Barber refuses haircut to woman on religious grounds

359 posts / 0 new

Wed, 2012-11-21 14:53

jas

Otavano wrote:
So, legitimate massage, but certainly not medical. So that would sit somewhere in between the two extremes. Are you saying that even if it's not an essential service that if the person feels uncomfortable with it that therefore they should be blocked? If so, does the government compensate them for putting them out of business or retrain them for another job?

I guess you mean a 'spa' massage. Don't know. I wonder what the exceptions, if any, are around that. But I believe even spa massage personnel have to have some professional training.

Wed, 2012-11-21 14:56

#303

onlinediscountanvils

Otavano wrote:
from what I'd read elsewhere, apparently he had offered finding someone from outside to come over and do it but she refused. If that's true, then clearly she's there just to make a point.

No, she visited his shop for a haircut in June, and his offer came in late August. That really doesn't address the issue.

Wed, 2012-11-21 14:57

#304

kropotkin1951

I have been to various RMT's and none of them have had any rules about not touching people of the opposite gender. I prefer male RMT's because they generally have stronger fingers and hands. As the customer for massage treatments I get to chose, the RMT provider must by law provide the service to either gender or they are in breach of our laws.

Wed, 2012-11-21 15:09

#305

onlinediscountanvils

Otavano wrote:
Should this apply to bikini waxers too? What if they can't find anyone who's willing? Shut down the spa?

As had been pointed-out previously, there's a "public decency" exemption which may apply to your hypothetical scenario. But, even if the exemption did not apply, the commission is not intended to be punitive, but rather to bring about compliance with Ontario's human rights code. Based on the very measured and reasonable quotes I've read from the people at the commission, I doubt very much that they would order a business to shut down if they were able to demonstrate that they had been unsuccessful in finding job applicants willing to provide bikini waxes to men.

Wed, 2012-11-21 15:23

#306

Otavano

jas wrote:

Otavano wrote:
So, legitimate massage, but certainly not medical. So that would sit somewhere in between the two extremes. Are you saying that even if it's not an essential service that if the person feels uncomfortable with it that therefore they should be blocked? If so, does the government compensate them for putting them out of business or retrain them for another job?

I guess you mean a 'spa' massage. Don't know. I wonder what the exceptions, if any, are around that. But I believe even spa massage personnel have to have some professional training.

They may be professionally qualified, but if it's not an essential service, then certainly we should respect a person's comfort level, no?

Wed, 2012-11-21 15:30

#307

kropotkin1951

Our law does not say that only "essential" services are covered by the Human Right Code. Our aw says services offered to the public. If you don't want to provide service without discriminating then get into new line of work or move to someplace with a different regime for protecting the rights of citizens to equality in the provision of service available to the general public.

Wed, 2012-11-21 15:50

#308

Otavano

Well there ought to be a distinction in this case between essential service and non-essential in jobs involving physical contact with members of the opposite sex. This barber takes it to extremes, but the principle is a solid one when we consider the various awkword possibilities.

Wed, 2012-11-21 16:04

#309

autoworker autoworker's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

autoworker wrote:

Torts are best left to the courts.

Canadian common law says that discrimination is not a tort. That is why we passed Human Rights Codes because there was no legal remedy for any form of discriminatory behaviour.

Seneca College v. Bhadauria, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on civil rights and tort law. The Court ruled that there can be no common law tort of discrimination.

You are quite correct, the Supreme Court ruled that one must initiate proceedings through the OHRC, but my rudimentary understanding is that it's outcome may be appealed through the courts. The Ontario legislation itself might also be amended to define religious rights, and civic obligations, more precisely. It would make an interesting election issue, I think. Let the people decide.

Wed, 2012-11-21 16:30

#310

jas

autoworker wrote:
It would make an interesting election issue, I think. Let the people decide.

No, and, good god please, no.

Wed, 2012-11-21 16:31

#311

milo204

at the same time, "the law" clearly makes some exceptions to this rule so let's not pretend it's absolute and has to be applied to the letter. There are plenty of other service providers that are technically in violation of this rule, and let's be honest--there's a need for it (primarily for women)

Wed, 2012-11-21 18:46

#312

kropotkin1951

Great lets make restriction of women's rights, in certain instances, an election issue. Any idea what the best party would be to approach with that agenda?

