# York U Prof, takes a stand AGAINST religious sexism



## The_Falcon (10 Jan 2014)

I was actually surprised by the Professor's stand given who he works for.  Not surprised by his employers response.  
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/09/york-u-prof-wont-let-male-student-opt-out-of-working-with-female-classmates


> TORONTO - Enough is enough.
> 
> It’s all well and good to be a welcoming, multicultural society that bends over backwards to respect everyone’s faith and belief. But there are certain inalienable, bedrock truths that go along with living here that cannot and should not be bent to “accommodate” different value systems.
> 
> ...



I think it was Mandel last year, who observed during the incident of the women going to the OHRC after Muslim barbers refused to accept her patronage, that these "clashes" will become more and more common.  I personally think it's hilarious as hell, as the usual human rights/equality for all people, twist themselves into knots, trying to justify equality based discrimination.  ;D


----------



## RedcapCrusader (10 Jan 2014)

From CTV:



> ...
> 
> And after consulting with Judaic and Islamic scholars -- not knowing the student’s religion -- Grayson found there was no reason for the student to abstain from interacting with women for the purposes of the course he is enrolled in.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2014)

The University administration and the Dean in particular should be subject to public shaming and ridicule.

Since I have a daughter who is on the cusp of going to an institute of higher learning, I'm going to make a point of writing to the Dean and explaining why she is _never_ going to enroll in a sexist, discrimatory place like York (and CC to my Member of Parliament, the President and Senate of the University). I would suggest that as many of the readers of the post do so as well, to ensure the mesage is clearly received. If we want this sort of nonsense to stop, then more people than the one valient professor are going to have to make a stand.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Jan 2014)

Wrong link in first post: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/09/york-u-prof-wont-let-male-student-opt-out-of-working-with-female-classmates


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jan 2014)

Thanks for the tip, fixed it.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2014)

Thank God that student doesn't want to associate with women.  It means he will not procreate.


----------



## GAP (10 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Thank God that student doesn't want to associate with women.  It means he will not procreate.



But.....but.....we'll just be wasting all those virgins!!


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2014)

GAP said:
			
		

> But.....but.....we'll just be wasting all those virgins!!



No we are not.   Just more for those who do want to associate with women.


----------



## GAP (10 Jan 2014)

whew!!  ;D


----------



## matthew1786 (10 Jan 2014)

I showed my girlfriend this article last night and she was offended. I can only imagine how infuriated the girl that was assigned to work with this individual must have felt. Unacceptable. York University, you fail.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jan 2014)

Saw an interesting comment somewhere - if you replace the word "women" with "black" would the university take the same stance?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2014)

This whole affair goes against the Charter of Human Rights that Canada has, against most other Civil Liberties that the WEST has and against the essence of what Canadian society stands for.  On the other hand, had that student 'withdrawn' from that university course on religious grounds, then that would be their Right to do so.  However, that student is inflicting his Religious beliefs in a manner to affect the Rights of another student which is discriminatory; and has received the approval to do so by York University.  Just another black mark against that university's reputation.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Saw an interesting comment somewhere - if you replace the word "women" with "black" would the university take the same stance?



VERY GOOD point.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This whole affair goes against the Charter of Human Rights that Canada has,



The legal beagles here can correct me, but I think the Charter section on discrimination concerns equality before the law, and not within private institutions.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jan 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Saw an interesting comment somewhere - if you replace the word "women" with "black" would the university take the same stance?


ZACKLY!



			
				matthew1786 said:
			
		

> I showed my girlfriend this article last night and she was offended. I can only imagine how infuriated the girl that was assigned to work with this individual must have felt. Unacceptable. York University, you fail.


I can't find the ref, but one of the versions I read of this story said the prof in question surveyed another class, asking women (without identifying what was happening in this case) how they'd feel in the situation.  They, too, were pretty pissed.

We now know that at York, with this dean, anyway, religious rights trump gender equality rights.


----------



## my72jeep (10 Jan 2014)

GAP said:
			
		

> But.....but.....we'll just be wasting all those virgins!!


