First: An Ontario woman has launched a human rights complaint against her municipality, alleging that she has a right to be a “pushy woman”:
A Hanmer woman has taken the city to the Ontario Human Rights Commission over the hiring practices at Greater Sudbury Transit.
Charlene Bradley says she has been denied a job as a bus driver with the city for nearly two years, despite being ideally qualified and excelling in the battery of tests required of applicants.
The complainant outlines her guess on the reasons for not being hired:
Bradley said she consistently sensed ill will from a male manager with whom she dealt. An admittedly persistent woman, she wonders if she didn’t get under his skin.
“Honestly, I don’t think this guy wanted to hire a pushy woman,” she said. “It seemed like the more I pushed, the further back into the recruitment pool I fell.”
The city stated that half of the requirement for the position is a pleasant, customer-friendly demeanor. I guess that job requirement discriminates against “pushy” women.
Second: The CHRT has begun hearings into the case of the diabetic denied an Afghanistan posting with CIDA. Lawyers for the Justice Department argued that the guidelines by which the complainant was denied the posting were put in place to minimize the risk.
According to complainant Bronwyn Cruden, those guidelines are based on “myths” about diabetes. I wonder if her hypoglycemic attack in Kanadahar was a “myth”.
Third: James Morton of Osgoode Hall Law School disputes the reasoning of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision concerning the marriage commissioners.
If the majority suggests freedom of religion is proper, if kept secret, the minority goes further and suggests freedom of religion is fine so long as it is restricted to philosophical beliefs that do not impact on personal behaviour. There is freedom of belief so long as that belief is locked away in the believer’s secret heart.
There is an obvious danger to religion in either the majority or minority decision. If freedom of religion must be secret, if freedom of religion doesn’t include practice, there’s no freedom of religion at all.
It’s always refreshing to see something in the Toronto Star in defence of freedom, though you can tell that the paper’s editors aren’t onside with the column when you note that they included the disclaimer at the bottom (Haroon Siddiqui’s columns are not subject to such clarification, btw).
Fourth: The kirpan debate is the gift that keeps on giving. As long as you are an HRC employee and want to keep your job, that is. It won’t be long before the Quebec human rights apparatus swings into high gear over kirpan-wearing Sikhs being denied entrance into Quebec’s National Assembly.
Fifth: In a case I wrote about before, a British couple who refused to rent their guesthouses to unmarried couples has now been fined 3600 pounds for denying accommodation to two gay men. The complainants, who are homosexual activists, first threatened the guesthouse with legal action before booking a room under false “Mr. and Mrs.” names. It’s quite likely that Les and Susan Molnar, whose case is before the BCHRT, will face a similar verdict and punishment.