This thread was always slanted in that direction and there it is full blown on the table. Should we start a babble thread on what currently enumerated grounds under human rights legislation should be subject to religious and other objections. Despite the fact that as a white male that debate would have little effect on my life I think it not a progressive discussion but a regressive one. Just one example is trans gendered people. In our hateful society they would be barred from many supposedly public services because they are not the norm and people feel uncomfortable touching someone like that. Lettng masseurs and gyms decide whether trans people are acceptable clients will lead to a lack of services for them. This white guy here will have no problem going next door to any other service.

Human rights legislation is designed to protect people who are vulnerable to discrimination and this debate is disheartening on this site.

Wed, 2012-11-21 20:39

#313

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Human rights legislation is designed to protect people who are vulnerable to discrimination and this debate is disheartening on this site.

You speak for me too, k.

Wed, 2012-11-21 20:56

#314

Tehanu

Thanks, kropotkin. Ditto for me.

It feels like Unionist and I and a few other people on this thread should just start requoting each other, as there's only so many times and so many ways one can explain the same thing, over and over and over.

Wed, 2012-11-21 21:06

#315

Mr.Tea

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Just one example is trans gendered people. In our hateful society they would be barred from many supposedly public services because they are not the norm and people feel uncomfortable touching someone like that. Lettng masseurs and gyms decide whether trans people are acceptable clients will lead to a lack of services for them. This white guy here will have no problem going next door to any other service.

There was a case recently in (I believe Oregon) where a transgender person (transitioning to female) attended a gym and went into the women's locker room, showers, sauna, etc. This person still had a penis and would walk around naked and many women were very uncomfortable (particularly those with young children). The gym decided in her favour and a lot of people ended up leaving. I think in this case, the gym was part of a university (and, thus, a public institution) but these types of situations, whether conflicts about religion, gender, or whatever are bound to continue as society gets more diverse and it will be very interesting to see which side the courts come down. I'd like to hope that these conflicts could be settled more with common sense and trying to accomodate each other versus through litigation but it doesn't seem that will be the case.

Wed, 2012-11-21 21:09

#316

Mr.Tea

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Human rights legislation is designed to protect people who are vulnerable to discrimination and this debate is disheartening on this site.

Correct, but there's no handy flow chart of who is more discriminated against and whose rights trumps whose. In the case of a Canadian-born white woman versus a Muslim immigrant man from Algeria, who is more "vulnerable to discrimination"?

Wed, 2012-11-21 21:12

#317

Unionist

I think it's time to end this conversation with people who couldn't give a fuck about Muslims but are engaged in nonstop provocation on this site. The only reason I participated was because it appeared there may have been some people genuinely interested in discussing some question of law and principle, from a progressive standpoint - and there obviously are. But at a certain point, the crap indicator hits "suffocating" and an end must be called.

Wed, 2012-11-21 21:18

#318

6079_Smith_W

And tea,

As far as I am concerned that question at 315 has been asked and answered umpteen times.

From my position it's not the relevant question here. I think hammering at it from those perspectives does nothing but harm to BOTH groups.

Who's worse off? Don't know.... let me get my handy discrimination calculator and we'l settle it for sure.

Wed, 2012-11-21 21:39

#319

Mr.Tea

Tehanu wrote:

This is offensive. I follow news related to trans issues closely. Please provide a citation. It sounds like you've got a vague memory of an apocryphal incident that may or may not have happened at the Michigan Women's Folk Festival and woven a different "scary trans washroom invasion" story around it. Trans women have to deal with this bullshit far too often. So if you cannot provide a citation I would ask you to retract this. Pronto.

My apologies. It was in the state of Washington, not Oregon (I just remembered it was Pacific Northwest).

"The decision to allow a transgender 45-year-old college student who identifies as a woman but has male genitalia to use the women’s locker room has raised a fracas among parents and faith-based organizations, who say children as young as 6 years old use the locker room.

