic

#181 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,852 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:18 PM

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.

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.

Edited by zaibatsu, 17 November 2012 - 04:18 PM.

  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#182 derr12

derr12

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:47 PM

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.
  • 0

#183 derr12

derr12

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:48 PM

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.


A-men. Im so sick and friggin tired of people nerfing the world. goddamn nanny state.
  • 0

#184 Niloc009

Niloc009

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,643 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 09

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:59 PM

So I guess Muslim men should be prohibited from cutting anyone's hair, since they can't cut women's hair, right?
  • 0

Posted Image


STHS Hockey League - Brooklyn Beavers GM


#185 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,616 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:03 PM

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*
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#186 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:13 PM

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.

If the ruling OHRC is in favour of the barber then it would apply but only in Ontario.

What is puzzling? The barber denied a service that is prima facie available to all equally and cited a ground that makes brought it clearly under the OHRC.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#187 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:22 PM

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.

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.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#188 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,852 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:35 PM

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.

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.

Edited by zaibatsu, 17 November 2012 - 05:36 PM.

  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#189 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:43 PM

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.

Nope it is not bullying. It is avoiding a problem with a nudge-nudge wink-wink and taking the easy way out instead of compelling people to meet the standards set out in the law. You have an odd view of "common canadian courtisy (sic)". You are not required to respect something that is prohibited by law from occurring.

It is analogous to the case of the civil marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan that I noted above. The decision by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejected two proposals from the provincial government that would allow some or all marriage commissioners to refuse to perform a service involving gay or lesbian partners if it offended their religious beliefs. The government proposed that marriage commissioners who were employed before the law changed in 2004 could refuse to perform the services. It also proposed a second option where all marriage commissioners could refuse. Neither was an acceptable compromise according to the SCA and I agree.

Lawyers arguing for the recalcitrant marriage commissioners claimed that the two proposals were constitutional said that if anyone was refused a marriage service, it would be easy to find another commissioner who would perform the same service.

The court of appeal wasn't persuaded by that argument, emphatically saying that both government proposals were "contrary to fundamental principles of equality in a democratic society" and must be rejected.

"Both of the possible amendments offend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Either of them, if enacted, would violate the equality rights of gay and lesbian individuals," Justice Robert Richards said in the ruling, supported by justices John Klebuc, Ralph Ottenbreit, Gene Ann Smith and William Vancise.

And the SCA noted that acceding to such proposals carried serious implications as Justice Richards wrote that if marriage commissioners were allowed to opt out of services because they disagreed with same sex marriages, they might also do so because they object to interfaith marriages or interracial marriages.

To similar effect Justice Gene Anne Smith, writing a second decision for the court, noted the argument put forward by the religious commissioners could be claimed by those who sell marriage licences or rent halls for weddings.

“But more than this, it could just as easily, and with as much validity, be made by those who provide rental living accommodation to married couples, and even those who provide restaurant meals or entertainment to the public."

That is the problem, once you begin to make ad hoc accommodations on a case by case basis where does it stop? And you have done violence to the principle that equality and non-discrimination are considered to be universal objectives for society.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#190 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:48 PM

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.

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.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#191 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,383 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:26 PM

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.


I agree. Just like I have no problem with ladies-only gyms. In fact, my own gym (as with many others) has a female-only section where men are not permitted to enter yet women are permitted to go anywhere in the gym.

Quite frankly, and as crass as this may sound, I wonder if that woman, after all has been said and done, was/is simply butthurt for being referred to as a woman?
  • 0
"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

Posted Image Posted Image


#192 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,852 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:34 PM

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.

Someone's getting touchy. :lol:

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.

Edited by zaibatsu, 17 November 2012 - 06:37 PM.

  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#193 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:10 PM

Someone's getting touchy. :lol:

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.

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.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#194 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,852 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:38 PM

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.

Yep, quite touchy.

She is not "required to go somewhere else", she is allowed to have the services they offer, that is not one. It's not very bright to force a business to offer a service they don't offer.

"Minimum standards" is just a euphemism for more nanny behaviour modification that is counter-productive to freedoms and to business alike. Government imposed political correctness has and will always be met with vehement resistance and circumvention because as I said you cannot stop human nature, but as far as business goes it's their loss of revenue to not offer services to women, but why should they have to cut women's hair? Maybe they say it's on religious grounds but likely they're not qualified to cut and style a woman's hair. The nitpicking of excuses as to what is "prohibited" shows how this isn't about equality or rule of law but using government as a tool to change and micromanage the way people behave and think. No thanks.

Edited by zaibatsu, 17 November 2012 - 09:41 PM.

  • 1
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#195 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:37 PM

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.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#196 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,428 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:05 PM

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.
  • 2
Posted Image

#197 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,852 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:56 PM

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.

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. :lol:

Prime example of over-litigation and how it's crippling our society.

The problem is that she did not receive a hair cut. So?

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.

+1

It would eliminate useless litigation, save money on useless lawyers, and moreover, give people the freedom to stfu and go elsewhere unless it's an essential service, or one that isn't offered anywhere else, in which case these nitpicking rules about how a business goes about it's service can perhaps apply. There is nothing harmful to this lady about a barber shop (barber shops are known for cutting men's hair, salons women) refusing service to her when there are salons all over the friggen place, and their grounds aren't that unreasonable in the first place. It's this progressively intrusive government crap which is encroaching on the freedoms business owners have as well. Government serves to protect essential things, if you notice, the function of it as time goes on both greatly expands the size and scope of government, and puts government in a position of micro managing people's lives. Logic should dictate that this is counter-productive to freedom.

Edited by zaibatsu, 18 November 2012 - 01:58 PM.

  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#198 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:58 PM

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.

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.


  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#199 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:03 PM

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. :lol:

In that case of the Civil Marriage Act there was a balancing of rights within a recognized church or religious organization itself. However outside the church, marriage commissioners who serve the public at large were not permitted to rely upon their peculiar religious beliefs to refuse to perform marriages for same sex couples as the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled unanimously. And it is that analogy that seems applicable to this particular case.

I see nothing "liberalised" upon the enforcement of equality without discrimination. The standards are not subjective - they are quite objective.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 18 November 2012 - 02:05 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#200 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,428 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:24 PM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#201 Scottish⑦Canuck

Scottish⑦Canuck

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,780 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 07

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:30 PM

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*


Intentional?
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#202 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:34 PM

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.

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.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#203 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,852 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:01 PM

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.

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.

Edited by zaibatsu, 18 November 2012 - 03:04 PM.

  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#204 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:15 PM

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.

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.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#205 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,852 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:44 PM

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.

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.
  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#206 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,013 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:46 PM

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.
  • 0

Posted Image


#207 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:58 PM

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.

It does not matter - intent is not an issue. It is all about outcomes and results as it should be otherwise the offending party would be saying hey that was not what I intended.

The case law in Ontario makes that clear while in BC we have chosen to enshrine that principle in our legislation - the reason being Ontario was first out of the gate with human rights legislation and BC as well as other provinces learned from Ontario.


Discrimination and intent

2 Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.


  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#208 Alchemy Time

Alchemy Time

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,703 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 12

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:28 PM

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.


Or, you know, he may have been born and raised in Canada. Not every Muslim is an immigrant from the Middle-East, just in case you didn't know.

Edited by ER15, 18 November 2012 - 05:29 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#209 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:05 PM

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.

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.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 18 November 2012 - 09:07 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#210 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,428 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:36 PM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.