But he doesn't get them till he dies, so they are still safe.....


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The legal beagles here can correct me, but I think the Charter section on discrimination concerns equality before the law, and not within private institutions.



The Charter does not discriminate between Public or Private.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ZACKLY!
> I can't find the ref, but one of the versions I read of this story said the prof in question surveyed another class, asking women (without identifying what was happening in this case) how they'd feel in the situation.  They, too, were pretty pissed.
> 
> We now know that at York, with this dean, anyway, religious rights trump gender equality rights.




It's not about _rights_, it's about cowardice in the face of any controversy and it's about the basics of modern _civilization_. Women have been enrolled in universities, on a broad and general basis, since the 19th century ... there's nothing in any way _controversial_ about boys and girls, men and women, being in the same classrooms, working and studying together. If one person has a problem with it then he has a bigger problem: he's not equipped to live in the 21st century ... not as anything other than a hermit in a cave on some hilltop in a very foreign country.

The Dean in question, at _York_, is, simply, displaying the total back of moral spine that is characteristic of many people in positions of minor public power. He's unfit to lead anything because his moral judgement is almost totally lacking. He'll be fine in the senior ranks of most universities and government departments, including DND.

The issue is simple: the young man is wrong. There are no _sides_ to this. His right to freedom of conscience is absolute and private, it does not, must not, in my opinion, extend to any public place. End.of.issue. I don't object to religious institutions, including schools and colleges but I do object to the intrusion of religion into public, secular institutions, which _York_, at least implicitly, claims to be. I object to chapels, prayer rooms or temples in public, secular institutions ... if you must pray or discuss why _your_ god is better than _her_ god, then enrol in a religious school; if there isn't one then start one. But keep your shamans and your myths out of the public sphere.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Charter does not discriminate between Public or Private.



In the matter of George Wallace vs the Canadian Bar Association, I'm going with the Canadian Bar Association.

http://www.cbabc.org/For-the-Public/Dial-A-Law/Scripts/Your-Rights/232.aspx



> Section 15 applies to government, not the private sector
> You can’t use section 15 to challenge every inequality in life. The Charter controls laws and other government actions. It doesn’t control private citizens, businesses, or organizations. Before you can claim the protection of section 15, you must show that you are being treated unequally by a law or by the action of a government official or department or some agency very closely connected to government, such as a school board or labour relations board. If a private individual, organization, or company violates your rights, you may be able to complain under the BC Human Rights Code or the Canadian Human Rights Act. For more information on this, check script 236– “Human Rights and Discrimination Protection”, and script 270 – “Protection Against Job Discrimination”.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2014)

Very good points ERC.

You brought up another point, semi-relevant to this case, which we have already witnessed the government cave into.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...... I object to chapels, prayer rooms or temples in public, secular institutions ... if you must pray or discuss why _your_ god is better than _her_ god, then enrol in a religious school; if there isn't one then start one. But keep your shamans and your myths out of the public sphere.



Agreed.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jan 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Saw an interesting comment somewhere - if you replace the word "women" with "black" would the university take the same stance?



The article mentions that the Professor in question actually had that argument in his rebuke to the school administration.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> In the matter of George Wallace vs the Canadian Bar Association, I'm going with the Canadian Bar Association.
> 
> http://www.cbabc.org/For-the-Public/Dial-A-Law/Scripts/Your-Rights/232.aspx



Shall we invoke Ezra Levant into this debate?


----------



## Lightguns (10 Jan 2014)

Must be a major dilemma for left wingers, when one cause celeb conflicts with another cause celeb.  Being a group of people who often refuse to compromise, you would think their heads would explode trying to find middle ground.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Shall we invoke Ezra Levant into this debate?



I'm not tracking your tangent.

Ezra Levant:

1.  Is a blowhard (even if he is right much of the time);

2.  dealt with the Alberta Human Rights Commission and was critical of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which are derived from various pieces of federal and provincial legistlation, and not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


----------



## Danjanou (10 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Thank God that student doesn't want to associate with women.  It means he will not procreate.



