The Lynch List, 31-Sep-2011

I categorically refuse to make any Halloween-related puns or jokes in this post.

First: I’m still at a loss on this case. The Tribunal has now awarded $2.3 million in pain and suffering to over 400 nurses at CPP because they were paid less than doctors performing the same functions. The actual pay-equity award is still to come. You could make an argument that this is discrimination on the basis of education (which, last I checked, is legal). But how this turned into sex discrimination is ludicrous. Yes, most of the nurses are women. But what does that mean for the male nurses, who if I’m not mistaken receive the same award? How were they discriminated against?

To give a parallel, teachers in most provinces who upgrade their education receive an increase in their salary but are not assigned any extra responsibilities. I’m sure that the male-female proportion of teachers who have upgraded isn’t exactly the same as the general proportion, so isn’t that sex discrimination? Of course not.

Second: The Toronto Star is the subject of a human rights complaint. No, this is Halloween, not April Fools.

Back in 2003, the Star caused a stir among the Hindu community by publishing a picture of a statue of the Hindu god Durga. The statue was anatomically correct – as correct as possible, that is, for a mythical 18-armed warrior queen. After protests and angry e-mails, the Star gave an official apology:

On Oct. 4. the Star published a photo of an unfinished depiction of the Hindu goddess Maa Durga. Members of Toronto’s Hindu community took great exception to this goddess being presented in an undignified manner. The above picture shows the goddess in an appropriate manner. The Star regrets that publication of the original photo has caused anguish and apologizes to the Hindu community.

Fast forward to 2011, and the Star committed the same heinous act again. This petition informs the Star that “the Canadian Hindu community has launched a human rights case”. The fact that it’s the Toronto Star (which employs one of the only journalists in favour of speech repression in Mohammed Siddiqui) shouldn’t prevent us from defending them on principle.

Third: All of you are encouraged to write simple and to-the-point letters like this one.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: