Jump to content

Discrimmination


Recommended Posts

The Canadian Charter of rights prohibts discrimmination on the basis of religion, gender, age, family status, etc, however don't private and public organizatoins discriminate openly every day? Is this legal?

Some fitness clubs are "Women Only" and prohibit membership by men. Isn't this discrimmination?

Business from buses to movie theatres offer senior and children's discounts. Isn't this a form of discrimmination against those in between those age ranges? Would it be legal to offer such a discount on the basis of race?

How is it these forms of discrimmination are permitted when the charter prohibits it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We are a completely open and tolerant country except you can discriminate against Christians, sometimes Jews, white men, victims of violent crime and anglophone Canadians. Oh I almost forgot, as a Canadian you are encouraged not only to discriminate against Americans but to hate them. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.

OK I'll buy that. But how can a private enterprise decide it is going to protect rights or other national values by excluding men from a fitness club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Business from buses to movie theatres offer senior and children's discounts. Isn't this a form of discrimmination against those in between those age ranges? Would it be legal to offer such a discount on the basis of race?
Only if the discount is given to natives under the guise of a 'treaty right'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.

OK I'll buy that. But how can a private enterprise decide it is going to protect rights or other national values by excluding men from a fitness club?

National values - see above. Unlike men some women don't go to a fitness club looking for sex! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike men some women don't go to a fitness club looking for sex!

But some do. Some men don't go to a fitness club looking for sex either.

Hard to imagine how generalizing against a whole gender and then implementing a policy to discriminate against that gender is in the interest of national value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does cover business and clubs.

So are you saying that in your opinion that clubs that ban men are illegal?

The charter only covers discrimination if the victim is considered 'vulnerable' or 'weak' as defined by the priests of polical correctness. White men get no protection from discrimination because they don't need protection because they, theoretically, have so much power.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why worry about it. Democracies are only as good as how they treat their minorities. Societial norms currently dictate that women are allowed their own fitness clubs. What's the big deal? Do you want to join? Some women for whatever reason want privacy from men. Are you worried that it is a lesbian hangout? I mean what is it? Maybe if men were more appropriate women would not have to resort to these measures. There are all sorts of placed women are excluded from, and have been excluded from. Isn't there some prestigious golf club that still doesn't allow women? I mean what is that all about, eh! :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Female only clubs would be illegal unless there is good reason to confine them to women: as it is with men's clubs.

Where clubs are open to public membership, then it would be illegal to bar anyone.

Private relationships are different. There, trespass is a good example. You can bar someone from your premises simply because you do not like his face or his colour. That gets murky only when business enters into it. However, you could bar someone from your store just because you did not like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are Bona fide exemptions where discrimination is allowed.

The right to be free of discrimination is not absolute - what I mean is that even intentional discrimination is permissible.

For example: special service organisation that serves the very people of the identified 15 groups in the human rights code: sex, creed, age etc. can required that preferences be given to those member groups e.g. recreational centre may choose to allow men only to work in the men locker room, a batter women's shelter can choose women only counselors

I think the women's only fitness centre would fall under special exemption in order to relief this disadvantage group because women typically suffer from discrimination on the basis of multiple prohibited grounds. A woman fitness group is bono fide.

I think what you are objecting to is whether men can be accommodated in a women's fitness centre. And the answer is that centres should operate in good faith and whether the code gives a right for a duty to accommodate men or no duty to accommodate in the women's fitness club.

All in all men still have few more quids than women and a women fitness club will not suffer men or deter men from closing deals and making business connection. This is fair. In this instance the law does not see women as a threat to men.

It would be an unfair comparison to line up a gentleman lounge in the country clubs and golf club membership to women's fitness programs though.

Discrimination is blatant when women cannot access the golf clubs, football clubs, gentlement clubs - this is because they are not in the loop for network connection and cannot access resouces to further their potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why worry about it. Democracies are only as good as how they treat their minorities. Societial norms currently dictate that women are allowed their own fitness clubs. What's the big deal? Do you want to join? Some women for whatever reason want privacy from men. Are you worried that it is a lesbian hangout? I mean what is it? Maybe if men were more appropriate women would not have to resort to these measures. There are all sorts of placed women are excluded from, and have been excluded from. Isn't there some prestigious golf club that still doesn't allow women? I mean what is that all about, eh!

I couldn't give a damn if women want to have their own club. What I object to is a blatant double standard. If we are ok with women having their own exclusive club, why shouldnt we be ok with men having their own club. If a bunch of old white men want to have an exclusive club and wear sheets, burn crosses, and have midnight BBQs, should we care (assuming of course they are not inciting hatred and violence). mirror, if I understand your argument you are ok with women only clubs because there are prestigious golf clubs which don't allow women? Is that right? (BTW, I know of no golf club in canada which has this policy. do you?)

Female only clubs would be illegal unless there is good reason to confine them to women: as it is with men's clubs.

This seems to contridict Sparhawk's contention that female only clubs are permissable because they only discriminate against men (who presumably are not a "weak" and "vunerable" group). So if I wanted to start a men-only fitness club, presumably so the men could concentrate on fitness and not be distracted by the ladies, would that be legal?

However, you could bar someone from your store just because you did not like him.

Can I bar someone from my store because I didn't care for his race?

I think what you are objecting to is whether men can be accommodated in a women's fitness centre. And the answer is that centres should operate in good faith and whether the code gives a right for a duty to accommodate men or no duty to accommodate in the women's fitness club.

No, what I am objecting to is a double-standard enshrined in law. It is ok to discriminate against one group but not another. When we have a barrier which tries to promote one group, by definition it is discrimmination against other groups.