The locker room at Evergreen College in Olympia, Wash., is shared with the Capital High School swim club and a children’s swim academy, along with the students at Evergreen.

“The college has to follow state law,” Evergreen spokesman Jason Wettstein told ABC News affiliate KOMO. “The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity. Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination law in this state.”

But according to parents, the fact that the student has exposed her male genitalia, in one instance in the sauna, is cause for concern.

“[A mother] reported her daughter was upset because she observed a person at the women’s locker room naked and displaying male genitalia,” said a police report filed in September by a mother on behalf of her 17-year-old daughter."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/transgender-student-in-wom...

That's the first link that came up on Google. I assume by searching the appropriate terms you can find many more.

Wed, 2012-11-21 21:39

#320

Tehanu

Mr.Tea wrote:

There was a case recently in (I believe Oregon) where a transgender person (transitioning to female) attended a gym and went into the women's locker room, showers, sauna, etc. This person still had a penis and would walk around naked and many women were very uncomfortable (particularly those with young children). The gym decided in her favour and a lot of people ended up leaving.

This is offensive. I follow news related to trans issues closely. Please provide a citation. It sounds like you've got a vague memory of an apocryphal incident that may or may not have happened at the Michigan Women's Folk Festival and woven a different "scary trans washroom invasion" story around it. Trans women have to deal with this bullshit far too often. So if you cannot provide a citation I would ask you to retract this. Pronto.

ETA: Never mind. I'm assuming you're referring to Evergreen College opening up its changeroom to trans women.

Wed, 2012-11-21 21:46

#321

Tehanu

And if she had to use the men's locker room she could get the shit kicked out of her. And language like "exposed her male genitalia" or how you put it, "still had a penis and would walk around naked and many women were very uncomfortable" feeds into the scary-trans stereotype.

Well, there's been a great record of unprogressive discussion on trans issues as well, so I suppose we may have it all on one thread, eh?

From the article I linked to:

Quote:
At Evergreen the school has reacted to the state law against transgender discrimination by allowing transgender students to utilize the locker room facilities associated with the gender they identify with.

Good for them.

Wed, 2012-11-21 21:49

#322

Mr.Tea

Okay, you asked for a citation, I provided it.

Wed, 2012-11-21 22:00

#323

Tehanu

Thanks.

Thu, 2012-11-22 00:02

#324

autoworker autoworker's picture

It seems that some rights are advocated more equally than others.

Thu, 2012-11-22 00:11

#325

pookie

autoworker wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:

autoworker wrote:

Torts are best left to the courts.

Canadian common law says that discrimination is not a tort. That is why we passed Human Rights Codes because there was no legal remedy for any form of discriminatory behaviour.

Seneca College v. Bhadauria, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on civil rights and tort law. The Court ruled that there can be no common law tort of discrimination.

You are quite correct, the Supreme Court ruled that one must initiate proceedings through the OHRC, but my rudimentary understanding is that it's outcome may be appealed through the courts. The Ontario legislation itself might also be amended to define religious rights, and civic obligations, more precisely. It would make an interesting election issue, I think. Let the people decide.

Yes, human rights decisions ultimately are subject to judicial review. That doesn't make them torts.

If what you are saying is that these sorts of issues are best decided by courts (subject to any legislation of course), I can get behind that.

Thu, 2012-11-22 01:07

#326

Goggles Pissano

I pushed the save button twice. Sorry!

Thu, 2012-11-22 01:20

#327

Goggles Pissano

Unionist.

I have not read one comment from someone who does not give a fuck about Muslims.

There are two sides to a discrimination dispute. In this particular case, it is a dispute beween discrimination based on gender vs the right to practice one's religious beliefs.

If someone is examining the "relgious value" line of defence and how it impacts on women today, one is within their right to challenge the validity of the relgious assertion without being wildly labelled as "islamophobic".

To be quite honest, I support all your arguments, and am on side with you all the way, and with a few others, but you are the ones, who have been childishly slinging derrogatory and hateful labels at people you don't agree with. The Dalai Lama said that when reasoning and rationality ends that is when anger and lashing out settles in.

