|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:29 am Post subject: muslim tortured in Vancouver |
 |
|
| Quote: |
A blind Vancouver man who was shunned by a taxi driver who didn't want a guide dog in his cab has reached a $2,500 settlement with North Shore Taxi.
Bruce Gilmour, 49, had called a cab from a West Vancouver coffee shop after a day of skiing in November 2006.
But North Shore Taxi driver Behzad Saidy, a Muslim, refused to transport Gilmour and his golden retriever Arden, saying his religion prevents him from associating with dogs. Gilmour, who has been blind for 30 years, filed a human rights complaint, alleging discrimination.
"I'm tired of defending my dignity," he said Wednesday.
Last Friday - three days before a B.C. human rights tribunal hearing - Gilmour reached a settlement with the taxi company.
The agreement, issued by the tribunal, attempts to balance the rights of blind people with guide dogs to obtain taxi service with the rights of Muslim cab drivers to follow their personal beliefs.
North Shore Taxi officials could not be reached Wednesday.
But Saidy, the cab driver, claims he also suffered discrimination because he was told by a citizenship judge 15 years ago that he could practise his religion and culture.
He said that as a Muslim, he cannot associate with dogs because they are considered impure.
Saidy said he often walks disabled people to their door or helps them into cabs and, in Gilmour's case, he called the dispatcher to order another cab to collect him and Arden.
"I felt for [Gilmour]. I'm sorry for him but I'll never be sorry for what I did because I try to help people all the time," he said.
"I have lots of customers who are blind or disabled...but I can't be close to the dog.
"In my own company they say if you don't take the dog you're going to be fired. This is torture for me."
Saidy said he agreed to the settlement because his religion was finally respected and he was exempt from picking up guide dogs. But, he adds, he's not optimistic that's going to happen.
"I don't trust anymore," he said. |
www.canada.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think we've debated this Muslim cab driver thing before, and my main point was that, from a libertarian perspective, if it's your cab you can allow anything or anyone you want in it. I guess it's a bit different with a seeing-eye dog, because that's some sort of disability rights issue. Which brings me to...
One thing I actually have been wondering about lately is why exactly some blind people think they do have a right to bring their dogs into places where it would normally be illegal to do so. Lots of blind people seem to get by just fine with the canes, why do we have to jettison the hygeine laws for the minority who think they just absolutely have to be accompanied by man's best friend? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultimately, the question is which disability is worse, being blind or being a muslim? Which broken individual gets preference? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| One thing I actually have been wondering about lately is why exactly some blind people think they do have a right to bring their dogs into places where it would normally be illegal to do so. |
Perhaps they got that idea from the law specifically granting them that right?
| Quote: |
| Lots of blind people seem to get by just fine with the canes, why do we have to jettison the hygeine laws for the minority who think they just absolutely have to be accompanied by man's best friend? |
Those are working dogs, not just friends. And there's a decided difference in getting around with the use of a cane and getting around with the use of a guide dog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On the other hand wrote:
One thing I actually have been wondering about lately is why exactly some blind people think they do have a right to bring their dogs into places where it would normally be illegal to do so.
Perhaps they got that idea from the law specifically granting them that right?
|
I guess what I was trying to ask was why that right was given to them in the first place. I am assuming it was blind people who lobbied for it.
| Quote: |
| And there's a decided difference in getting around with the use of a cane and getting around with the use of a guide dog. |
And that difference would be....? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
The major difference is that the cane is an inanimate object which has not received training in how to guide the Blind. The guide dog is sentient and is trained to do its job. Another important difference is the dog has eyes, the cane does not.
Here is some information for you:
| Quote: |
Q: Do you train pet dogs for blind people?
A: It's a common misperception that a Guide Dog is essentially a well-trained pet. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is one of the most highly trained working animals you'll ever meet. Several thousand hours of training have been put into this partnership. |
And here is a description of the dog's training. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
I think we've debated this Muslim cab driver thing before, and my main point was that, from a libertarian perspective, if it's your cab you can allow anything or anyone you want in it. I guess it's a bit different with a seeing-eye dog, because that's some sort of disability rights issue. Which brings me to...
One thing I actually have been wondering about lately is why exactly some blind people think they do have a right to bring their dogs into places where it would normally be illegal to do so. Lots of blind people seem to get by just fine with the canes, why do we have to jettison the hygeine laws for the minority who think they just absolutely have to be accompanied by man's best friend? |
A cane cannot alert you to danger, a dog can.
