Be sure to pack a headscarf. ‘Cause that’s coming, too.
North Shore Tax driver Behzad Saidy refused to take Bruce Gilmour and his dog from a West Vancouver coffee shop to Gilmour’s Vancouver home in January 2006, saying his Muslim religion prevented him from associating with dogs because they’re “unclean.”
In addition to paying Gilmour $2,500, the taxi company was required to implement a policy for transporting blind people and their guide dogs.
It’s against the law for cab drivers not to transport blind people with guide dogs, but a settlement agreement between Gilmour and the taxi company says an exception to that law would be a Muslim driver refusing to transport a dog because of religious beliefs.
Via Mark Steyn, who (as you might expect) has more commentary. As do BCF and Shaidle
Update – Damian Brooks – “Steyn may well be right, but the case he’s chosen to highlight doesn’t make his point.”.
Update II – BCF says “not so fast….”
tell me: when Muslims fly planes into buildings (add your favourite example here) aren’t THEY the ones promoting and encouraging hatred of a specific group — ie. themselves?
Just askin.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at August 16, 2007 3:44 PM
using your logic, it’s therefore safe to consider anyone who’s ex US army, republican and a member of the NRA as a terrorist willing to drive trucks loaded with explosives into federal buildings to kill innocent people.
for the slower folks in the crowd… tim mcveigh.
This is about more than a cab driver. It is about people unease about this religion.
I would really like to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion. The problem is that there is no proof that this is true. Is there a country with a significant Muslim population (native or immigrant) that has not had either terrorism, violence or threats of violence? Canada, Russia, Denmark, France, Britain, Spain, all of the ME, India, Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria, Bali, Indonesia ….
It is difficult to believe that this is just a co-incidence? To ignore this reality would be foolish.
what i meant to say was…
based on shaidle’s logic, all gun touting republican army dudes are terrorists.
terr-(LowerCase)-ence said: “Just to let you know, I verified that you do have a blogg (so if your stats are really, really up today, it was because I followed the link.).”
Dang. Now I’m going to have to wash that thing.
The human rights commission is irrelevant, they just need, need, need to get relevance by somebody someplace. They are unaccountable, un-suitable, always right, even when they are wrong, which is most of the time. There are sufficient laws in this country to deal with real discrimination and other offences of that kind.
Our civilization is not collapsing, though it is on a slippery slope into collapse. You see there are immutable common decency standards whether someone agrees or not. Not agreeing does not cancel them. Perhaps reading Plato, Aristotle and other who thought about these things long time ago would help some to understand the essence of ethics.
Those people as it is have no bias as to what is going on today in so far as your preferences.
Ethics today, are uncommon and overturned by the bottom feeders or whatever is your fancy.
While belief in God will enable one to see clearly the ethics of human behavior, it is not necessary so far as that goes. Every human being has natural sense of good and bad thought many are utterly unable to deal with that.
To say that some people think that God created world in what ever days has nothing to do with anything as much as some would like to think.
Nemo2 – I am with you man. Years ago I worked for IBM and one day some of us techies went to lunch. Driven by a nice, quiet muslim fellow. Who’s idea of making a left hand turn through traffic consisted of cranking the wheel over, closing his eyes then hitting the gas. All that was missing was him screaming “Allah Akhbar”…
I do the driving to lunches now. We get there a little slower, but we do get there.
Jeff Davidson:
“what i meant to say was…
based on shaidle’s logic, all gun touting republican army dudes are terrorists.”
Have another drink Jeff;)
You’re right – 69 years old – my bad. “Built by the children of Muslim farmers and fur traders.” The point is, Muslims have been here for generations – for more than 100 years. And the major reason there weren’t more here prior to the ’60’s, is our strict European immigration policies.
