|
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 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:13 am Post subject: The absurdity of the Ontario Human Rights Commission |
 |
|
Canadian tax dollars at work.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090226.wtranssexual26/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
| Quote: |
When John Fulton picked up the phone and heard a man's voice in June of 2006, he didn't quite know what to make of it.
Mr. Fulton had just advertised his new women-only gym in St. Catharines, Ont., and was offering a special introductory rate to attract members.
"I'm thinking, 'It's a guy who wants the women's price,' so I just kind of wrote it off as a guy who misunderstood the price plan," Mr. Fulton said. "And two days later, a woman shows up."
The middle-aged woman with the man's voice, among other unseen attributes, turned out to be a transsexual who had yet to undergo the surgical transformation from male to female.
And now, her request to join the gym has landed Mr. Fulton before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
"I never said no, I never turned the guy down," Mr. Fulton said of the woman's request yesterday, on his way to Toronto for what would be an unsuccessful mediation hearing designed to head off a full-scale inquiry before the tribunal. "I just said, 'I don't know.' "
It's not the first time an Ontario gym owner has been taken to the tribunal by a preoperative transsexual; in 2005, Michaela Reid was turned away at the Exclusively Women's Fitness Centre in Guelph, but won an undisclosed settlement at a similar mediation session.
Mr. Fulton, however, has chosen to fight on the grounds that he never refused the woman membership, but was still exploring his legal rights and obligations when, just a week after the woman's visit, he received a letter from her lawyer demanding a written apology and a cash settlement. She filed a human rights complaint a few weeks later.
"I will be a homeless person, living in the street and eating out of a gutter, before they get a penny out of me," Mr. Fulton said after yesterday's fruitless mediation, which ended short of its scheduled three hours. "I'm stubborn, and I feel like I'm being pushed around by these people."
The Ontario Human Rights Code forbids discrimination or harassment based on sex, which includes issues of gender identity.
The code does not distinguish between transsexuals who are at different stages of transition, said Afroze Edwards, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
"I think the important thing to remember there is how they identify themselves; what their sense is, that they are living as a man or living as a woman," Ms. Edwards said. "Regardless of whether they're preop or postop, it's their lived gender that's important."
Mr. Fulton, however, cited a section in the same rights code which allows service providers to restrict access to facilities "to persons of the same sex on the ground of public decency." And to his mind, the display of male genitalia, even on someone who self-identifies as a woman, could be construed as indecent by other women at his gym.
"I had just opened a women's club to segregate the women so that they'd have their own private space," he said, adding that the same woman who lodged the complaint would be more than welcome today, because she has since had her male genitalia removed.
"For 10 of the last 15 years, I've been the title sponsor for the AIDS walk in St. Catharines, and I've dealt with gays, lesbians, transsexuals, straight, whatever," Mr. Fulton added. "So I'm a very liberal, open-minded person and I wanted to look at this, at what we could do."
However, the lawyer's letter asking for money, followed by the rights complaint, put him on the defensive, and now he's dug in his heels.
In Michaela Reid's case, a settlement allowed her to return to the gym that had initially turned her away.
In an interview yesterday, Ms. Reid said she didn't have "a single issue" with anyone else, despite her male genitals, for two key reasons: The gym had private shower stalls, and before she left them, she would always wrap herself in a towel and keep it on while putting on her underwear.
"I agree there has to be some respect for the other ladies," Ms. Reid said. "I think they could work it out quite simply."
After yesterday's failed attempt at mediation, Mr. Fulton has his doubts about that, much as he might wish his troubles away.
"I'm probably screwed here," he said. |
I will give to this dudes legal defense fund. The government is cannibalizing civil society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The middle-aged woman with the man's voice, among other unseen attributes, turned out to be a transsexual who had yet to undergo the surgical transformation from male to female.
|
I've heard of cases like this before. And I think the HRCs are on a pretty drastic collision course between...
a) the right of a "pre-op transexual" to have everyone accept his own self-proclaimed status as female, and...
b) the right of women not to have to see a peenis while changing in what they were led to believe would be a gender-segragated locker room.
I'd be curious to know which side most feminists would be on here.
Last edited by On the other hand on Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bit off topic, but I see the swear filter is back in business, and once again censoring legitimate medical words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm gonna quote from that:
| Quote: |
Vancouver--The Vancouver Rape Relief Society is within its rights to exclude Kimberly Nixon, a post-operative male-to-female transexual woman from its volunteer training program, the British Columbia Court of appeal ruled.