People are within their right to question the validity of the religious value arguement, especially when a decision like this in their favour can have a wide myriad of disasterous consequenses for women in future challenges. One needs to take a critical examination of the religious value argument and look at why it was established in the first place over 1000 years ago. This is a religous argument that can be found in all the three major western religions' scriptures, and if successfully challenged, could set womens rights in Canada spiralling backward.

Why was the law written in the first place? Who ultlimately benefits from this, and at whose expense? You feminists have all been dithering and blobbering, but none of you have tried to get right at the heart of the whole ordeal. And people are not islamophobic for suggesting that a "relgious values" argument is just a lame excuse to keep women out, and there are many more exuses written into all the major texts, and there are many more circumstances where these laws can be used to discriminate against women in the future.

On the surface, it seems like an innocuous defence, but "modesty" religious laws do tend to be repressive to women, and it seems to me that it is women who will ultimately get hurt if they are allowed to use their relgious defence.

Thu, 2012-11-22 01:42

#328

theleftyinvestor

autoworker wrote:
Torts are best left to the courts.

But tortes are delicious. End of argument! ;-)

Thu, 2012-11-22 08:58

#329

6079_Smith_W

Goggles Pissano wrote:

On the surface, it seems like an innocuous defence, but "modesty" religious laws do tend to be repressive to women, and it seems to me that it is women who will ultimately get hurt if they are allowed to use their relgious defence.

I believe I was the first person who used the word "modesty" WRT the barber in thsi thread, and I should probably clarify what I meant. I was talking about HIS modesty, and his right to not touch someone or do anything with his body that he did not feel was appropriate. And I used it to point out that I don't assume that he was coming from a place of hatred, and that that boundary is justified. Rather, the problem was his ignorance about what he should have done to comply with the law.

Likewise, if a woman chooses (as in, is not pressured) to cover her head or wear clothes for modesty I have no problem with it, and I support it.

But the application of that system in which women are forced to wear those clothes? And the underlying excuse that it is because men shouldn't be tempted? And the result of it? that women are excluded from normal activities, places and people? and if they don't comply they are shamed, arrested, have dirty diapers fhrown at them, are beaten and lkilled? (and it's not just religious men who are doing it)

Thu, 2012-11-22 09:00

#330

Tehanu

autoworker wrote:
It seems that some rights are advocated more equally than others.

Care to explain what you mean by this?

Thu, 2012-11-22 10:02

#331

Goggles Pissano

To SW,

Yes, that is exactly it, and thank you for putting into words what I have had trouble trying to convey.

There is a big difference between a barber's genuine uncomfortableness with cutting a woman's hair due to religious restrictions vs. using it as a convenient excuse to exclude women simply because he can. And I personally feel that there is a legitimate concern on the part of some women regarding the latter, and that they should be allowed to express their concerns without having labels thrown at them for voicing that concern,

And, to reiterate, it is the ones whose viewpoints that I do agree with who are the ones throwing these labels around dangerously. They are also the ones who ought to be a little more interested in taking my concerns a bit more seriously than they are.

Do we really want men in todays day and age to reference Leviticus for valid arguments to keep women out of the work force and to refuse services to women they consider unclean or any other excuse they can come up with?

If women chose to live with these restrictions, that is their choice, but in a secular society, women need to have the security of laws that are going to protect them from these kinds of restrictions and barriers to access that men have and will continue to try to impose on them.

Thu, 2012-11-22 10:18

#332

autoworker autoworker's picture

Tehanu wrote:

autoworker wrote:
It seems that some rights are advocated more equally than others.

Care to explain what you mean by this?

It seems that some are advocating that a right to service necessarily trumps a right to religious observance. I believe that establishes a hierarchy of rights that only leads to conflict. There is ample precedent for accommodating conscientious objection. It doesn't need to be an either/or, all or nothing proposition.