As for what they contribute, hard to say, there are hundreds of thousands of them, including many doctors (I’ve noticed), soldiers (as Belisarius points out in an earlier post), and, yes, cabdrivers, like the recent immigrant husband and father of young children that was robbed, stabbed to death, and put in the trunk by customers last year here in Edmonton. I’ll bet his family wish he’d refused that fare. He was working hard trying to make a life for himself and his family in his new chosen country.
I hope you can appreciate why it bugs me when people refer to Muslims generally as smelly and unclean when I’m sitting a few feet away from some Muslim friends and co-workers who are anything but.
Canada’s Muslim population jumped by more than 200,000 between 2001-2006 and now stands at 784,000. Through mass immigration and the nation’s highest birthrates, the number of Muslims in Canada is expected to reach an astonishing 1,421,000 by 2017. Needless to say, Islam is Canada’s fastest growing religion by far.
For a little perspective, in Canada’s centennial year 1967, the Muslim population was less than 30,000, or just over 0.1% of the total. By our sesquicentennial in 2017, the Muslim share will be more than 4%, a 5000% increase in absolute terms.
Future historians will no doubt marvel at a society like ours: Willing our own destruction from within through mass Muslim immigration. To paraphrase William F Buckley, who will stand athwart history, yelling STOP?
“Cleanliness is one of the traits of Islam.”
Umm, good point, that. Possibly, so is this.
I find it amazing the double standard applied to muslims; they seem to get a free pass on everything they do, or at the least, have Westerners tripping over themselves to make excuses for them. Boycott driving a blind man because your “relgion” doesn’t approve of dogs? No sweat. Put up a billboard honoring a terrorist organization? Hey – it’s your “right” to do so, yes? Riot and kill innocents because of some lame-o cartoons? We shouldn’t really print such offensive stuff (although crucifixes dunked in urine or the Virgin smeared in dung are perfectly fine, thanksverymuch).
In the wake of the mohammed cartoons, a poll was taken after some muslims advocated beheading Stephen Harper for “slandering” their “religion”. Some 12% agreed with the idea. Think about that: of 700,000 muzzies in Canada, better than 70,000 agreed – in principle, anyways – with the notion of beheading the leader of the country for some so-called slander against the religion.
The MSM dozes through all of this, of course.
These things we’re seeing are just snippets in time, folks. Islam won’t conquer the west militarily; they have neither the standing army, technology or the stones for that. They are much more clever; they test the grounds of western tolerance, and keep pushing the limits, knowing full well the PC self-loathing West will fall over itself to ignore what soon may be the elephant in the room. We’re sowing the seeds of our own dhimmification, and quite effectively, too.
Try to imagine ANY of the above events occuring in this country… and the offenders were Christians. Or Jews. Can you imagine the op-eds, and editorials?
“What we are required to do, by our own civilized standards and by our law, is TOLERATE Muslims. And we do. They however seem not to be returning the favor”
Phantom is bang-on in that assessment. And it’s not “racist” to say it, either; islam isn’t a “race”, any more than Christianity is.
John at August 16, 2007 5:32 PM
“First let me just say that all of you sky-ghost people are a pain in the ass… That said, we all have to tolerate each other’s retarded beliefs”
“Retarded beliefs”? Gee, john, that’s certainly very big of you, and tolerant, too. Why, then, am I slandered as a “denier” when I speak out against one of your big retarded beliefs: AGW?
Back under your bridge, troll-boy.
Shamrock: your pastor did not have to turn in his license. The SSM law doesn’t force the clergy to marry gays or lesbians (at this stage of the game, anyway), so he has a free pass on that. Religious beliefs are otherwise irrelevant if, say, you write a letter to your local paper concerning homosexual handouts in the class you teach, or deny a SSM wedding reception at your Christian hall, or decline to print homosexual literature at your print shop. Of course, exceptions to the rule are if you drive a cab and don’t dig somebody hopping inside with a seeing eye dog. Or alcohol… perhaps your pet potbellied pig, etc. Or if you are a firefighter and refuse to rescue a blind man who has a dog (Vancouver, Aug 15th CP). Perhaps getting somewhat “pissy over Muslims” is indeed the only place to start. How else will they learn that their religion deserves no more respect than any other in this country, and they get no special treatment compared to anyone else? The “tolerance and niceness” option isn’t fairing too grandly, is it, John?