Unfortunately that does not apply to the idiot Administrators at York U though..... odds are they may have already and therefore ensured another generation of this PC assualt on common sense.


----------



## pbi (10 Jan 2014)

This PC balancing act reminds me of  the dilemma faced by BBC Radio a few years ago, when one of its stations was running a show that featured Jamaican rap, some of it violently homophobic.

The gay community (as might be expected) took exception to the idea of a public broadcaster playing music that suggested that they should be burnt, killed, etc.

Now what to do?

Whose rights trumped whose? Which minority group was to be protected against the other?

I can't remember the outcome, but when we set out to please everybody we probably won't. Probably simpler to say that stupid, non-bona fide discrimination against any person's rights based on conditions they can't reasonably change won't be tolerated, nor will gross or ill-intended violations of cultural norms, nor incitement to criminal action. 

Beyond that, it should probably be solved by reasonable discussion and debate.  This will inevitably lead to hurt feelings on somebody's part, but that is normally a typical by-product of principled behaviour. It is not your right not to be offended.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> It is not your right not to be offended.



Ah, but the current norms of PC and the HRC Star Chambers DO affirm your "right" not to be offended. The fact that this is logically and practically impossible does not phase these people in the least.

In the real world of political correctness and moral relativism, there is a "moral" pecking order (mostly because these people do recognize that _some_ groups will actually protest in the form of violent deeds rather than harsh words), so any white heterosexual mails who are practicing Christians can go to the end of the line, regardless of what their grievance or complaint is.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Ah, but the current norms of PC and the HRC Star Chambers DO affirm your "right" not to be offended. The fact that this is logically and practically impossible does not phase these people in the least.
> 
> ......, so any white heterosexual mails who are practicing Christians can go to the end of the line, regardless of what their grievance or complaint is.



Crap!  Is this yet another reason that Canada Post wants to raise our postal rates, while cutting their services?  Now I will have to be careful as to what race, gender and religious category my correspondence goes out as.



 >


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jan 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Whose rights trumped whose? Which minority group was to be protected against the other?



How is a Jamaican radio program playing a rap song with lyrics talking about burning homosexuals a form of cultural expression requiring minority protection?


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jan 2014)

Not going to quote the articles as they are both quite lengthty, but the plot thickens...apparently the university's logic in granting the request was, it wouldn't be discriminatory against the women in the class....*so long as they never found out*   :....and here I though York U was a great bastion and leader in the whole gender equity movements, proudly showing off their programs in those same areas....


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/10/andrew-coyne-york-accomidation-and-quebec-values-charter-arent-opposites-in-fact-they-are-the-same/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/10/national-post-editorial-board-rights-crusaders-run-amok-at-york-university/


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jan 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Not going to quote the articles as they are both quite lengthty, but the plot thickens...apparently the university's logic in granting the request was, it wouldn't be discriminatory against the women in the class....*so long as they never found out*   :....and here I though York U was a great bastion and leader in the whole gender equity movements, proudly showing off their programs in those same areas....
> 
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/10/andrew-coyne-york-accomidation-and-quebec-values-charter-arent-opposites-in-fact-they-are-the-same/
> ...


Heard the VP of York on CBC Radio trying to say, "this is more about an accommodation of an online student who enrolled not expecting to have to meet other people."  Not so much answer to the interviewer's questions re:  "what if he'd asked to not be seated with Blacks/Jews/homosexuals?"


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Jan 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Heard the VP of York on CBC Radio trying to say, "this is more about an accommodation of an online student who enrolled not expecting to have to meet other people."  Not so much answer to the interviewer's questions re:  *"what if he'd asked to not be seated with Blacks/Jews/homosexuals?"*



I wonder how long it will take someone to troll them, and ask to precisely do that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jan 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I wonder how long it will take someone to troll them, and ask to precisely do that.


Sad, but too true ....


----------



## jeffb (11 Jan 2014)

Satire alert! 