Thu, 2012-11-22 10:18

#333

Goggles Pissano

To SW,

I also agree with you that it is not just religious men who are discriminating against women. Gender based discrimination is universal. The ancient religious laws were laws. They were not mere suggestions, and there are people today who are still adhering to those ancient laws, and all the more power to them. However, when those ancient laws that some people choose to adhere to interfere with our current secular social values, then we have a problem, and when these clashes result in Canadian women having fewer choices than they had before, this can be a very dangerous precedent, and one that I personally fear. I do not want to adhere to ancient laws, and I don't want ancient regulations meddling and interfering with my freedoms today.

Yes, gender discrimination is universal. No one said that it wasn't.

Thu, 2012-11-22 10:24

#334

Goggles Pissano

Religious observance can be achieved without denying rights to others. He can reasonably accommodate by hiring someone who can cut a woman's hair if he does not feel comfortable cutting a woman's hair, so denying service can and may actually trump religious observance. Time will tell.

Thu, 2012-11-22 10:58

#335

autoworker autoworker's picture

theleftyinvestor wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Torts are best left to the courts.

But tortes are delicious. End of argument! ;-)

pop-torts!

Thu, 2012-11-22 11:11

#336

autoworker autoworker's picture

Goggles Pissano wrote:

Religious observance can be achieved without denying rights to others. He can reasonably accommodate by hiring someone who can cut a woman's hair if he does not feel comfortable cutting a woman's hair, so denying service can and may actually trump religious observance. Time will tell.

Many barbershops are single proprietorships. Is it reasonable to expect each owner to provide service, without exception, despite reasonable grounds of exemption?

Thu, 2012-11-22 11:55

#337

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist wrote:
In Québec, it would be unlawful for a barber (or a landlord) to put up a sign saying, "we don't serve poor people", or "we don't serve socialists".

In Ontario, such actions would not be prohibited by the Human Rights Code.

That's because the Québec Charte prohibits discrimination on some additional grounds that you usually don't find in human rights legislation in Canada, namely "social condition" and "political convictions".

Quote:
“The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s case law is unresolved as to whether political beliefs are included in ‘creed’ as a prohibited ground of discrimination,” said her lawyer Niiti Simmonds. “This is an issue we will be asking the HRTO to resolve. It’s a legal process. It’s an administrative tribunal and it has the power to order remedies.

http://m.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1291184--jailed-g20-activist-cl...

Thu, 2012-11-22 12:42

#338

autoworker autoworker's picture

@pookie: I was thinking in that direction, but also in terms of a potential Charter challenge to the Human Rights Code itself, on the basis of religious discrimination vis-a-vis gender equality. If the legislation, or sections thereof, were rendered without standing, wouldn't tort law be the only available avenue for redress? There needs to be greater clarity, I think.

Thu, 2012-11-22 13:04

#339

Goggles Pissano

A single proprietorship simply means one owner. It does not mean one barber. Many single proprietors have more than just them working to handle the volume of clientelle coming into their business for their services. Also remember that this is not a common complaint. In fact, this is the first time in our nation's history that we have ever encountered such a suit. I highly doubt there will ever be a stampede of women rushing to ethnic barber shops just to make their lives as uncomfortable as they can, so if I were another barber who is an ethnic minority, I really would not worry too much about this. At the same time, this barbershop has been getting so much publicity from this whole ordeal, and he has so many supporters and sympathisers, that he will likely need to hire on extra staff just to keep up with the demand.

Maybe reasonable accommodation can simply mean barbers saying, "I cannot cut your hair, and here is my reason. I mean no personal harm to you. I cannot afford to hire on extra staff. Could I make some phone calls for you right now to find a barber for you who will cut your hair?" I think most people would find that to be sufficient reasonable accommodation, especially taking into consideration the size of the business and the financial means available to the owner to reasonably accommodate. No one wants to bankrupt people simply to offer rare services to the public.

We don't know what discussions took place in June between the two parties to set off the complaint. We don't know exactly what happened in August at least one month later to prompt the offer to find another barber for her. Lets just let the OHRC sift through the arguments and all the he saids and the she saids and come to a decision on the matter.

Perhaps a little politeness right from the beginning could have prevented the situation in the first place. We don't know what went on. I may be out to lunch on this one, but I do not think so.