Jimbo: Toronto is starting to wake up to the fact that the imported jamaican gangsta/gun culture is indeed a problem. In the last month I’ve heard it mentioned on AM640 (Oakley), and – gasp – even noted an editorial in the globe on it. Their challenge is how to fight it, but recognizing the problem is the first step.
jeff davidson at August 16, 2007 9:03 PM
Don’t be intentionally obtuse. This is one isolated incident, Einstein; when ex-army types start amassing the body count as that shown in my link above, c’mon back and let’s discuss, mm-K? Until then, you’re throwing out boneheaded straw men.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
jeff davidson: “what i meant to say was… based on shaidle’s logic …”
What you actually said was … based davidson’s logic … then {your nonsense}.
John, you keep on endorsing ‘The Big Bang’ Theory as fact all you want, but if you think creation is fiction, how in heck do you figure ‘The Big Bang’ Theory is fact. I can understand how people find it difficult to believe there is a God who created the heavens and the earth in six days, a day is as a thousand, but how do you figure you’re going to have any easier a time trying to convince people there was a Big Bang, and voila, – creation all on its own, just a giv’n ‘er.
Jeff, as for Tim McVeigh, he didn’t blow up people in the name of Christ; apparently, he wasn’t even a Christian, just a lot more crap blowing in the wind. If he were a Christian, he wouldn’t have been blowing people up, would he.
Good post, mhb!
Re:JP “Future historians will no doubt marvel at a society like ours: Willing our own destruction from within through mass Muslim immigration.”
I guess you know how the aboriginals must feel then huh?
For what it’s worth, notwithstanding the insults (that you, thankfully, avoid), this can be a constructive debate if it helps us decide what constitutes real Canadian values. Most of us who’ve grown up here, I think, can feel what they may be, but it’s hard to describe.
Watch out though. If we look back, historically, Canada has been decidedly Centre-Left compared to our Southern neighbours. If those are indeed our shared values, then we end up back here again. I don’t think Canadians will ever vote in a right-wing government. And with such an ethnic cultural mix, any political party that hopes to govern had better be inclusive, generally.
One thing I think we can all agree on is that our government, and our courts, need to quit wasting time, effort, and taxpayer dollars on the Khadr types, Jamaican wanna-be Gangsta’s, Sikh terrorists, and any of the other myriad creeps and losers that take advantage of our immigration policies and ridiculous (lack of) enforcement. Ship ’em back, or better yet, don’t let them in at all. Just don’t paint everyone with the same brush, or you’ll soon find yourself painted into the proverbial corner.
… cause NO GOOD CHRISTIAN WOMAN would EVER wear anything on their head!!!
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/head-covering-history.html
Joanne, no disrespect, but I don’t share your faith, and will not be governed by it.
The Big Bang Theory, Theory of Evolution, etc, are based on science, the study of data, experimentation, and facts. Creationism is based on faith.
If a person does not share your faith, or you might say, is unenlightened, Creationism is ridiculous, as is pointed out by those who “worship” “The Flying Spaghetti Monster”. If I knew how to make a link I would, but you can Google it to see.
I’m not knocking Christians though. I just don’t get it.
Hey, jeff, “tim mcveigh”? That’s your best stab at symmetry with Kathy Shaidle comment that 9/11(or pick any other of the global terrorist atrocities in the name of Allah) brought Muslims attention and encouraged hatred toward them at their own doing?
McVeigh brought attention and hatred to himself as nothing more than as a lone psycho with a demented sidekick along the ordered of the DC snipers. He didn’t act on behalf of Catholics, Republicans, the military or any other organized entity in America. He doesn’t even fit in the logical narrative. Kathy Shaidle’s logic stands.