Story available: 
http://www.thebeaverton.com/national/item/1102-york-university-dean-supports-students-religious-right-to-aztec-human-sacrifice



> York University Dean supports student’s religious right to Aztec human sacrifice
> 
> TORONTO - After permitting a student to be excused from course work on religious grounds so he would not have to publicly interact with female peers, the Dean of York University is also permitting another student to have the right to ritually murder people to appease his gods.
> 
> “We are legally obliged to heed to the student’s wishes of human sacrifice” said Dr. Martin Singer, Dean of the faculty of Arts and Science at the university. “This wouldn’t affect many students as the festival of Tlacaxipehualiztli only lasts 20 days to celebrate the spring equinox and sometimes occurs during reading week. Additionally, the student has assured me that obsidian blades are so sharp that you will barely feel them.”


----------



## pbi (12 Jan 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How is a Jamaican radio program playing a rap song with lyrics talking about burning homosexuals a form of cultural expression requiring minority protection?



 Stop that. Stop it-right-now. You mustn't bring up things like that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2014)

OK, David Perkins, in the _Globe and Mail_ understands the real issue:






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/a-celebration-of-the-joyous-human-spirit/article16130567/#dashboard/follows/
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Jan 2014)

The Prof is firing back at the university http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/13/york-university-prof-fires-back-over-religious-accommodation  Also nice to see, even the Liberal Education minister is backing the Prof


> TORONTO - A York University professor is firing back after being ordered to accommodate a student who requested he not have to work with female peers due to his religious beliefs.
> 
> Sociology Prof. Paul Grayson will be distributing a letter to his York colleagues in response to a statement made by the school’s dean on Friday.
> 
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Jan 2014)

And the letter he fired off to the Dean  ;D http://www.scribd.com/doc/199418074/York-University-professor-s-response-to-dean-s-letter



> Dear Colleagues
> 
> I am writing in response to the Dean‟s letter of January 10 in which he outlines his reasons for supporting a student who for religious reasons requested that he not be required to interact with females for the completion of a group assignment. There is a great deal that I could say in response to the Dean's letter; however, in the interest of brevity I will only comment on five specific matters that he raises. More detailed documentation is available upon request.
> 
> ...


----------



## Danjanou (14 Jan 2014)

Good read, I am really starting to like this prof. As for the rest of York U admin types, this sums it up:


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Jan 2014)

And the dean is digging in his heels saying he had no other choice   :

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/13/york-university-dean-who-granted-students-request-to-keep-from-female-classmates-says-he-wishes-he-had-another-choice/



> Two days after York University was scandalized by news that it had backed a student’s request to be kept from his female classmates for religious reasons, the dean responsible informed colleagues that he had no other choice.
> 
> “[I wish] I had had another choice, but neither I, nor those who advised me, believe that I did,” reads a Friday letter by Martin Singer, dean of the university’s Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies.
> 
> ...


----------



## Danjanou (15 Jan 2014)

> ...While the Dean’s decision has provoked a storm of public outrage in the last week — including condemnations from NDP leader Tom Mulcair and Justice Minister Peter MacKay — it continues to have the wide-ranging approval of York University brass.....



Proving that even by the some what skewered standards of the ivory towers of higher education in this country, York still remains to quote my old Sociology Prof " Right the frig out of er."  :


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Jan 2014)

On a tangential, but related note:

Teen felt ‘degraded’ after teacher backed aikido student’s request to avoid touching females on religious grounds
National Post

A Nova Scotia high school student is asserting she was reduced to “second-class citizenship” after her Halifax aikido school followed provincial human rights law and accommodated a male student’s religious request not to touch his female classmates.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Jan 2014)

I think this demonstrates once again the importance of the distinction between fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms. Please note that the various "Charters" are called "Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms". There is a distinction.

A freedom belongs innately to a person - it is internal: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of belief, freedom of opinion. These are things that I, as an individual may hold in my mind. I can believe - I am free to believe, for any reason, including religious belief, that any person making an imbecilic comment in public must be shot dead. I have, however absolutely no right whatsoever to either ask that the state, or anyone else, do it for me or to do it myself.