Nixon, responding to an advertisement, was enrolled in the training course and was then excluded. The Society decided she could not be part of their program because only a woman who has been "oppressed since birth" cold be a volunteer counsellor at the agency and "because she had lived as a man she could not participate". Nixon then complained to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
Nixon complained that the Society chose to distinguish her from the vast majority of women on the basis that her starting place on the continuum of sexual identity was a position other than one initially identified as female. The Society argued that the train ing and volunteer peer counsellor role, was neither a service customarily provided to the public within the meaning of the Code, nor employment within the meaning of s. 13 of the Code.
The Tribunal did not agree and found that the activity was both a service to the public and employment within the scope of the Code. The Human Rights Tribunal upheld Nixon's complaint that the Society had discriminated against her under two sections of the Human Rights Code and awarded her $7,500 in damages.
The Society asked for a Judicial review. The reviewing judge accepted the Society's arguments and overturned the HRT's ruling. Nixon and the Tribunal then turned to the appeal court. The appeal was supported by Egale Canada, an organization that advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified people, and their families. The three appeal court judges were unanimous in the decision to dismiss Kimberly Nixon's appeal that the Vancouver Rape Relief Society is covered by the exemption provisions in the Human Rights Code. Chief Justice Finch states that the "Society was entitled to give preference to women who are not post-operative transsexuals, because there is a rational connection between the preference and the respondent's work or purpose." |
It is like these people are playing court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1816/128/
| Quote: |
Apparently, John Fulton has co-sponsored the annual St Catharines Aids walk for years. Does that sound like some foaming Steynian homophobe? Well, a fat lot of good it did him come the day the Ontario "human rights" enforcers showed up to ruin his life.
...
Cheri DiNovo, the NDP member, didn't think much of my breeziness re transsexual jurisprudence, and emphasized her commitment to redressing the injustices "transsexuals and transgendered folk" face. Well, I'm glad the plaintiff in St Catharines has "transitioned" to her new identity. The trouble is the justice system is transitioning along with her. The principles Canadian justice was born with - presumption of innocence, due process, equality before the law - have been systematically chopped off, and what's left has been given extravagant new implants of entirely synthetic "human rights".
We will all have our fun with the right of penises to enjoy the ladies' shower. But Mr Fulton, like Gator Ted, will be ruined in the process. This system is not just ludricous, but profoundly wicked. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1343205
| Quote: |
TORONTO - The Ontario Human Rights Commission is arguing that a provincial court judge failed to recognize the religious freedoms of a Muslim woman when he ordered her to testify at a sexual assault trial without a veil known as a niqab.
The government agency is asking for special permission to be allowed to intervene at a Superior Court proceeding hearing an appeal of the lower court decision because of its 45 years of "expertise" in the area of human rights.
"The commission can offer the court assistance and expertise in the area of accommodation particularly in relation to discrimination based on creed or religious belief," states an affidavit by Barbara Hall, chief commissioner of the human rights body.
The Superior Court hearing is scheduled to begin this morning in Toronto.
The hearing stems from a ruling last fall by provincial court Justice Norris Weisman.
He ruled that the woman must remove the veil that covers everything but her eyes while testifying at the preliminary hearing of two men accused of sexually assaulting her.
Lawyers representing the two men argued they should be permitted to see the demeanour of the woman while she testified, as part of their right to a fair trial. The defence suggested that demeanour would help determine the credibility of the woman.
The prosecution responded that the woman ought to be permitted to wear an article of "religious dress" if that was her preference.
While he observed that it was an "admittedly difficult decision," Judge Weisman noted that the witness had a photo taken for her driver's licence without a niqab. The photo was taken by a female employee, but "numerous males in modern society" might see the non-veiled picture.
"I find that the complainant's religious belief is not that strong," concluded Judge Weisman, who ruled that the woman should have to testify without her niqab.
The woman appealed the ruling to the Superior Court and last week
the Human Rights Commission filed documents seeking to be allowed to participate in the hearing.
"The court had a duty to accommodate her religious beliefs and failed, procedurally and substantively to do so," the commission argues. Ordering the removal of the niqab was a "drastic measure" that was not necessary to balance the rights of the defendants, the human rights agency suggests.
The Superior Court hearing this morning before Justice Frank Marrocco will only determine whether the woman may wear the niqab at the sexual assault trial of the two accused, although it could be used as a precedent in other cases.
It is unusual for an outside party such as a government agency to be permitted to intervene in a criminal trial.