Your obtuseness, your bonehead strawman tactics, as noted, plus your childlike invoking of some lame lefty Thought Cops’ statute against other posters earlier when all else fails is getting tiring.
You mentioned that you have things in common with conservatives, well, free speech is most highly valued by us. Try to respect that or find a better coping mechanism to deal with it.
The Big Bang Theory is based on science?
So is the theory of evolution.
Both are THEORIES, not fact. That’s why they’re called theories. And, to me, they make less sense than Creation.
Science is about proveable knowledge.
Religion is about wisdom.
I am tired, tired, tired of living in a country that allows this kind of crap to happen (almost on a daily basis these days). When are we going to wake up and say I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE. I still find it hard to fathom that Mcguinty (jerk) contemplated allowing sharia law in Ontario. This scares me. I want to change this but I do not know how. We need more Canadians to get off their lazy butts and wake up to what is happening in our country. I am open to suggestions on how to accomplish this. Serious thought has to be given to this and soon.
“Ship them back, or better yet, don’t let them in at all.”
With an attitude like that Jimbo, there’s only one place for you: Ottawa, as our next Minister of Immigration 😉
As an atheist, I must take exception with a few comments posted here.
1- leftdog – you cannot compare the plight of todays female Muslim with what happened to Christian women 2-3 centuries ago – it just makes no sense whatsoever. that was then, this is now – it is called ancient history.
2- john – non-believers also see that this world is heading back down into the toilet, and unlike you, I do not presume to understand which theory truly explains our origin as a species – you are all guessing as far as I am concerned.
Do Christian nations have a past that is soaked in blood? No doubt about it. But at least true freedom has evolved since 1945, and with the exception of crazy commies and islamowhackos, the world was heading to a better place(with speed bumps and potholes along the way)
So, again, quit typecasting and stereotyping all SDAers. It does come across as arrogant and bigoted.
One other thing. I have taught my children to read the writings of Jesus Christ. Whether or not he is the son of God, I will leave that up to others to debate. But one cannot go wrong living one’s life by His words.
enuf said
From this day on the Religion of Peace (with allahs blessing, peace be with you) shall be referred to as the Religion of Fanatics.
JP, you said “Canada’s Muslim population jumped by more than 200,000 between 2001-2006 and now stands at 784,000”.
Where do you get that info? AFAIK, the census data has not been released yet.
Frankly, I woudl be surprised if the increase from 2001 to 2006 was only 200,000.
My email to Kevin Falcon has been sent.
I refuse to get drawn into hating the practitioners of a religion or secular philosophy I disagree with. The person who follows what I know is false believes it because they do not know and/or want to follow the Truth. My job is to encourage them to seek the Truth by proclaiming that Truth and to the best of the ability the Truth gives me to live that Truth.
“Pick up a paper John, or do you support the eradication of Jews.”
Sorry, but the “you hate the Jews” argument doesn’t work on me. Just because the Jews suffered horribly does not mean they are incapable of doing nasty things themselves, and as a citizen of the world, I get to call shenanigans when I see it.
I love Jews. Think they’re great. I have friends and colleagues who are Jews. Not only that, I support Israel, BUT I think Israel has to give back the territory it captured in 1967, and negotiate some sort of settlement with the people displaced when millions of European Jews immigrated there after the Holocaust.
This is not anti-semitic, and it is a major sticking point on the road to peace.
Hezbollah sucks, but like it or not, you either fight them, or talk to them. Everybody loses when you fight, so you may as well talk.
And re all this stuff about the “Big Bang Theory”… never once did I mention the BB. The discussion was about evolution.
While both are “theories”, evolution is now a theory that is universally considered by scientists to be fact. There are literally thousands of experiments that have confirmed it in fields ranging from biology, paleontology, genetics, etcetera.
Whereas the Big Bang, which was not discussed, it still very much in the theoretical range, and nobody really knows what it means or what caused it.