Equality and non-discrimination, on the other hand, are rights: The state recognizes that it can and will enforce these rights against anyone who does not act in accordance with them. A right is something I (as the beneficiary) can oppose to anyone else - regardless of their belief. Thus these right belong to the person discriminated against or not treated "equally". In both of these cases above: those rights belong to the student discriminated against - the women - and they are entitled to have the state force their male co-student to act accordingly regardless of their inner held beliefs.

The Perkin's cartoon below is bang on as to where the right lies:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article16284131.ece/BINARY/w620/web-monedcar13col1.jpg


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jan 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think this demonstrates once again the importance of the distinction between fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms. Please note that the various "Charters" are called "Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms". There is a distinction.
> 
> A freedom belongs innately to a person - it is internal: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of belief, freedom of opinion. These are things that I, as an individual may hold in my mind. I can believe - I am free to believe, for any reason, including religious belief, that any person making an imbecilic comment in public must be shot dead. I have, however absolutely no right whatsoever to either ask that the state, or anyone else, do it for me or to do it myself.
> 
> ...




Wow! Two us believe exactly the same thing.  :nod:  Maybe we should start a political movement.

_____

And thanks for the excellent summary of _rights_ vs _freedoms_.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Wow! Two us believe exactly the same thing.


"The common measure of brilliance is how much someone agrees with you"   ;D


----------



## DBA (17 Jan 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Not going to quote the articles as they are both quite lengthy, but the plot thickens...apparently the university's logic in granting the request was, it wouldn't be discriminatory against the women in the class....*so long as they never found out*   :....and here I though York U was a great bastion and leader in the whole gender equity movements, proudly showing off their programs in those same areas....



This is the part the disturbs me the most. A public University has no business having secret policies.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jan 2014)

I should go to York and demand that on Religious grounds I don't want to have to associate with non-believers who are not of the same sex as me, from the same racial and cultural background, of the same blood type, same height as me and is unilingual Gaelic.  My religion demands that I wear a kilt and not associate with anyone who wears trousers.


----------



## Pusser (17 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> My religion demands that I wear a kilt and not associate with anyone who wears trousers.



Do you mean your associates must wear a kilt instead of trousers or just not wear trousers?


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jan 2014)

;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jan 2014)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Do you mean your associates must wear a kilt instead of trousers or just not wear trousers?




I like my _associates_ in kilts, please ...







... for a wee while, at least.  :nod:


----------



## Danjanou (17 Jan 2014)

I think I want to join George and ER's new religion.  :nod:


----------



## pbi (17 Jan 2014)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I think I want to join George and ER's new religion.  :nod:



Yeah! I really like those nuns!

Now, that's a BAAAAAAD habit! >

Hey: if I'm an Archbishop in that church, do I get a big pointy hat?


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Jan 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Yeah! I really like those nuns!
> 
> Now, that's a BAAAAAAD habit! >
> 
> Hey: if I'm an Archbishop in that church, do I get a big pointy hat?



As long as you pronounce your Rs like Ws......like Fwee Woger!

Fwee Bwian!!


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2014)

Whether they like or not, York University's decision has gone international:

https://www.hubub.com/topic.php?id=115601&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jan 2014)

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/14/teen-felt-degraded-after-teacher-divided-aikido-classes-by-gender-following-male-students-religious-request/




> Teen felt ‘degraded’ after teacher backed aikido student’s request to avoid touching females on religious grounds



Same same but different


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Jan 2014)

We are truly headed for a free fall down the rabbit hole.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jan 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think this demonstrates once again the importance of the distinction between fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms. Please note that the various "Charters" are called "Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms". There is a distinction.
> 
> A freedom belongs innately to a person - it is internal: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of belief, freedom of opinion. These are things that I, as an individual may hold in my mind. I can believe - I am free to believe, for any reason, including religious belief, that any person making an imbecilic comment in public must be shot dead. I have, however absolutely no right whatsoever to either ask that the state, or anyone else, do it for me or to do it myself.
> 
> ...




