Canadian Human Rights Commission

[Squeakbox]

When you set the precedent to allow for discrimination to happen, what are you going to do when all of the businesses in an entire town stop serving blacks? And how do you think creating an environment that inhibits social cohesions is going to affect the rest of society?

I think that's in an extreme case... I'm saying if one restaurant isn't going to serve you for being black - that's just plain stupidity. There's always another restaurant that will take your money.

I'm not saying every restaurant will do that. If I was black and that happened to me, I'd just say "Fine, let's see if McDonalds likes my 10 bucks" - if they're turning down money, they're idiots.

Not saying money alleviates the stigma, it's just ridiculous how one restaurant's actions can be so absurd!

Racism is always extreme, but people need to have more balls to not get enraged/insulted by it, and take their money elsewhere. It's the anger that the restaurant causes that feeds that kind of prejudice.

Of course, in the major sense, if every restaurant is doing it - then we have a mass hate crime on our hands. That's a different scenario.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Squeakbox

[Argus]

Oh my gosh, that's not what I meant! I'm talking about the issues they aren't covering - I didn't say they go to the HRC WHEN they get raped.

I'm saying they need to touch on more realistic issues, not silly oppressions that happen in a restaurant because they won't serve you.

"Oh boo-hoo, I didn't get my chinese buffet because I'm black" - like, seriously? Choose another restaurant, and screw them if they don't want money!

The HRCs are built to arbitrate petty injustices. The big ones are arbitrated by courts or by government.

Unfortunately, like any bureaucracy, they've done their best to expand their roles and importance, and to broaden the interpretations of injustice so as to be more activist in terms of social causes. They're broadly biased and have little training in law.

[Argus]

Your definition of "actually harmed" is pretty limited. As someone in a position of privilege, you're imposing your definition of harm on the person being discriminated against. It's like telling someone who feels they've been sexually harassed to suck it up because "he didn't mean anything by it." It's not up to you to determine whether or not she felt harassed. It's only the victim's perspective that matters in such circumstances.

What if the victim's interpretation is unreasonable? You can't simply rely on the victim but have to use a broad-based, coherent understanding of what constitutes sexual harassment, or any other harassment.

[g_bambino]

I'm saying if one restaurant isn't going to serve you for being black - that's just plain stupidity. There's always another restaurant that will take your money.

What of the entirely possible scenario wherein another business owner thinks to himself, "hey, if that guy can get away with it, then so can I." And then another, and another. If the town in which these businsses operate is predominantly of one race and many decide they don't want to serve those of the race that's in the minority, those businesses aren't going to loose much money at all.

You might think it can't happen. But it did.

[sp]

Edited September 18, 2011 by g_bambino

[Argus]

When you set the precedent to allow for discrimination to happen, what are you going to do when all of the businesses in an entire town stop serving blacks? And how do you think creating an environment that inhibits social cohesions is going to affect the rest of society?

Realistically, that's just not a possibility.

And just btw, in my experience, restaurants (and pubs), other than fast food restaurants, tend to be largely segregated along racial lines anyway.

[Squeakbox]

What of the entirely possible scenario wherein another business owner thinks to himself, "hey, if that guy can get away with it, then so can I." And then another, and another. If the town in which these businsses operate in predominantly of one race and many decide they don't want to serve those of the race that's in the minority, they're not going to loose much money at all.

You might think it can't happen. But it did.

So okay, it happened. I don't get it, since it's money, but what I do get is how stupid people are in reality - so I can believe it.

[g_bambino]

Realistically, that's just not a possibility.

How so?

[Argus]

How so?

There are only two reasons why it would; money, and personal preference.

The odds that every restaurant owner, or even a substantial number of them in the city would choose not to serve blacks because he's a racist is just totally unrealistic in today's society and culture.

That leaves money. If you can posit a profit motive strong enough to persuade all businesses in a given retail industry to not serve blacks despite the fact this would be considered reprehensible in our current societal framework I'll be glad to listen.

[cybercoma]

I think that's in an extreme case... I'm saying if one restaurant isn't going to serve you for being black - that's just plain stupidity. There's always another restaurant that will take your money.... Of course, in the major sense, if every restaurant is doing it - then we have a mass hate crime on our hands. That's a different scenario.

Canada is much larger than Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. I think it's a very real possibility that allowing discrimination would mean a lack of access for some people over several hundred kilometers and in entire towns. I'm not in favour of a system that would allow for that possibility.

[Squeakbox]

There are only two reasons why it would; money, and personal preference.

The odds that every restaurant owner, or even a substantial number of them in the city would choose not to serve blacks because he's a racist is just totally unrealistic in today's society and culture.

That leaves money. If you can posit a profit motive strong enough to persuade all businesses in a given retail industry to not serve blacks despite the fact this would be considered reprehensible in our current societal framework I'll be glad to listen.

That's just the kind of common sense I would expect too, but there are people that seem to have this mental illness that impairs common sense... it's frightening, and it's everywhere!

To me it sounds ridiculously absurd because it IS a restaurant, a place not to likely to have that idiocy. But sometimes you just never know who is making the racist decisions.

[Squeakbox]

Canada is much larger than Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. I think it's a very real possibility that allowing discrimination would mean a lack of access for some people over several hundred kilometers and in entire towns. I'm not in favour of a system that would allow for that possibility.

Ya, it sounds more like an American reality to me... are we still talking about Canada? Sheesh..