Here’s the deal… if you want to believe that there’s a god, and it created all life, at least accept the fact that maybe he did it using evolution as a tool. At least this way, you don’t look like idiots for ignoring the evidence right before your eyes.
John:
Since there has never been any credible scientific proof of one species changing into another, evolution remains a theory.
Science is not about popular consensus, it’s credibility hinges solely on one thing … irrefutable facts.
To me, there is no conflict between science and religion.
One is knowledge, the other is wisdom.
Geeks and nerds, for example, tend to have more knowledge than the average human being. But without the wisdom of knowing how to handle social situations, they are scoffed at by intellectual inferiors.
It is possible to accumulate knowledge, therefore, without wisdom.
But, is it possible to accumulate wisdom without knowledge?
There’s a key issue exposed by the ruling of the BC human “rights” tribunal. By ruling in favor of the muslim’s religious freedom to discriminate against a disabled individual, the tribunal has stripped the emperor of any last vestige of clothing he could have worn pretending that these kangaroo courts are anything other than commisars of political correctness. Having ruled decisively against the religious freedoms of christians in, for instance, ruling that the owners of a bed and breakfast had to accomodate gay patrons in a manner contrary to the owners’ religion, ruling that a printer had to print gay propaganda contrary to his religious beliefs, ruling that the Knights of Columbus had to accomodate a lesbian union ceremony contrary to the KC’s religious beliefs, the tribunals could always wrap themselves in the verbal pretense of protecting oppressed minorities, separation of church and state, keeping religion private, or whatever verbal crutch was convenient at the moment. These pretences could allow them to retain the trappings of quasi-legal legitimacy and the semblance of adherence to some form, however tortured, of jurisprudence and precedent. This ruling, by making a 180 degree turn, irretrievably explodes these pretences exposing a blatant agenda of pure political, religious, and social bigotry devoid of any vestige of impartiality or fairness. They can spare everyone any written rationalizations for future rulings because the reasons for decisions will be obvious: “We don’t like A and we do like B, fairness be damned.”
I wonder why this Muslim taxi driver feels that he had to ‘associate with’ the dog in any fashion. Good grief, all he was asked to do was to drive a blind person and his dog home. God, what @ssholes these creeps are!
Lori,
The 2006 and 2017 Muslim population estimates are from Statistics Canada via the Association of Canadian Studies.
No one noticed but me, it seems, but I’m amending an inaccurate sentence I wrote about the Good Samaritan story in my post much earlier.
The sentence should have read: “Of course, the neighbour was the Samaritan man—actually, from a tribe not at all disposed to acknowledge or help the person in need, who was from another, disparaged group”.
So, my point is: whether Muslim communities in Western societies—in our hour of need as we are being attacked by jihadis outside and undermined by state favouritism of minorities inside—are Good Samaritans, Jesus’s definition of “neighbour”.
Let’s remember that there are sins and misdemeanours of omission, as well as commission. So, in regard to both jihad and the misappropriation of the hospitality and goods of their democratic host countries, are the apparently moderate Muslims in our midst acting as our neighbours or not?
Sadly, the evidence seems to show that they are not. To my knowledge, not only have “moderate” Muslims never spoken out against the blatant and punitive discrimination of Christians by the HRCs, they seem willing to stand by while certain members of their own community exploit this discriminatory body—and other loopholes—to further their own agenda at the expense of the rights of other Canadians.
And, as I’ve noted, the pleasant Muslims of my acquaintance NEVER acknowledge or discuss the carnage and havoc being wreaked on just about everybody by their co-religionists all over the world. Denial? Consent? (In British law—think Thomas More—“Silence means consent.”) The silence of “moderate” Muslims here is deafening.
Jimbo, I hear you, but working with pleasant, polite, reliable Muslims, which I have done too, is entirely beside the point. E.g., Many of the jihadis, who flew suicide planes and drove bomb-trucks into buildings, would have fit the above description.
