Canadian human rights

Canadian Human Rights Act
Ganesh kumar Musle
1602948
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Personnel Administration
MADS 6602-Section V1
Dawn Hines
November 11, 2013

Every individual has the right to get the things or rights for which he/she is entitled to, as a human being. Every individual is privileged to get respect, quality of life and equality. Most of all, everyone expects a life free from discrimination. Part 1 of Canadian Human Rights Act focusses mainly on discrimination based on race, sex, marital status, religion, family status, age, sexual orientation, national or ethnic origin, disability, color and conviction for an offense for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. (Canadian Human Rights Act, 1977, p.1). Part 1 of Canadian Human Rights Act defines discrimination and specifies on what grounds discrimination can be treated as a crime.
Introduction
The Canadian Human Rights act, passed in 1997 by the parliament of Canada was mainly intended to protect its citizens from all type of discriminatory acts based on specific guidelines mentioned in the act. This act was passed by federal government and therefore applies only to the areas under federal jurisdiction. The two key areas to which this act applies are federal government, which includes federal legislations, departments, regulations, crown corporations and agencies and secondly to the businesses and industries regulated by the federal government such as telephone companies and transport companies running their businesses interprovincially, banks and national airlines etc. The main goal of this act is to remove the barriers that discriminate human beings on various aspects. For all purposes of this Act, race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, age, marital status, sex, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted are prohibited grounds of discrimination. (Canadian Human Rights Act, 1977, p.1)

The administrative role of Canadian Human Rights is filled by Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the former deals with the analyses of the cases and the later does the judgement. Both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Tribunal are independent of each other.
Meaning of Discrimination It is described as an action or an act with an intention to treat a person or a group of individuals in a negative way on grounds of age, sex, race or religion.
According to Canadian Human Rights Act, there are several kinds of practices known as Discriminatory Practices on the basis race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, age, marital status, sex, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted are prohibited grounds of discrimination. (Canadian Human Rights Act, 1977, p.1)
Proscribed Discrimination
Part 1 of Canadian Human Rights Act deals mainly with the description of the discriminatory practices under section 5-12.
Section 5 deals with discriminatory practices related to the denial of goods and services or facilities available to the public on discriminatory grounds.
Section 6 deals with the discriminatory practices based on denial of access to residential accommodation or commercial premises.
Sections 7-10 focuses on the discriminatory practises related to the employment, employee organisations, employment applications and advertisements.
Section 11 describes discrimination related to wages. It states that there should not be any differences in the wages of employees based on gender discrimination. Every employee has the right to get equal wages according to the organisation standards irrespective of the gender.
Sections 12 and 13 deals with the discriminatory notices and hate messages, which are posted or published in a negative manner against any group of individuals or community.
Section 14 deals with harassment related to sex. Sections 15 and 16 explain the exceptions to the discriminatory practises related to the employment.
Sections 17, 18 and 19 deals widely innovative ideas and plans for the betterment of the disabled people. It is concerned with the approval or disapproval of the suggested plan.
Sections 20-23 explain about the exceptions and regulations to discriminatory practices based on pension plan or insurance fund.
Section 24 deals with the accessibility standards of disabled persons to facilities, services or premises. Section 25 states that “conviction for an offense for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.” (Canadian Human Rights Act, 1977, p.1)
Practice of Discrimination
A Jewish parent, David Attis, lodged a complaint against his son’s teacher who made discriminatory and racist comments contrarily to Jewish people creating a Poisoned environment in the school affecting Jewish and other minority group students negatively. He was spreading his anti-Semitic viewpoint through books, letters and through local media giving anti-Semitic interviews during his off-time school hours. Instead of responding to the complaints against Mr. Ross, school authority actually endorsed his activities and writings with an explanation that it was his out-of-school work. This action of the school authority paved way for more number of students engaging in anti-Semitic move creating poisoned environment against Jewish students.
After inquiring into the complaint and gathering information, the Board of inquiry passed a two clause order. Clause 1 requires Department of Education to take necessary steps to prevent discriminatory practices in the schools. Clause 2 has 4 sub-divisions, (a) placing Mr. Ross on leave of absence for 18 months without pay; (b) offering Mr. Ross a position non-teaching staff during this eighteen months if he is eligible for one; (c) termination of his employment if he reject a position of non-teaching staff or if he has not offered one; (d) termination of his employment if he continued any of his anti-Semitic deed. The New Brunswick court dismissed the clause 1 and 2(d) on the grounds that clause 1 did not fall under Board of Inquiry’s jurisdiction and 2(d) impairs Mr. Ross right to freedom of expression according to section 1 of Canadian Human Rights. Mr. Ross then petitioned in Court of Appeal in New Brunswick, which ruled out the orders passed by the Board of inquiry. After the decision given by the court of appeal, Mr. Attis re-appealed to the court, which after thorough investigation into the case concluded that teacher holds a respectable position in the school and he is indirectly responsible for the behaviour of the students. The court also explains that young children are more influenced by the teachers and they cannot differentiate intellectually between the comments made by the teacher inside the school or outside the school. The Court agrees with the orders made by the Board of inquiry of putting Mr. Ross on a leave of absence for 18 months and other two orders related to the termination of the employment. Mr. Attis was paid rewards for the loss of his own and Jewish people integrity. (Reporter, 1996)

