Request from York University male student not to intermingle with wome

[Michael Hardner]

I asked you to show me where it was explicitly stated in the constitution that we must accomodate a religious belief which is itself bigoted.

I didn't get that from your question.

No, you're right - we don't. There is this thing called religious accomodation, wherein we bring people and their attendant politics into the discussion etc. etc.

You've kind of glossed over this part. The fact is while human rights bureacrts might well demand this sort of accomodation, there's nothing whatsoever in the constitution that requires it. The constution might say these twisted religious beliefs are protected, ie, we can't punish those who hold them, but there's nothing in there which says we have to change our society in order to not hurt their feelings.

No, we don't have to ... but we do anyway. I suspect this happens because it plays, politically. If you want to reduce the amount of political interference that goes into such thing, then a clear process is the answer.

[cybercoma]

So you were gonna answer about whether he should be accomodated if he didn't want to be around any gay guys, weren't you?

I already said he shouldn't have been accommodated in the class with women. What makes you think I would say he should when it comes to gay men? For the karate class example, I said someone shouldn't have to spar with somebody of the opposite sex if it makes them uncomfortable (I didn't and don't agree to segregating the entire class). In that example, imagine the outrage if a karate instructor insisted that a female student who was uncomfortable fighting men was forced to do it. People would be losing their minds.

[Bob Macadoo]

Why I Said No To Gender Segregation at York

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/paul-grayson/j-paul-grayson-york-professor_b_4611750.html

I predicted earlier what this was about, (1) man's ego, and it seems he's proving me out. He's all alone in his crusade against abuses of the Human Rights Code. Never about education, supported also by the rumour he let other exemptions on this task, just not the "dirty segragator".

[Moonlight Graham]

Just to clarify Macadoo's above post, there's a new op-ed article from the York professor titled "Why I Said No To Gender Segregation at York". IMO it's a fantastically written article and I agree with it 100%. Most interesting excerpt:

"But although human-rights bureaucrats may believe York did the right thing, many Canadians writing to me said the Human Rights Code does not yield acceptable outcomes. If situations like this one allow religious rights to trump gender rights, then the code is out of touch with the values of Canadians of all faiths. As a result, it lacks credibility among a large segment of the population.

The people I'm talking about are not rednecks who believe Canada should be reserved for white, native-born Christians. They are native- and foreign-born Canadians of all faiths who put secular human rights for everyone ahead of parochial religious rights.

...Many [emails] pointed to the fact that in Ontario's publicly funded primary and secondary schools, examples can be found of situations in which code-sanctioned prayer meetings segregate boys from girls. In other instances, parents can request that their children not be required to sit beside or work with members of the opposite sex. In some publicly funded swimming pools, boys are separated from girls for religious reasons."

I agree that there is a conflict of rights in this case, and I believe that, under the law, secular gender equality rights and most other rights should trump religious rights in the majority of cases.

Freedom from gender discrimination/segregation > freedom to practice religious belief of gender discrimination/segregation.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

Gender discrimination is practiced and sanctioned at many levels in Canada. Religious freedoms will continue to prevail because of Charter Politics.

[Moonlight Graham]

Sure - except that certain things are explicitly written into the constitution. How much 'interpretation' would you expect on that basis ?

Canada's constitution (and laws, by extension) is written in a way that allows our judicial system a large amount of interpretation, called the "living tree doctrine". Far more than ie: the US Constitution, which is more black-and-white and usually considered "rules as written" and often interpreted as the framer's intended the laws to be. Section 1 of our Charter, the"reasonable limits" clause, specifically makes it so judges can override any Charter right as can be "justified in a free and democratic society", which is not possible in a US-style constitution.

The clearest rules still require contextual situational interpretation. That's the entire purpose of the judicial system.

For better or worse, you're 100% right, that's the way our judicial system and our Constitution/Charter is designed. That doesn't mean legal precedents can't be set, such as which rights trump others in certain contexts, but context should be considered.

[Moonlight Graham]

No - you are making up a bunch of situational rules based on your judgement. This is NOT what we want. We want rules that do not require people to make judgement calls because if we force people to do that we end up with a bunch of cases going to court. So a simple rule: you can't discriminate against other groups. If you have a problem with sparing with women then don't join a co-ed martial arts group.

It's not quite that easy. Your rule "you can't discriminate against other groups" sounds good, until we realize that the York professor is arguably also discriminating against people with religious beliefs of gender segregation. You have 2 conflicting rights happening, and the judicial system has to decide which should right should take precedent over the other.

[jacee]

I agree that there is a conflict of rights in this case, and I believe that, under the law, secular gender equality rights and most other rights should trump religious rights in the majority of cases.

Freedom from gender discrimination/segregation > freedom to practice religious belief of gender discrimination/segregation.

I haven't seen the outcome but I expect the student got his wish... I doubt any women would want to work with him after that anyway!

[cybercoma]

For better or worse, you're 100% right, that's the way our judicial system and our Constitution/Charter is designed. That doesn't mean legal precedents can't be set, such as which rights trump others in certain contexts, but context should be considered.

imagine living in a society where the circumstances of your crimes were not even considered. No thank you.

[RB]

RB, on 13 Jan 2014 - 4:44 PM, said:

My feeling is students will do anything to get away with not doing project work etc.

I've taught university students and that's not my experience at all.

York University smart-ass undergrad making up his religion as he goes along - Macleans picks up the story

[cybercoma]

One student that makes the news doing do doesn't mean that RB's implication that all students do this is true. Very few students do this, but it does happen, like I said. They're by and far the exception though. If I had to put a number on it, I would guess less than 3%.

Edited January 20, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

The problem is also that there isn't a central authority in Islam. So any contention that his religious views are false is misleading. Without a central authority, his views are very real. They should also be dismissed on the grounds that they are an unreasonable accommodation request that would compel the university to violate other Charter Rights by honouring it.

[RB]

One student that makes the news doing do doesn't mean that RB's implication that all students do this is true...

Guess you missed the point, is not about one student making the news - it is about setting a precedent at York University - and pave the way for infringement of rights across education systems

York U is my one of my alma mater - I picked up a few degrees, then some here. Some folks work hard - that's also when you fish out "slackers" with all the surreal excuses. So I had a hearty laugh at this one - only it is not that funny - it found a "sucker" who took it seriously.

[Moonlight Graham]

They should also be dismissed on the grounds that they are an unreasonable accommodation request that would compel the university to violate other Charter Rights by honouring it.

Which Charter Rights? I ask because I'm trying to figure it out myself.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[jbg]

It's not quite that easy. Your rule "you can't discriminate against other groups" sounds good, until we realize that the York professor is arguably also discriminating against people with religious beliefs of gender segregation. You have 2 conflicting rights happening, and the judicial system has to decide which should right should take precedent over the other.

I have one question; did he know when he matriculated that he was expected to attend co-ed, unsegregated classes? If hot he's too dumb to be college material; is fo he has no particular standing to change the way things are run.