Even though it's only a few days old, I think OGBD's post needs to be kept at the front of our minds.

Our "freedoms" don't trump the "rights" of others.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2014)

A long post. While based on the interpretation of the US Constitution, it is itself based on the competition between the Enlightenment idea that each person has intrinsic rights and the much older idea that rights are "gifts" from the State. Much of the friction we are seeing with things like York and the Quebec "Charter of Values" is both the idea of granted rights vs intrinsic rights, and the clash between various "rights" that are granted by the State, since they end up contradicting or being incompatible with each other:

http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/17/conservatives-adopt-progressive-priorities/



> *Conservatives Adopt Progressive Priorities*
> By Timothy Sandefur, guest-blogging on January 17, 2014 11:52 pm in Constitutional Theory
> 
> Progressive constitutional doctrine underwent some interesting changes in the middle of the twentieth century. One was the return of liberty-based concerns in jurisprudence, and the repudiation of some of the more extreme Progressive democracy-based legal decisions. This is most notable in West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, which held that school children could not be compelled to salute the flag, and overruled Minersville School District v. Gobitis only three years after the earlier decision had allowed schools to require this. Then in cases like Griswold, the Court recognized a right to privacy which ultimately barred the state from intruding into the bedroom. Justifying this right to privacy was difficult for Progressives, since doing so ran counter to democracy. Witness the fight between Justices Douglas and Black in Griswold. Black rightly argues that Douglas is reviving Lochner, but Douglas tries weakly to evade that accusation by taking shelter in weird language of “emanations” and “penumbras.” But the trend had begun of liberal justices reinjecting liberty considerations into some aspects of their jurisprudence, ultimately a healthy development, whatever its shortcomings.
> ...


----------



## ballz (19 Jan 2014)

Here's a question that may have already been answered, but after reading the National Post article it says the sensei was informed by various groups that the choice he made was correct by the law. It also talks about "reasonable accommodation."

What if I, as a business owner, believe that Islamic extremism is wrong, that segregating women and men is wrong, and that by accommodating this stupid request I would be discriminating against women? Much like A&E has every entitlement not to associate with Duck Dynasty, do I not have every entitlement not to associate with bigotry?

I fear the answer is that the sensei could find himself in court over the matter if he chose to tell the Islamic student to go pound sand.


----------



## The_Falcon (19 Jan 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Here's a question that may have already been answered, but after reading the National Post article it says the sensei was informed by various groups that the choice he made was correct by the law. It also talks about "reasonable accommodation."
> 
> What if I, as a business owner, believe that Islamic extremism is wrong, that segregating women and men is wrong, and that by accommodating this stupid request I would be discriminating against women? Much like A&E has every entitlement not to associate with Duck Dynasty, do I not have every entitlement not to associate with bigotry?
> 
> I fear the answer is that the sensei could find himself in court over the matter if he chose to tell the Islamic student to go pound sand.



I think we all know the answer to that question, after watching the saga of Levant/Stein/McLeans vs varius HRC's.  I think (hope) that this sort of thing is the begining of the end (or at least a big revamping) of how HRC's and their very powerful tribunals operate.  Thier system worked fine (for them) so long as the target was predominantly white males, and white male dominated sectors.  But now that the demographic has been beaten into submission for fear of be dragged through mud and tar and feathered as an "X"-ist, it was only a matter of time before they started turning on each other.  Like I said earlier, watching these people twist themselves into knots to justify discrimination based on a "right" is going to be entertaining as hell, as they square off against former allies.


----------



## Nudibranch (20 Jan 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Here's a question that may have already been answered, but after reading the National Post article it says the sensei was informed by various groups that the choice he made was correct by the law. It also talks about "reasonable accommodation."
> 
> What if I, as a business owner, believe that Islamic extremism is wrong, that segregating women and men is wrong, and that by accommodating this stupid request I would be discriminating against women? Much like A&E has every entitlement not to associate with Duck Dynasty, do I not have every entitlement not to associate with bigotry?
> 
> I fear the answer is that the sensei could find himself in court over the matter if he chose to tell the Islamic student to go pound sand.



