Hoping you are all having a refreshing summer:
First: All right, picture this. You’re at the buffet of an expensive restaurant, and you are about to ask for a medium-rare cut of prime rib when a black Labrador puts its paws on the cutting board and gives the roast a good sniff. Comfortable yet? A health inspector told a restaurant manager after a complaint from an allergic customer that that dogs, including service dogs, are not allowed at buffet tables. Instead, the staff are instructed to wait on any customers with a service dog.
That didn’t stop a disabled customer from starting a screaming match with the restaurant management when they enforced these demands of the Board of Health. In addition, she is launching a human rights complaint and is likely to win. This is another chapter of the ongoing saga of whose rights are more important: those in need of a service dogs or those allergic to dogs.
Second: Why have municipal councils? We can save a lot of money (and time wasted on election campaigns) by getting rid of them, now that the Ontario Human Rights Commissions is micromanaging them. The OHRC re-designed the bus stops in St. Thomas after a complaint from a visually-impaired man. Interestingly, the complainant demands discrimination against car-drivers in his complaint (emphasis mine):
Taylor appealed the issue to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, arguing it was discriminatory to force bus riders to walk across a wide parking lot to get to the businesses, especially when privately owned vehicles could park closer.
Are transit users a “protected group”?
Third: Funny, the Toronto Star is usually fully supportive when groups are calling for the enshrinement of new rights, especially economic rights. Not in this editorial. Why? That’s because a conservative think-tank is calling for a charter of economic freedom. Can’t have that.
Fourth: Since when does a Human Rights Tribunal ever care about costs to the public treasury? And when do they ever need proof before meddling in the government’s business? So when a leading Canadian neurologist says that a controversial new MS treatment is both immensely costly and has no proven benefit, expect him to be ignored by the BCHRT as it processes a complaint demanding public funding for the procedure.
Fifth: Shawn Atleo is completely correct when he implies that the Indian Act contravenes fundamental human rights. After all, legislation that enshrines special rights and privileges, and takes other rights and privileges away on the basis of ancestry has no place in a free and democratic society. We’ll see what else he has in mind, but appealing to international bodies for help isn’t a step in the right direction.