The commission says it can assist the court in interpreting the Ontario Human Rights Code and help explain issues of human rights.
"The commission's intention, if it were allowed to intervene, would be to articulate the current state of the law in respect of the duty to accommodate religious beliefs and practices and to explain how Mr. Justice Weisman's ruling is inconsistent with the current state of the law," the government agency argues. |
Ezra Levant hits this one best:
| Quote: |
We'll be talking about this insane case: the Ontario Human Rights Commission is intervening in a criminal case, demanding that a witness not be required to remove her Islamic veil when testifying.
This is a pretty simple one to me: it's not about the witness's "right" to obscure her face; it's about the accused mens' right to be able to observe their accuser, and the judge's ability to see her demeanour, too.
Is she shifty-eyed? Is she a bad liar? Is she fidgety, blinking, sweating, darting her eyes around? Or is she resolved, credible, sure, and confident?
It's not about her. It's about the credibility of her testimony. And that's important because two mens' lives are being held in the balance.
Of course the OHRC thinks her "right" to hide her face trumps their right to a fair trial. Because the OHRC doesn't give a damn about fair trials -- they're not about justice, they're about political correctness, ethnic grievances, and make-work projects for radical lawyers and bureaucrats.
That's bad enough, having spread throughout the kangaroo courts of the land. But now the OHRC is trying to export that rot into the real legal system.
It's awful, but I think it's an overreach -- I think it's just the latest outrage from the HRCs that is pushing normal Canadians too far. |
http://ezralevant.com/2009/03/john-oakley-show.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Um, once the gym starts letting transvestites in it's no longer 'women-only'. If I put on a dress and say I believe I'm a woman, am I allowed to go into women-only areas, especially dressing rooms?
Since this is Korea I'll exercise my Korean right to say: kick the whiny, gold-digging faggot to the curb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Can the Gym owner claim damages if he wins the case? I know he couldn't if it were in the U.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090302.wcowent03/BNStory/specialComment/home
| Quote: |
The offended party gets a free lawyer. Win or lose, he pays nothing. But the defendant always pays. If he decides to put up a fight, he might have to spend $100,000, maybe more, even if he wins. The case could drag on for years.
Lawyers who act for people such as Mr. Fulton usually advise them to settle. That typically entails a modest sum of money paid to the complainant, an abject letter of apology, and an agreement to post a prominent sign guaranteeing (for example) equal treatment for all self-identified women, regardless of the configuration of their private parts. They must also agree never to disclose the settlement or any of the details.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission boasts that its mediation process achieves a phenomenally high settlement rate. Now you know why. Many companies have come to regard these payouts as just another cost of doing business.
Increasingly, those on the receiving end of the human-rights process are little guys. Just ask Ted Kindos. He runs Gator Ted's, a popular family restaurant and sports bar in Burlington, Ont.
A medical-marijuana smoker liked to lurk around the doorway, self-medicating. When Mr. Kindos asked the toker to take off, the toker took him to the human-rights commission for discriminating against someone with a disability. Mr. Kindos was told that he could settle if he forked over $2,000 to his tormentor, and posted a prominent sign saying that Gator Ted's accommodates customers with medical disabilities.
There's just one catch. If Mr. Kindos agrees, he stands to lose his liquor licence for allowing a controlled substance to be consumed where alcohol is used. His lawyer thinks the courts should sort out this dilemma before Mr. Kindos gets nailed. Mr. Kindos's loyal customers are outraged on his behalf. But the human-rights commission doesn't agree. It has a full-blown tribunal hearing scheduled for this summer.
Oh, I could go on. I could tell you about the case of the mother who insists on her right to breast-feed anywhere she wants - in this case, not just at a swimming pool, but in the pool. When the woman who owns the pool objected (for fear of accidental baby poop), the mother declared: "It was my human right. She violated my human right to breast-feed and I knew that." I could tell the one about the B.C. woman who failed to get a job after a manager complained that she had a hacking cough and "reeked of smoke." She also had a record of a lot of sick days. She argues she was discriminated against because of her disability - an addiction to cigarettes.
All this would be funny if it weren't so abusive to the taxpayers and the innocent. Our human-rights commissions have made it easy to exploit the system. Too many of the cases they accept are frivolous or marginal, and too many of their decisions are, to most of us, absurd. They are losing their legitimacy, and underwriting their own demise. At this rate, it can't come soon enough. |
Good grief. |
|
| 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