Thu, 2012-11-22 13:30

#340

Unionist

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Quote:
“The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s case law is unresolved as to whether political beliefs are included in ‘creed’ as a prohibited ground of discrimination,” said her lawyer Niiti Simmonds. “This is an issue we will be asking the HRTO to resolve. It’s a legal process. It’s an administrative tribunal and it has the power to order remedies.

http://m.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1291184--jailed-g20-activist-cl...

Wow, that would be excellent if Mandy wins that point. The case law is indeed unresolved in Ontario:

Quote:
Political opinions alone have been found not to be covered by the ground of “creed” in the Ontario Code. In Jazairi v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)[30], the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the complainant’s opinions concerning the single-issue of the relationship between the Palestinians and Israel did not amount to a creed. However, the Court confirmed the importance of assessing each creed claim on its own facts and noted that whether or not some other political perspective that is made up of a cohesive belief system could amount to a "creed" was not before it. The court commented that would be a mistake to deal with such important issues in the abstract.

But Mandy refers also to discrimination among prisoners based on social class and condition, which clearly isn't covered by the Ontario Code. But if political belief systems can be read into "creed", that's one huge battle won.

Thu, 2012-11-22 13:33

#341

Unionist

Goggles Pissano wrote:

Maybe reasonable accommodation can simply mean barbers saying, "I cannot cut your hair, and here is my reason. I mean no personal harm to you. I cannot afford to hire on extra staff. Could I make some phone calls for you right now to find a barber for you who will cut your hair?"

If barbers said that to persons of colour (because their church prohibits inter-racial touching, say), would you consider that as reasonable accommodation?

Thu, 2012-11-22 15:03

#342

Goggles Pissano

Do you mean like the KKK saying that it is against their religion to cut peoples hair of a different skin colour? Are you trying to imply that a white supremacist group where white men have ultimate power in society should not have the right to discriminate, but an ethnic minority who is discriminating against women, because they are not the dominant power group but are still male, are more within their right to have a valid basis for refusing services to women?

Thu, 2012-11-22 15:55

#343

Unionist

Do you always answer a question with a question?

Do you think it's ok for a business to say, "Nothing personal, but our God won't let us cut women's hair"?

Do you think it's ok for a business to say, "Nothing personal, but our God won't let us cut queer people's hair?"

Do you think it's ok for a business to say, "Nothing personal, but our God won't let us cut coloured folks' hair?"

My answer to the last three questions is "no, it's not ok, full stop", whether legally (in Canada), or morally. And it's not about "accommodation" - it's just not ok.

I'd appreciate your views on those questions. Then I can better understand your viewpoint. Oh, and don't try to interpret my motivations. You don't do it well.

Thu, 2012-11-22 16:08

#344

autoworker autoworker's picture

Ontarians should ask their MPPs (and leadership aspirants) what they think.

Thu, 2012-11-22 17:01

#345

Catchfire

Goggles Pissano wrote:
You feminists have all been dithering and blobbering,

Hi GP. I'm glad you're back, but you may want to revist babble policy. babble is a feminist website, which means we expect its users and our community members to consider feminists allies, if not identify as feminists themselves. If you can't do that, don't talk about feminism. And never, ever start a sentence with "You feminists..." It's just bad form.

Thu, 2012-11-22 17:09

#346

pookie

autoworker wrote:
@pookie: I was thinking in that direction, but also in terms of a potential Charter challenge to the Human Rights Code itself, on the basis of religious discrimination vis-a-vis gender equality. If the legislation, or sections thereof, were rendered without standing, wouldn't tort law be the only available avenue for redress? There needs to be greater clarity, I think.

At the moment, it still wouldn't be available because there is no precedent to support it. BUT, in the Bhadauria case referenced upthread, one of the reasons the SCC gave for refusing to recognize a tort of discrimination was the pre-existing statutory protection in the HRCs. It is possible that the SCC might rethink that rule if a jurisidiction were to simply repeal an HRC.

Fri, 2012-11-23 10:05

#347

milo204

The problem i'm thinking of though, is how this will affect services for women. once we establish that all services must be offered to all genders without exception, isn't that primarily going to negatively affect women?

should there be no womens health clinics, shelters, etc? i think those kinds of things are absolutely necessary and justified considering men have plenty of other avenues to get the same types of services.

but if we go the "no exceptions" route then we won't have a leg to stand on when someone challenges the provision of services for women or any other group for that matter.