As far as this fellow, he has a right to practice his religion and the company has a right to fire him in my opinion. But I think if he got fired he could sue based on religion. This is a tough issue. He doesn't own the cab company, so they can fire him, but he could argue that it was religious discrimination. The fellow could have taken the fellow with the dog and then thoroughly cleaned himself and the cab if he was so concerned about that. Many Muslims who believe a dog may be unclean will touch one but then wash their hands several times or something.
He should have used common sense and picked the guy up instead of being all Taliban about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony_Balony
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd argue the Muslim doesn't have a choice. He can practice his religion, he just can't work for a company that requires him to take seeing eye dogs.
Where does it end? He can take a job but says that according to his religion, he gets to keep the till, he gets to give his friends free rides and he gets to the keep the cab.
The Americans went through that phase with Muslim check out clerk that refuse to scan Bac-o-bits. They tried gloves and shifting personnel but they it got tiring and now they just say no.
Dismissals or non hiring come from poor job performance, not from religious identity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
I think we've debated this Muslim cab driver thing before, and my main point was that, from a libertarian perspective, if it's your cab you can allow anything or anyone you want in it. I guess it's a bit different with a seeing-eye dog, because that's some sort of disability rights issue. Which brings me to...
One thing I actually have been wondering about lately is why exactly some blind people think they do have a right to bring their dogs into places where it would normally be illegal to do so. Lots of blind people seem to get by just fine with the canes, why do we have to jettison the hygeine laws for the minority who think they just absolutely have to be accompanied by man's best friend? |
A cane cannot alert you to danger, a dog can.
As far as this fellow, he has a right to practice his religion and the company has a right to fire him in my opinion. But I think if he got fired he could sue based on religion. This is a tough issue. He doesn't own the cab company, so they can fire him, but he could argue that it was religious discrimination. The fellow could have taken the fellow with the dog and then thoroughly cleaned himself and the cab if he was so concerned about that. Many Muslims who believe a dog may be unclean will touch one but then wash their hands several times or something.
He should have used common sense and picked the guy up instead of being all Taliban about it. |
The Muslim could be fired for discrimination himself. That would not be a discriminatory act by the cab company, although a judge and a jury might be persuaded otherwise.
Well, this is why cab companies need liability insurance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My heart just pumps pure p1ss in sympathy with that dumb tird taxi driver.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAZZYJJJ
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So the blind guy is tired of "defending his dignity" but will put a price on it ($2500 settlement). Yeah right. The only 'victim' here is common sense. The cab has arrived, and the driver has refused to take the dog, PERHAPS for religious reasons, and called the guy another cab. Sure, the blind guy has every right to be pissed off, complain his heart out, and maybe get some press. But human rights violation??? Come on rational people.
As for the driver, if he risks 'torture' on a daily basis, FIND ANOTHER JOB. Perhaps he should clean or dispatch the cabs.
The only winner here, it seems, is the litagious nature of the legal system.
J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great thread newsclip, BJWD.
| Quote: |
| Ultimately, the question is which disability is worse, being blind or being a muslim? Which broken individual gets preference? |
I'm going to go "out on a limb" here and guess that you wouldn't have posted this article unless you sided with the blind man.
To me, this is a no-brainer, really. Here you have a disabled man, a longtime Canadian resident, doing what the law provides for him to do. And then you have a recent immigrant who's evidently more concerned about preserving his cultural traditions than assimilating, who has quickly learned that he can cry foul in a Western country and get unearned sympathy for his "cause."
He's a cab driver. And if the cab company follows the law and takes aboard seeing-eye dogs, then he must follow the job description. If he can't deal with that, tough shiite, he can look for another job.
Enough of this pandering to recent immigrants who speak Arabic and Spanish. Do we provide bilingual services for immigrants who speak other languages, much less free services to the extent illegal Latinos receive? It would be laughable if it wasn't so disgusting. I would tell him to STFU and do his job or quit. End of story--hand wringing not included.
On the other hand wrote:
| Quote: |
| One thing I actually have been wondering about lately is why exactly some blind people think they do have a right to bring their dogs into places where it would normally be illegal to do so. Lots of blind people seem to get by just fine with the canes, why do we have to jettison the hygeine laws for the minority who think they just absolutely have to be accompanied by man's best friend? |
While you might not have intended to, this remark comes across as quite callous to me. Perhaps it comes from my undergraduate days as an escort for a blind man who was allergic to dogs. Have you considered where he might have been going and what that dog is trained to do?
It's just this kind of hands-off mentality that makes me contemptuous of libertarianism (not necessarily all who believe in it, I should add). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember the hours and hours of my life spent, while growing up in Canada, in lectures at school about how we much help and respect people who have disabilities. We must help the blind man across the street. We must never discriminate against him, for he can�t help who he is.
