First: At the risk of employing the lowest form of humour, I can’t help but say that our fundamental liberties are being trampled on again. A fitness club has lost the right to enforce a dress code, and has been ordered to shell out $1900 to a man who wanted to wear hiking boots in the club. (decision is here)
You might be incredulous that the complainant couldn’t perform the very small portion of his workout regimen, indeed the only portion that required the hiking boots but no other equipment, in another place, even his own home. But you should be disgusted at the Tribunal’s definition of “disability”, under which grounds the complaint was substantiated. He suffered a “judo injury” a few years prior, from which he experienced “some pain”.
Under that definition, everyone who plays any manner of contact sports could classify as disabled, which in modern human-rights-land enables them to ride roughshod over the rights of others. As I’ve said many times before, it’s a slap in the face of the truly disabled for whom much of daily life is already a challenge.
Second: Here is my objection to the wrong-headed kirpan settlement in Ontario – my long-standing objection to religious accommodation in general. If it’s okay for a law-abiding Sikh to wear an 8-inch blade into courthouses, then it should be okay for any other law-abiding citizen to do the same. Ditto with niqabs in the witness stand – I should be able to testify with a ski-mask on. And as for Christians and Jews who demand the state intervene to force their employers to grant them time off for holy days, the same provision should be extended to all regardless of faith – or better yet, extended to nobody at all.
The state should never be in the position of determining the authenticity of a person’s faith and/or religion and its proceeding practice. Instead, they should only be concerned with balancing the security against its consequential and necessary suppression of liberty.
Tarek Fatah blames the capitulation on the “guilt-ridden, bleeding heart white liberals” like Barbara Hall.
Third: Acting Commissioner David Langtry has said as much before, but clearly he’s not backing down. He spoke at a conference at York University recently:
“I believe that the Canadian Human Rights Act is potentially a new tool to address poverty”
It was originally a tool to address discrimination. No amendments have been made to transform it into a weapon of wealth redistribution. But our CHRC appears to regard it as such.
Fourth: Where do failed election candidates end up? If they ran for the eventual ruling party, they get appointments to human rights tribunals. At least Robert Malo did.
Fifth: A human rights complaint is being filed by a Quebec bureaucrat working in the education ministry who was told to cease wearing symbols and slogans that support the province’s so-called “student strike”. Apparently it’s now your human right to openly demonstrate against your employer’s interests during work hours.
Sixth: Let me try this one out. If the infamous “bathroom bill” is passed in Ontario (a similar one has been introduced federally by MP Randall Garrison) , the entire concept of sex and gender becomes relative to one’s “identity” and “expression”, instead of their biology.
Can I try this too? I’d like to self-identify as Aboriginal when it comes to tax-time or should I ever come before a judge for sentencing. I shouldn’t need a doctor’s note to self-identify as disabled and force everyone to accommodate my whims (and footwear). I can self-identify as a woman when payday rolls around, so that I can demand the same pay as a male co-worker with far more experience and education but happens to have the same title. I could also self-identify as Cherokee when I want to score completely unearned points with university faculty. And, self-identifying as 19 would have helped me get me into bars or acquire my driver’s license at a biological, but arbitrary, age of 13…