From Reuters: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/010622/5/6ep1.html
Could there possibly be anything funnier than a bunch of people pissed off about being discriminated against because it is holding them up from getting on with discriminating against people? What a bunch of idiots.
Jawofech
Not funny, just sad.
(Well, okay - a little funny. 
)
Esprix
No, there isnt. The next step is to refuse medical treatment to neo-nazis for any procedure/ medication that was invented or perfected by a jew or black.
Actually, if the bank is so egalitarian, it should serve EVERYONE. No matter what your opinion of these people, they are citizens and are protected by the business laws of Canada. I hope the bank gets slapped.
This reminds me of the woman in my soc. class in college who didn’t want the KKK to be able to march. Never mind that they’re American citizens with the same rights to free expression that helped make their views extremely unpopular; she didn’t agree with them.
I guess that means only popular views should be expressed.
No, that does not mean only popular views should be expressed. It also does not mean that the Royal Bank of Canada is * legally * right in doing what they did. It also does not mean, no matter how I feel about this No Committee 2006, that they don’t have the right to express their views in a non-violent way.
It does, however, mean that it is funny in a shake your head and wonder kind of way that they are crying foul on the very issue that their group is founded on. It is also, like ** Esprix ** said, sad.
The reason they want to open this bank account is to hold funds that will be used for the purpose of trying to block group of people from expressing themselves. They were denied an account at this bank because they are expressing themselves. They don’t like feeling discriminated against and are ticked off about it. They are ticked off someone is discriminating against them because they discriminate against people. It is absurd, sad and ironic. And I happen to find it a little funny.
Well I find it VERY funny.
I don’t know how banks work in Canada, but if they’re a private institution, don’t they have a right to give out bank accounts (or NOT give them out) to whomever they want? Do they have to have a little sign up that says “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” right under the “No shirt, No shoes, No service”?
jawofech, I think I get what you’re saying, and I think I agree. At the very least, in a ‘no-judgements’ mode, it’s definitely funny-haha.
In the US CONGRESS is not allowed to make laws that descriminate against certain people, but there’s nothing stopping privately held institutions from deciding with whom they do business. Since this generally works in the WRONG direction, by allowing people to sneakily discriminate against, African-Americans, homosexuals, or other people who don’t deserve it, I find it kind of amusing that the bank is refusing to do business with these assholes.
Perhaps things are different in Canada though. I’m not qualified to speak about that.
-L
While a bank doesn’t have to do business with every person who approaches them, I would think they would want to tread carefully in these situations. Refusing this group means they set a moral precedent - will the next step be pro-life groups protesting the bank serving pro-choice groups, and so forth? If the bank shows they have a moral policy in this matter, they may find that opposing groups in future demand the bank choose between them.
I’m not sure how things are in Canada, but in “Europe” (I apologize for the broadness of the term, I have experience from several countries therein) precedent isn’t nearly as much of an issue as in the States.
Things simply aren’t fought out in court with the same regularity and the political scene is very different. The main freedom issue in Europe these days is racism and Nazi worship (memorabilia for instance), and most people are very much for making them the ONLY examples of restricted freedom of expression. There is simply not a broad enough consensus for any other group to be barred from operation and individual pressure groups have no way of hijacking the agenda for their special interests.
I don’t want people to think this is a tirade against the US system, it’s just my experience of how these things work in many European countries (and perhaps suggesting the Canadians are more like us in this respect). I’m also sure switching the systems around suddenly would cause just as much chaos on both continents, so who is to say one works better than the other?
— G. Raven
p.s. sorry for all the asbestos
I think the OP was to point out the IRONY.
Man, I love irony!
Banks are federally regulated in Canada, and must comply with the requirements of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The relevant provisions of the Act are likely sections 3 and 5:
So, I guess the issue would be whether the denial of the service to this particular group would be held to be based on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. I suppose they could argue that the denial was on account of their religious beliefs or their sexual orientation; I don’t know if that argument would succeed.
However, Canadian banks are HEAVILY protected by the government. They’re privately owned, but their oligopoly - we have only five major chartered banks in the entire country - is government-enforced by law, and so banks do have a legal (and ethical) duty to hold themselves to the legal standards of equal access. I’d support them if that weren’t the case, or if this was a small credit union denying the jerks service, but it isn’t and they aren’t.
IMO, what the Royal Bank did was simply wrong and unprofessional. It IS, however, hilarious and poetically fitting. “No 2006” got what they deserved.