In brief a woman went to a local barbershop because she was seeking "a man’s haircut’. The barber refused to cut her hair since, as he explained to her, his religion prohibits him from touching a woman to whom he is not related. The woman claimed that his refusal made her feel “like a second-class citizen” and so she is pursuing the matter through our Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.
The OHR Tribunal has the power to act as judge and jury in cases of alleged human rights violations in the province. The Tribunal issues both judgments and “remedies” (i.e. fines, etc.) in instances where it determines that someone’s human rights have been violated. It is not without controversy and detractors. As I understand it, people who make complaints to the Tribunal always have their costs covered (either by the Tribunal or by the party who has aggrieved them). It is also the case that, at the Tribunal, “truth” is not a defense against charges. Overall, the system is clearly constructed to encourage complaints. But I digress.
How do you think the Tribunal should decide this case? Has the woman been discriminated against simply because she’s a woman? Should the barber, therefore, be compelled to cut her hair? Or, do his religious dictates trump her rights to be free from sexual discrimination, and thus she should be told to go elsewhere for her haircut?
Me? I think one side’s rights will, of necessity, need to be violated, or at least gently trod upon. Given that, I would ask: what decision when implemented will lead to the least violation of the human rights code? I think the answer is pretty obvious; she can walk ‘around the block" and find a barber who will cut her hair. This maintains the (first) barber’s rights while leading to only minimal inconvenience to the woman. It essentially restores her right to get a haircut from a barber. OTOH, forcing the barber to cut her hair, violates his rights without providing a way to restore, or minimize, that violation. It would also set the stage for repudiation of his, and other barbers’, rights on an ongoing basis. And that wouldn’t be right.
I meant to mention in my OP that I don’t think I’ve ever seen an article in The Star garner more readers’ comments than this one. Interesting that they’re running about two to one in favour of the barber. That said, it may be even more interesting that one in three commenters thinks he should be forced to cut her hair.
If a business owner is not allowed to discriminate against their customers for reasons of gender, then applying a ‘religion’ excuse should not change that. Religion should never be a cause for special dispensation: people shouldn’t discriminate based upon religion, but it should also not give special allowance to those who claim it. If other barbers weren’t allowed to refuse the customer, then this one should not be either. The only person I see being discriminated against is the woman. If the barber’s religion prohibits him from touching women who he’s not related to, then he should not be in a business that forces him to discriminate against potential clientele in order to fulfill this religious prohibition. Since he is in such a business, his religion should provide him with no special treatment or rules exemptions beyond that which any other barber receives.
Being free from discrimination does not mean that one is entitled to special treatment; it means one is entitled to be treated no differently than everyone else.
Edit: That said, I generally think that business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone. But this should be a general right, not one that is given through special treatment because of ‘religious’ excuses.
Isn’t there any Canadian law addressing sex-based discrimination in the public sphere? My personal sense (and I freely admit it’s biased) is that if you’re running a business open to the public, you can’t discriminate against a whole class of people. I’m rather astonished that this issue hasn’t come up and been resolved in the last 30 years.
So (I think) both of you are saying that the woman’s right to gender equality is somehow more worthy, or more worthy of enforcement, than the barber’s religious rights.
Again, I ask, in practice, what course of action here causes the least “injury”? I still think it is having her walk for a few minutes and find a willing barber (easy to do, no doubt). But you would have him endure a lifetime of ‘sin’ or ‘blasphemy’ instead.
No, I’m saying people’s rights not to be discriminated against trumps someone else’s right to discriminate against them, especially for religious rights.
Let him put on a fucking pair of surgical gloves if touching her is so distasteful. Or let him find another job.
I do. A religious belief is strictly inferior to the same belief held for secular reasons. If he can’t discriminate against female customers because he doesn’t want to touch a woman to whom he is not related, he should not be able to just because he believes a fictional character doesn’t want him to touch a woman to whom he is not related.