Fri, 2012-11-23 11:20

#348

Unionist

milo204 wrote:

The problem i'm thinking of though, is how this will affect services for women. once we establish that all services must be offered to all genders without exception, isn't that primarily going to negatively affect women?

should there be no womens health clinics, shelters, etc? i think those kinds of things are absolutely necessary and justified considering men have plenty of other avenues to get the same types of services.

but if we go the "no exceptions" route then we won't have a leg to stand on when someone challenges the provision of services for women or any other group for that matter.

No one here (except you) has mentioned a "no exceptions" route. If you take the time to read the thread - and the law - you will see that many many exceptions exist and are amply justified.

Here are some that may address some of your concerns about women's clinics, women's shelters, etc., on the off chance that some man insists on being treated or sheltered:

Quote:

Special programs

14. (1) A right under Part I is not infringed by the implementation of a special program designed to relieve hardship or economic disadvantage or to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal opportunity or that is likely to contribute to the elimination of the infringement of rights under Part I. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 14 (1).

Quote:

Restrictions on accommodation, sex

(2) The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation without discrimination because of sex is not infringed by discrimination on that ground where the occupancy of all the residential accommodation in the building, other than the accommodation, if any, of the owner or family of the owner, is restricted to persons who are of the same sex. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 21 (2).

Quote:

Recreational clubs

(3) The right under section 1 to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities is not infringed where a recreational club restricts or qualifies access to its services or facilities or gives preferences with respect to membership dues and other fees because of age, sex, marital status or family status. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 20 (3); 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (9); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (12).

Quote:

Restriction of facilities by sex

20. (1) The right under section 1 to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities without discrimination because of sex is not infringed where the use of the services or facilities is restricted to persons of the same sex on the ground of public decency. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 20 (1).

What I find a little questionable is your argument that enforcing women's right to be served on a equal basis with men will end up hurting women.

Fri, 2012-11-23 11:38

#349

voice of the damned

Restriction of facilities by sex

20. (1) The right under section 1 to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities without discrimination because of sex is not infringed where the use of the services or facilities is restricted to persons of the same sex on the ground of public decency. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 20 (1).

IANAL, but I'm gonna speculate that this would cover massage therapists refusing to provide massages for the opposite sex.

I worked at a health-club for a few years in the late 90s, and they offered massage services. There was a notice posted somewhere that under no circumstances would opposite-sex massages be provided. As far as I know, they never had any legal problems as a result.

Fri, 2012-11-23 11:42

#350

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

What I find a little questionable is your argument that enforcing women's right to be served on a equal basis with men will end up hurting women.

I don't doubt that some might TRY to use it that way, and others might use it as an argument for keeping quiet and not demanding equal treatment.

I don't buy either likelihood as a valid argument for not trying to do the right thing, though. And at the risk of perpetuating this:

I don't see this ultimately as a clash of rights, or a case in which one side wins and another loses.

Fri, 2012-11-23 11:54

#351

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:

Restriction of facilities by sex

20. (1) The right under section 1 to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities without discrimination because of sex is not infringed where the use of the services or facilities is restricted to persons of the same sex on the ground of public decency. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 20 (1).

IANAL, but I'm gonna speculate that this would cover massage therapists refusing to provide massages for the opposite sex.

I worked at a health-club for a few years in the late 90s, and they offered massage services. There was a notice posted somewhere that under no circumstances would opposite-sex massages be provided. As far as I know, they never had any legal problems as a result.

Interesting point - and it's a different issue than what's under discussion here. If the barber shop which started this [long] conversation had said: "No opposite-sex haircuts will be provided", then no law would be violated - as long as they provide service to both males and females. Customers don't get to decide whether they will be served by a male or a female - at least, not under human rights legislation. Businesses are free to provide the service any way they want, as long as they provide it without discrimination based on a prohibited ground.

Barber refuses haircut to woman on religious grounds

Pages