I don’t think one could define Muslim actions—or lack thereof—in Western countries as neighbourly. “Ottawa, Toronto, etc., we have a problem.” Let’s wake up and smarten up!
Haven’t read every single post hear, so maybe someone else already stated the obvious:
Refusing to sell pork or be near a dog is a very, very different kettle of fish than refusing to hand someone the abortion pill. The first two are very different from the second; they are ritualistic in that the have no secular counterpart. Abortion, on the other hand, is a moral issue that is supported not merely by the religious, but by anyone who believes that if the government has any job at all, it is to protect the innocent. There are websites for Feminists for Life and Libertarians for Life; I have known Buddhists and Hindus who oppose abortion because it is an act of violence; Ray Dennehy, the professor known as the “anti-abortionist at large,” argues entirely from moral and rational premises, etc.
Also, when you become a grocery store clerk or cab driver, you know you have to sell/ pick up whatever comes along. You can refuse the job.
People studied pharmacy and became pharmacists BEFORE laws were passed demanding that they be accessories to killing the innocent.
I’m not going to comment on the utility of the B.C. Human Rights Commission in a general sense, or on whether Christians get the shaft while Muslims don’t.
What I will say is that this particular case doesn’t make Steyn’s broader point about how “Canada’s ghastly human rights commissions are an an ersatz-judicial abomination to enforce PC bullying.”
This was a settlement, not a ruling. That is to say, the blind complainant agreed to this result with the taxi driver and the taxi company before his case was heard by the BCHRC.
So if you want to blame anyone for this result, blame the people who agreed to it, not the Human Rights Commission – which didn’t actually give a ruling, since a settlement was reached beforehand.
“Since there has never been any credible scientific proof of one species changing into another, evolution remains a theory.”
Despite all the posturing everybody knows creationism isn’t based on scientific skepticism. Objections to the contrary don’t fool anyone.
“Recently, there have been many gun incidents in Toronto involving the Black Jamaican community. Do we ban Jamaican immigration? Or Black people? How about Sikhs? There’ve been some problems there, as we all know. And the Oriental Asian gang problem, especially in Vancouver, but also in other places. Stop Asian immigration now? What’s left? White Christians only?”
None of these groups arrive with a 1400 year old ideology and legacy based on foundational violence. None of these groups have a god commanding them to barbaric violence and rewarding them for it. None of these groups have a ‘prophet’ who married a nine year-old; who assassinated Asma bint Marwan and other poets who made sport of him; who personally massacred the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar oasis; who personally decapitated 600-900 helpless prisoners of the Banu Qurayza; who is believed to be the perfect man, the perfect example and the one that they are commanded to emulate.
Not one.
In fact no other religion or ideology is based on such foundational violence towards others. Violence institutionalized in their Quran, Hadiths and Suras. Violence well documented throughout history.
Here’s how Hirsi Ali identifies all Muslim groups, including those Muslims in Canada:
(And I think she knows a thing or two more than Jimbo and the assorted (as usual) ignorant leftards commenting on this thread)
The first group includes those Muslims who leave the faith because they cannot reconcile it with their conscience or with modernity. This group is important for the evolution of the Islamic world because they ask the urgent and critical questions believers usually avoid. Ex-Muslims living in the west are just beginning to find their voice and to take advantage of the spiritual and social freedoms available to them.
The second group is comprised of genuine Muslim reformers, such as Irshad Manji, who acknowledge the theological out-datedness of the Koranic commands and the immorality of the prophet. They tend to emphasize the early chapters in the Koran urging goodness, generosity and spirituality. They argue that the latter chapters wherein Islam is politicized and the concepts of sharia, jihad and martyrdom are introduced should be read in the context in which they were written, some 1,400 years ago.