[cybercoma]

What if the victim's interpretation is unreasonable? You can't simply rely on the victim but have to use a broad-based, coherent understanding of what constitutes sexual harassment, or any other harassment.

That's why the HRCs decide whether or not to hear a case. This way they can dismiss spurious claims. However, thinking about it, I can see your point about expanding their powers and importance by allowing increasingly less "harmful" claims to be heard. We would need to look at many specific cases to determine whether there's a systemic issue here though. That's well beyond the scope of the forum, but I take your point.

[cybercoma]

Ya, it sounds more like an American reality to me... are we still talking about Canada? Sheesh..

Canada has a long and mostly hidden history of racism and indeed slavery. Our economic system didn't support the widespread mechanisms of slavery that were in place in the US South (particularly due to the labour intensive nature of agricultural products like cotton and tobacco). Nevertheless, discrimination and slavery were a reality for many black Canadians. Even after laws were passed prohibiting discrimination it still occurred. Look into what happened in Dresden, ON in 1954 and you will see that this exact debate about whether private businesses should be able to discriminate was had within a generation. It is an utter fabrication of propaganda that Canada doesn't have a racist history like the United States. We would like to think that we are more progresive and forward thinking than the "barbarians" to the South, but that most certainly is not the case.

[g_bambino]

It is an utter fabrication of propaganda that Canada doesn't have a racist history like the United States.

It is no such thing. There may well have been racism, and slavery (if one goes back to before the early 19th century), but that doesn't mean our history of the subject is like that of the United States.

[correct]

Edited September 18, 2011 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

It is no such thing. There may well have been racism, and slavery (if one goes back to before the beginning of the 19th century), but that doesn't mean our history of the subject is like that of the United States.

Correct, it is a sordid tale unique to circumstances in Canada, but every bit as racist and discriminatory.

[g_bambino]

The odds that every restaurant owner, or even a substantial number of them in the city would choose not to serve blacks because he's a racist is just totally unrealistic in today's society and culture.

It's nice to think that it would never again happen in our society and culture, but, I have my doubts. I said "town" for a reason; but, come to think of it, there are places in the city in which I live that will only hire people of a certain race. It seems to me a short step to only serving people of a certain race.

Still, if I resided in a town where most businesses refused to hire or serve me because I was of a minority race, even if a human rights tribunal ordered those business owners to stop and permit me to patronise their establishments, I wouldn't want to; the poisonous atmosphere would still persist. People can't be commanded to like me, no matter how hard the HRCs try.

[c/e]

Edited September 18, 2011 by g_bambino

[Bonam]

It's nice to think that it would never again happen in our society and culture, but, I have my doubts. I said "town" for a reason; but, come to think of it, there are places in the city in which I live that will only hire people of a certain race.

And which race is that?

[g_bambino]

And which race is that?

Whichever one the proprieter prefers, apparently.

[Bonam]

Whichever one the proprieter prefers, apparently.

So you'd prefer not to specify? Why is that?

[g_bambino]

So you'd prefer not to specify? Why is that?

Beacuse you're not being specific.

[Bonam]

Beacuse you're not being specific.

You know exactly what I asked and the answer that would have answered the question. The fact that you are now trying to obfuscate will not be lost on anyone.

[g_bambino]

You know exactly what I asked and the answer that would have answered the question.

I know the question you asked and I gave you the answer that answered it. If you're looking for something more specific, be specific.

[Squeakbox]

You know exactly what I asked and the answer that would have answered the question. The fact that you are now trying to obfuscate will not be lost on anyone.

This is a bit redundant seeing as people are racist to either blacks or even Arabs, so does this argument really matter? The point you're trying to get at here is moot.

There is racism even against Chinese or Japanese people, if you want a specification in this matter, there is none. End of discussion.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Squeakbox

[cybercoma]

It is no such thing. There may well have been racism, and slavery (if one goes back to before the early 19th century), but that doesn't mean our history of the subject is like that of the United States.

[correct]

I never said it was "like the United States", in the way that you're implying that I said it was as bad as in the United States. I said we too have a history of slavery and racism in Canada, but our economy didn't support the wide-scale systemic abuse that took place in the South. It is only because our economy didn't rely on it that it didn't happen the same way here.

[g_bambino]

I never said it was "like the United States", in the way that you're implying that I said it was as bad as in the United States. I said we too have a history of slavery and racism in Canada, but our economy didn't support the wide-scale systemic abuse that took place in the South. It is only because our economy didn't rely on it that it didn't happen the same way here.

Well, what you said was obviously unclear enough so as to be read more than one way. Regardless, now that you've clarified exactly what you meant: you're partly right. Canada has a history of racism and slavery, and it is indeed not like the United States; slavery and the racism inherent in it were never present in Canada at anywhere near the scale it attained in the US and, hence, it is not as much a part of our national ethos.

However, the reason slavery and racism ceased to be systemic in Canada is a little more complex than you make out: Yes, plantations weren't a part of the colonies' economies, but added to that was the fact that Canada was simply smaller than the US, and slavery was outright legally abolished long before it was in America: Abolition movements emerged in Canada as early as 1790 and, in 1793, the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada passed the Act Against Slavery, which was to gradually phase out slavery in the colony. Then, of course, the imperial parliament at Westminster passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833 and the practice was made illegal throughout the British Empire, while slavery continued in law, and thus in open practice, in the US for another 32 years.