I wish that they had said:
�...unless a muslim is involved, in which case, try not to make them angry�.
Had they said that, I�d feel much easier about the re-introduction of accepted discrimination against blind people into my country. Had I known that we were going to have a country that allows this sort of thing I�d be much more willing to accept it.
However, they did not. So I say:
muslim go home. And take every single one of your friends with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The Muslim could be fired for discrimination himself. That would not be a discriminatory act by the cab company, although a judge and a jury might be persuaded otherwise.
Well, this is why cab companies need liability insurance. |
I think they should have employees sign papers saying that in order to take the job they must pick up passengers whether they are carrying alcohol in their language, are of a different race or religion than you, have a seeing eye dog.... Otherwise, work for another cab company.
No cab company wants to have a blind man refused like that.. It is very bad publicity. I can understand refusing someone looking dangerous and extremely drunk people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAZZYJJJ
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The same, less edited, story.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=16fb2403-8ff3-4f68-907a-01ce50e3bbf8&k=88664
| Quote: |
A blind Vancouver man who was shunned by a taxi driver who didn't want a guide dog in his cab has reached a $2,500 settlement with North Shore Taxi.
Bruce Gilmour, 49, had called a cab from a West Vancouver coffee shop after a day of skiing in November 2006.
But North Shore Taxi driver Behzad Saidy, a Muslim, refused to transport Gilmour and his golden retriever Arden, saying his religion prevents him from associating with dogs. Gilmour, who has been blind for 30 years, filed a human rights complaint, alleging discrimination.
"I'm tired of defending my dignity," he said Wednesday.
Last Friday - three days before a B.C. human rights tribunal hearing - Gilmour reached a settlement with the taxi company.
The agreement, issued by the tribunal, attempts to balance the rights of blind people with guide dogs to obtain taxi service with the rights of Muslim cab drivers to follow their personal beliefs.
Gilmour said he will donate part of the monetary settlement to the Az-zahraa Islamic Centre in Richmond after receiving help from Imam Syed Jaffir, and to B.C. Guide Dog Services. They will likely get $500 to $700 each, he said.
Under the terms of the settlement, North Shore Taxi was ordered to immediately establish a policy forbidding any driver to refuse a fare from a blind person accompanied by a certified guide dog.
The only exceptions are for drivers allergic to dogs and those who satisfy the company that they have an honest religious belief that precludes them from transporting certified guide dogs.
However, such drivers must call dispatch for the next available cab, give their name to the blind person and remain with the person until the next cab arrives.
Anyone who breaches the policy will be suspended for two shifts for a first offence and be subject to termination for a second offence.
Blind people will not be required to inform dispatch of their disability.
"It's a landmark in my life," Gilmour said. "This is not binding with any other cab company, but if a person in White Rock or Coquitlam winds up in the same situation, my case will now raise the bar."
William Thornton, chief executive of B.C. Guide Dog Services, said Gilmour's experience was "all too common." There are about 150 guide dogs in B.C.
Gilmour, who uses taxis regularly, said he's been fighting such discrimination since 1985, when he got his first guide dog.
He said he's argued with cabbies who have refused to allow the dog in their cars and has been passed up by taxis as he waits on the curb. He and his guide dog rarely encounter problems with other types of public transportation, he said.
"I'm humiliated and frustrated and it's an awkward position having to go into defending your rights because you're blind," Gilmour said.
North Shore Taxi officials could not be reached Wednesday.
But Saidy, the cab driver, claims he also suffered discrimination because he was told by a citizenship judge 15 years ago that he could practise his religion and culture.
He said that as a Muslim, he cannot associate with dogs because they are considered impure.
Saidy said he often walks disabled people to their door or helps them into cabs and, in Gilmour's case, he called the dispatcher to order another cab to collect him and Arden.
"I felt for [Gilmour]. I'm sorry for him but I'll never be sorry for what I did because I try to help people all the time," he said.
"I have lots of customers who are blind or disabled...but I can't be close to the dog.
"In my own company they say if you don't take the dog you're going to be fired. This is torture for me."
Saidy said he agreed to the settlement because his religion was finally respected and he was exempt from picking up guide dogs. But, he adds, he's not optimistic that's going to happen.
"I don't trust anymore," he said.
[email protected]
|
Why wasn't this link posted in the OP. After reading THIS article, its not quite the clash of civilisations the OP wants us to buy into. The blind guy has faced discrimination in the past, the latest episode with the Muslim driver was the tipping point.
BJWD: You hate Muslims, fair enough. But how you have played this is worse than dishonest.
J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