The third group is made up of those Muslims who support the gradual perpetuation and domination of Islam throughout the world. They use the freedoms offered in democracy to undermine social modernity and, though initially opposed to the use of violence, foresee that once the number of believers reaches a critical mass the last remnants of unbelievers may then be dealt with in violence, and sharia law may be universally implemented. Ayatollah Khomeini used this method successfully in Iran. Erdogan of Turkey is following in his footsteps. Tariq Ramadan, deeply rooted in his Muslim Brotherhood heritage, is devoted to such a program among European Muslims.
The fourth group is the most obvious and immediately threatening. In this group we find a growing number of hard-line Muslims who have defined martyrdom as their only goal. This is an army of young men whipped into a frenzy of suicidal violence by power hungry clergy. These clergy have public platforms and work with impunity from institutions untouched and often funded by national authorities.
The fifth group is largely ineffective and only threatening in their refusal to acknowledge the truth. Here we find the elite clergy who make a show of trying to reconcile Islam with modernity. They are motivated by self-preservation and have no interest in true reform. They take selective passages from the holy books to make a case for a peaceful Islam, ignoring the many passages inciting violence, such as those verses which command the death of apostates.
It is through the first two of these five groups that progress and reform will come. As for the rest, the western world would be wise to recognize the realities of Islam, a religion laid down in writing over a millennium ago with violence and oppression at its heart.
Damian, the settlement was granted with the Tribunals approval. Whether this is allowed to serve as precedent in future actions remains to be seen, I see charter challenge written all over this.
John, show me a monkey in transition, and maybe I’ll give evolution a second thought; otherwise, I’ll stick to ‘creationism.’ Christianity is more than just how we originated; it is also about how we are suppose to live our lives.
Jimbo, creationism and atheism are both beliefs. I don’t know where people get the notion that the creation of the universe was not based on what humans would term ‘scientific laws.’ The universe and all that is in it is in a perfect delicate balance; I believe with my heart – my conclusions are drawn with my brain. I’m not knocking ‘atheists’ though; I just don’t get it.
Businesses are usually allowed the right to refuse service, so the taxi cab driver refused service to a blind man and his dog based on religious beliefs; he’ll know better next time and just refuse service based on the dog’s smell. This case should have gone all the way to the Human Rights Commission ’cause now Muslims will just refuse service to blind people and their dogs based on whatever they want. Blind people and their dogs are no better off; sometimes it pays to stick it out and not settle – of course this is easier said than done.
Before people remind me that it is against the law not to transport a blind person and their dog, I’m just pointing out that once a precedent is set, even if it did not reach the Human Rights Tribunal, it just opens the door for the rights of the disabled and others to be trampled on. The law should have been uphelded from the get-go.
I still have a couple of questions about this issue.
First, why did Gilmour settle? Why didn’t he let the Commission rule on what seemed like a pretty decent case? Was there any pressure exerted by the BCHRC, the defendants, or anyone else?
Second, does Gilmour’s settlement affect the right of any other person in his situation to file a similar complaint with the BCHRC? Does it limit any other disabled person’s rights, or was it simply an agreement by two parties that would allow the HRC claim to be dropped?
Damian, Settlements are a formal alternative dispute resolution mechanism offered to all parties by the BCHRT, the difference between a settlement and a ruling sounds more like a case of arguing semantics see below:
Settlements are arbitrated by BCHRT members, it’s just another means offered to resolve disputes.
Settlements are also enforced by law:
Rule 23 – Enforcement of Settlement Agreements
Section 30(1) of the Code provides that, if there has been a breach of the terms of a settlement agreement, a party to the settlement agreement may apply to the British Columbia Supreme Court to enforce the settlement agreement to the extent that the terms of the settlement agreement could have been ordered by the tribunal.
It’s a tough call on whether this will constitute a precedent but none the less one has been set, the settlement is binding only to the North Shore Cab Company in this instance.
Link:
http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/rules_practice_procedure/rules_practice_procedure_part5.htm
What may have occurred here is that the BCHRT realized it had a hot potato on its hands.