Two solutions, one slightly more sitcom-y than the other:
Require him to cut her hair, but without him having to touch her. So, using a pair of scissors and a brush at arm’s length. Hey, she doesn’t have a right to a good haircut, right?
Require the business to employ someone who does not have these religious beliefs, who can service the women who might walk in.
I am unaware of anywhere in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that it says a person has an inalienable right to cut hair.
The man is free to believe in the god of his choice and practise his religion. He may not use it as an excuse to discriminate. How would you see it if I opened a restaurant and refused to serve anyone who wasn’t, say, an evangelical Christian, claiming it to be against my religion?
Is that just as discriminatory. Barbershops not allowed to hire Muslims? Hospitals not allowed to hire Catholics?
Why not just take a live and let live approach? Barbershops are not in short supply. She can easily take her business elsewhere. Honestly, do you really want to force someone to cut your hair. I’d bet they’d give her a great cut. :dubious:
Absolutely. If the man’s religion prohibits this, then he is in the wrong business. Learn to repair trucks.
Otherwise (yeah, I know, slippery slope) it opens the door for any form of discrimination to be enshrined, by anyone. My religion forbids me from touching unbelievers; my religion forbids me to touch meat or dairy products; etc. We’ve already been through this with religious bigots who think their faith permits them to withhold prescription medications from people in need. The requirements of a free society take precedence over someone’s faith-based dogmas – when it comes to having effects on other people.
If you don’t want to eat pork, hey, don’t eat pork. But when you try to stop me, you trespass.
I’d say that unless you had a large, supportive evangelical Christian base, you’d soon go out of business. And that, to me, suggests the ‘solution’ - respect his right to limit his business to whoever he sees fit, recognizing that, in this society at least, he’d soon fold. On the other hand, if his shop was in Tehran, they’d be lined up around the block.
In others words, let’s embrace a practical ‘solution’ because one way or another, someone’s rights are going to be repudiated.
There is good discrimination and bad discrimination. Good discrimination occurs due to attributes that are actually relevant - not hiring a barber who refuses to do his job, for example. Bad discrimination occurs due to attributes that are not relevant - not hiring a barber because he worships Allah.
A butcher does not have to buy and sell pork, but if he does, he should not refuse to sell it to you just because you’re a Jew.
Would this whole thing be somehow different if he refused to touch someone of color? With green eyes? Who was blind? And all because his religion forbid it?
I’m firmly in the camp that if he refuses service to anyone who has the wherewithal to pay and behaves in a manner generally accepted in public, he is unjustly discriminating. There have been issues with cab drivers unwilling to carry passengers with alcohol If you drink, some cabbies won't drive - CNN.com They are in the wrong business.
In my college town 25-30 years ago, there were a couple of drinking establishments that refused to serve persons of color or mixed couples. They were in the wrong business.
Discrimination in the name of god(s) is still discrimination, no matter how you slice it.
Come on - you know what I mean. I am referring to his right to practice and adhere to the tenets of his religion (whatever his self-employed job/profession is).
Sure it’s discrimination. But I think he has a right to discriminate. No doubt he will suffer much in the way of social and economic consequence as a result, which is as it should be. So long as he is his own boss, he can do what he pleases as far as I’m concerned.
True, but your analogy fails to address the issue of discrimination.
If you sold pork to Mr. Smith, but refused to sell it to me – you’re discriminating.
That’s what is not permitted. If you don’t want to sell pork at all, I don’t care. (If you’re pretending to be a delicatessen, you’re in the wrong business.)
Once he enters the field of public commerce, he has to make a choice. The public has decided that certain types of discrimination are not to be allowed in commerce, regardless of religion. If he doesn’t want to touch women’s hair his establishment needs to hire someone who will, or he needs to look for another line of work.
Substitute race for gender and see if the argument makes sense. Can you honestly say that if a restaurant owner felt that he couldn’t server black patrons due to his religion then you’d be OK with that? As a society, we’ve decided that this particular argument is invalid.