Race Discrimination
Another incident occurred in 1992 where rights of an Indian scientist were preserved by the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Tribunal.
Dr. Grover, a research scientist at National Research Council of Canada was Indian born and studied in India and France. He was hired by National Research Council of Canada when he came to Canada in 1978. Dr. Grover was an outrival in the field of Optics. During the first year of his work, he received many recommendations and promotions regularly. In 1948, Grover was appointed to work for the establishment of National Optics Institute in Canada. After that project he was also offered to take the position of scientific director of the institute, which he denied and continued to work full-time at the research council. Later he faced a number of problems regarding funding to the research, student assistance in summer, and denial for participation in conference. He was forced to work under a scientist who was less experienced than him and ultimately his employment was terminated. Dr. Grover filed a complaint with Canadian Human Rights, which after an investigation on the case concluded that two managerial persons, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Laubitz, were responsible to thwart Grover’s career advancement and affirmed race and color as the basis for discrimination. Tribunal also learned that the members of the research organisation tried to frighten witnesses against giving any information to the tribunal. Tribunal then ordered the members of the organisation to apologize Dr. Grover for their discriminatory act and also asked to pay the compensation for the lost wages and re-appoint Grover as group leader or section head. As compensation to his integrity and dignity Dr. Grover was paid $5000 by the council.
(Grover, 1992)

Similar example will help us to know the capability of Canadian Human Rights Commission to effectively enforce the Act. Canada based organisation, Henderson Development, discriminated against aboriginal persons and physically challenged people. This issue came into limelight when a middle aged, physically challenged, aboriginal woman, Gladys Radek raised her voice against the organisation and the discrimination. When she was entering into the mall with her friend to have a cup of coffee at Starbucks, she was greeted by the lady security officer and was enquired where she was heading to. Having faced the problem many times in the past, she ignored the security officer and moved forward. Ms. Radek asked the security personnel lady on what grounds she is questioning her. After few minutes supervisor of the security company came and he was also asking Ms. Radek the same question. When Radek asked the security personnel’s a copy of policies, they asked her to wait outside the mall and was told that she will get a copy outside. Ms. Radek realised that they were not ready to give her a copy and she continued to walk forward. The Supervisor physically encountered Radek to stop her. Ms. Radek, then lodged a complaint with Human Rights Commission, which after careful investigation concluded that the security personnel’s and Henderson Department showed discrimination against Ms. Radek based upon her aboriginality and disability. It also found out that Henderson Department come in the route to sky train and general has the right of way to pass and re-pass through the irrespective of their visit to the store. The Commission also ordered Henderson Department to pay $15,000 as compensation as injury to the feelings, self-respect and dignity. (V, 2005)

Harassment
A discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public. (Canadian Human Rights Act, 1977, p.14)
Every Service provider or employer, according to Canadian Human Rights Act, is supposed to provide Harassment free environment to its customers and employees. This will help to create a positive environment in the work place. Sexual harassment is more commonly seen among female workers. Imbibing anti-harassment guidelines in the companies’ policies and enforcing it will make the work place much easier for the employees. Enforcement of the Act will build a confidence among workers, mostly female workers, ensuring their safety and integrity at the work place. One case of sexual harassment was brought before the tribunal by Ms. Carol Shaw, who used to work for Levac Supply Ltd. She was being repeatedly harassed by her co-worker, Robertson, for a period of 14 years. He used to make comments like waddle, waddle making fun of her walking style, used to call her a fat-cow, and always used to say that a women should be in house cooking for her family, men are there to work and feed the family. Carol brought this issue to her manager’s notice, who ignored it all the times. The Board of inquiry found that Robertson, manager Levac and Levac Supply Ltd were responsible for harassment. The tribunal ordered respondents to give a sum of $43,273 in reimbursement to her lost wages and $5000 as compensation to her lost dignity. (Shaw, 1990) In another case of sexual harassment, Ms. Torres was provided with a benefit of $500 for lost wages and $1000 for general damages for facing intimidating and hostile work environment. Her employer sexually harassed her and summarily dismissed her when she denied sexual favors to him. (Torres, 1982)
Need for Human Rights
According to Kant (2008), “Human Rights have many functions, but their most important one is perhaps the institution and the protection of a public space and a public life for every individual.”
Life of a common man is not dependent merely on Human Rights, but at the same time it will help him to lead a peaceful, dignified and secured life. They create a sense of equality among individuals, assuring a secured public life and the values connected to them. In the above examples, we have seen how the basic rights of the individuals were discriminated and how Canadian Human Rights Act helped to preserve them in each case. What will be the situation if the Human Rights Act was not in the picture? The individuals such as Carol Shaw, Ms. Radek, and Dr. Grover, and the Jewish community have to face the consequences of discrimination all through their life. There are still many people who go unnoticed despite of repeated discrimination. There is an urgent need to address this issue. Human Rights help to root out discrimination and racism. Any individual can appeal against any kind of discrimination and lead a discrimination free life.

References
Canadian Human Rights Act. (1985). Government of Canada. Retrieved November 2012, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/
Desh. (2013, July 22). why do we need human rights. Retrieved November 2012, from http://www.why.do/why-do-we-need-human-rights/
Reporter, C. H. (1996). CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTER. Retrieved 2012, from www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca: http://www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca/hr_topics/public-services-and-facilities/board-finding-school-district-liability-actions-teacher-uph
Shaw, C. (1990). CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTER. Retrieved October 2012, from www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca: http://www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca/hr_topics/sexual-harassment/comments-denigrating-sexuality-are-sexual-harassment
Torres, R. (1982). CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTER. Retrieved October 2012, from www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca: http://www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca/hr_topics/sexual-harassment/criteria-damages-sexual-harassment-cases
Spagnoli, F. (2008, April 3). why do we need human rights. Retrieved October 2012, from www.wordpress.com: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/why-are-human-rights-so-important-or-why-do-we-need-human-rights/
V, R. (2005). Canadian Human Rights Reporter. Retrieved October 2012, from www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca: http://www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca/hr_topics/systemic-discrimination/shopping-mall-discriminates-against-aboriginal-people