If I opened a store and I decided to give visible minorites a discount, would that be permissable and fair? My sense is the the general public would be outraged at this blatant discrimmination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discrimination is blatant when women cannot access the golf clubs, football clubs, gentlement clubs - this is because they are not in the loop for network connection and cannot access resouces to further their potential.

Where women are discrimminated against and barred entry, they have successfully sued to remove these barriers. Several years ago there were cases involving women journalist demanding access to male locker rooms (albiet this was a US case).

Female Reporters in Male Locker Rooms

Would be be as open to allow male reporters in a women's locker room?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canadian Charter of rights prohibts discrimmination on the basis of religion, gender, age, family status, etc, however don't private and public organizatoins discriminate openly every day? Is this legal?

Some fitness clubs are "Women Only" and prohibit membership by men. Isn't this discrimmination?

Business from buses to movie theatres offer senior and children's discounts. Isn't this a form of discrimmination against those in between those age ranges? Would it be legal to offer such a discount on the basis of race?

How is it these forms of discrimmination are permitted when the charter prohibits it?

...because the charter regulates the government, not private business or organizations.

Should it be illegal to discriminate, not in a free society. The consumer is quite capable of boycotting any establishment he/she feels discriminates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why worry about it. Democracies are only as good as how they treat their minorities.

This is a worriesome new developement in the arsenal of lefties across Canada. Instead of thriving for EQUALITY, it is being rammed down our throats that we need to treat minorities better than the reset of society. The dangers of this should be evident to even the furthest left of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Charter and the precursor Canadian Bill of Rights (which is not repealed and protects property rights that are left out of the Charter) apply only to government as has been mentioned by other posts.

A quick browse through the Canadian Human Rights Act will answer some of the questions that relate to discrimination in private business.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/h-6/

Again, as has been mentioned, discrimination for a good faith purpose (eg. a women's health club) is excepted from sanction. Otherwise, discrimination on the basis of a "prohibited ground" is illegal.

As far as "double standards" that Renegade talks about, they are real and in many cases permissible. For example, "Senior's discounts" are commonly used and widely accepted, so if you as a business owner can show a good faith basis for giving a "Chinese discount" or a "Jehovah's Witness discount" etc. then you would be okay to do so.

It may seem hard to think of a good faith basis that would justify such apparently blatant forms of discrimination, but I would think that an argument along the lines of "affirmative action" would likely work in the right circumstances. (e.g. if Chinese people in your city have been historically discriminated against / disadvantaged by the community at large, then a "Chinese discount" with a view to putting right the past wrongs may be completely accepted).

In the government / Charter realm, we already have enshrined such practices, so it would seem that to do similar things as amongst private citizens would have to be allowed. Section 15(2) of the Charter reads that:

[The right to equality before and under law] does not preclude any law,

program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of

disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged

because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental

or physical disability.

FTA Lawyer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great response.

It clears up why some discrimmination are permissable or at least legal.

In my view, discrimmination, even when it done favourble to a minority group is wrong and should not be permitted. The fact that we enshrine it in our charter is just an indictment of our own hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great response.

It clears up why some discrimmination are permissable or at least legal. 

In my view, discrimmination,  even when it done favourble to a minority group is wrong and should not be permitted. The fact that we enshrine it in our charter is just an indictment of our own hypocrisy.

Equality isn't very equal, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You probably have no idea what it is like to be a minority.

What an ignorant thing to say. You don't know anything about me. I simply believe in equality and liberty for everyone. Handouts are disgusting in that they perpetuate the thought that minorities are unable to make it on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be be as open to allow male reporters in a women's locker room?

Allowing females to interview male atletes in their locker is about accessing market segregation and about business. Sports is a guy thing. Males still dominate the sports world. A male reporter would not hesitate to enter into the male locker which leaves the female reporters out of the loop.

Sports still do not bring big bucks for women compare with men. I didn’t recall hearing male reporters wanted to visit the ladies locker room. There is no market segregation for interviews with the ladies.

The other issue is men have historically violated women, and sexually assult women. The lesson is that women still have primitive fears about a strange man looking at naked self. Not the other way around.

So opening the doors to female entering the men’s locker is not the same as opening the doors for males entry. The law reminds us about balancing responsibility and rights in sexuality.

What I mean is that women are still tangled up and vexed about their sexuality. Plus there is something called dignity of a women. Think again if you really believe that all the women prance around in the nude in the ladies. There are plenty of private washrooms available in the women locker room to satisfy a need, because women still hide their naked self, and are secretive, and very private if you didn’t know all of this.

To breech this private domain is a violation

So until there is this new order of sexuality and we can recoin a woman’s nakedness I don’t think allowing men into female locker is a good think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allowing females to interview male atletes in their locker is about accessing market segregation and about business. Sports is a guy thing. Males still dominate the sports world. A male reporter would not hesitate to enter into the male locker which leaves the female reporters out of the loop.

Would it not then be more sensible to just ban both male and female reporters from the locker room? Then they would both have equal access.

The other issue is men have historically violated women, and sexually assult women. The lesson is that women still have primitive fears about a strange man looking at naked self. Not the other way around.

So opening the doors to female entering the men’s locker is not the same as opening the doors for males entry. The law reminds us about balancing responsibility and rights in sexuality.

What I mean is that women are still tangled up and vexed about their sexuality. Plus there is something called dignity of a women. Think again if you really believe that all the women prance around in the nude in the ladies. There are plenty of private washrooms available in the women locker room to satisfy a need, because women still hide their naked self, and are secretive, and very private if you didn’t know all of this.

The problem with this argument is that it is built on generalizations. You have generalized that women have primitive fears about a strange man looking at them, and you have generalized that men do not. There will be women that don't care, and there will be men who will be very much intiminated by a strange woman looking at their naked self. By your argument the man who is intiminated in this case does not deserve the same protection accorded women in similar circumstance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...