The settlement process clearly allowed the BCHRT to avoid a ruling that may have been applicable province wide.
In this instance I would say all parties involved, including the public at large, were ill served. My concern is that because a BCHRT mediated settlement is enforcable by law then it does constitute legal precedent.
Let’s move from a taxi driver, what happens when a Muslim bus driver refuses to allow a blind person and their dog on the bus. Does the bus driver wait for the next bus to come before driving off.
This ruling is ridiculous. People are going to be tempted to join white supremacist organisations.
I read Damian’s post, and immediately said a small prayer for humanity. It is analogous to arguing that since a bank robber plea bargained from 8 years to 4 years there exists no law or restriction against armed robbery.
I read Damian’s post, and immediately said a small prayer for humanity. It is analogous to arguing that since a bank robber plea bargained from 8 years to 4 years there exists no law or restriction against armed robbery.
Bad comparsion, Andrew. A tort analogy would be more useful than a criminal one, since the HRC complaint process functions closer to the former than the latter. I’m no lawyer, but even I know that that distinction is an important one.
Islam… Defined. “Submit or die”. Is that clear enough. Not paranoya, fact.
From my own 17AUG questions:
Second, does Gilmour’s settlement affect the right of any other person in his situation to file a similar complaint with the BCHRC? Does it limit any other disabled person’s rights, or was it simply an agreement by two parties that would allow the HRC claim to be dropped?
I’ve confirmed with two different lawyer friends that this settlement doesn’t circumscribe anyone else’s right to file a complaint with the HRC if they feel they’re being discriminated against.
That is to say, if another blind fellow with a guide-dog is refused service by another North Shore taxi driver on the grounds of being a religious Muslim, and offers to wait with that blind chap until another taxi arrives, thereby abiding by the terms of the Gilmour agreement, the blind gent is perfectly able to file a complaint for discrimination with the BCHRC.
If at that point, the BCHRC were to rule that the driver’s religious rights trumped the passenger’s right to non-discriminatory service, I’d be all over it with those venting on this thread. But that hasn’t happened, which is why I feel Steyn and others were wrong to point to this case as an example of how the HRC favours Muslim religious rights over other equally important rights (like Christian religious rights and disabled rights). Because the BCHRC has done no such thing in this case.
BB – are you suggesting that BCHRT are in the habit of orchestrating settlements they have no intention of enforcing?
As I said on my blog even if Blind Guy no. 2 wants to file a complaint against North Shore who is he going to sue? Who is liable?
Not the Muslim – he is following North Shore cab Policy.
Not North Shore Cab – they were mandated to enforce a policy by the BCHRT.
Good luck to the Blind Guy trying to sue the BCHRT.
That the BCHRT issued a settlement they orchestrated and will enforce it amounts to approval.
You cannot argue otherwise, so no I do not believe I am wrong on this.
And BB the settlement does not preclude a another suit being launched against another cab company. what is at stake here is that a dangerous precedent has been set that brings us to the edge of a slippery slope.
what is at stake here is that a dangerous precedent has been set that brings us to the edge of a slippery slope.
And as I’ve indicated to you on other threads, BCF, I’ve corresponded with two different lawyers who say that this settlement sets no legal precedent. A ruling would have, but a settlement doesn’t.
That the BCHRT issued a settlement they orchestrated and will enforce it amounts to approval…You cannot argue otherwise, so no I do not believe I am wrong on this.
Your argument has now been reduced to vilifying the BCHRC for how it might rule in future instances. I lack confidence in how it might rule as well, since I’m doubtful there’s much common-sense at work on a Human Rights tribunal. But this case isn’t evidence of that.
You see, unlike you and Steyn, I’m not willing to condemn the BCHRC for a decision they haven’t yet made.
Damian, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Damian, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Fine, then point to ACTUAL past behaviour. But pointing to this case as evidence of the misdeeds of the BCHRC just doesn’t hold up, which was my original point.