I think that physical touching is a bit different than just meeting witha co-ed group (I had a Muslim student in my academic classes who would not touch female classmates, ie handshakes etc, but otherwise interacted perfectly normally and no one seemed to take offence or feel "degraded" by a lack of handshake).

However, this wasn't a mandatory school PE class or anything like that. If the dojo is co-ed and the student signed on with that understanding, he should follow the normal rules. What if at some point the only person for him to spar with was a female of the same level, why should he be allowed to stop her from bettering her skills against someone at her level?


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2014)

Nudibranch said:
			
		

> I think that physical touching is a bit different than just meeting witha co-ed group (I had a Muslim student in my academic classes who would not touch female classmates, ie handshakes etc, but otherwise interacted perfectly normally and no one seemed to take offence or feel "degraded" by a lack of handshake).
> 
> However, this wasn't a mandatory school PE class or anything like that. If the dojo is co-ed and the student signed on with that understanding, he should follow the normal rules. [coloe=yellow]What if at some point the only person for him to spar with was a female of the same level, why should he be allowed to stop her from bettering her skills against someone at her level?[/color]




And you have just made OGDB's point: his* freedom to believe that women are "unclean" or that he will, somehow, be "defiled" by touching one does *NOT* trump her right to enjoy equality of service, in every aspect, from the private class they both, voluntarily, joined.

If there are enough people who believe as he does then, undoubtedly, there will be martial arts classes that are segregated in whatever manner the customers wish. And if a woman decides, to prove a point, that she wants to join a male only class in which no one will touch her (fight against her) then, provided she understands the "house rules" before signing up, she is, or ought to be, SOL ... but sundry human rights commissions may disagree with me.

Our right to equality is, in my opinion, fundamental and nearly absolute, but so is our right to _privacy_, in fact I would argue ~ but many would disagree ~ that life, liberty, property and privacy are the four absolutely fundamental human rights that are innate, not man made or "given" by any agency. The rest may be rights, of sorts, but they can be "trumped" by the "Big 4" or amended to suit societal needs.

_____
* I'm assuming it is a Muslim of a certain sect or an ultra-Orthodox Jewish man.


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Jan 2014)

I split off the tangent into property rights, as that can be a whole discussion onto itself.  Let's try to keep on track here.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Jan 2014)

BAck on topic then, I thought you would all be interested in this little legal article from Malinda Yuen, of Davis LLP:

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/287226/Human+Rights/When+Freedom+of+Religion+Competes+with+Equality+Rights+A+Look+at+the+York+University+Controversy&email_access=on


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jan 2014)

So this guy didn't even name a specific religion and they just accommodated him?  Awesome, he's probably kicking himself in the ass for not asking for more.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jan 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> So this guy didn't even name a specific religion and they just accommodated him?  Awesome, he's probably kicking himself in the ass for not asking for more.



Back to men in Kilts..... >


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Back to men in Kilts..... >




Oh, George, George, George ... no one cares about men in kilts, well, maybe a handful of members. We, most of us, are pressing for compulsory this:


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jan 2014)

Ah!  ERC.  Always pointing out the 'finer' points of a 'religion'.    ;D


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We, most of us, are pressing for compulsory this:


Is that a '71 Dodge Super Bee?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Is that a '71 Dodge Super Bee?




Are you suggesting there's something behind that behind?  :-\


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting there's something behind that behind?  :-\



I think its a Challenger.


----------



## kratz (21 Jan 2014)

I can't see the forest car for some skirts.    rly:


----------



## Pusser (22 Jan 2014)

I am offended by the gratuitous flaunting of an overbearing automotive culture.  That car contributes nothing to the discussion and has no redeeming social value.  Down with automotivism!


----------

