Reasonable, Fair and Just
When is it not feasible that a woman can anticipate joining a female-only fitness club? Why, when a male, planning at some future date to transform himself from his biological gender to the alternative decides it is in his very best interests to share the physical intimacy of a female-only fitness club. Doesn't that make sense? Of course it does. It does because the Ontario Human Rights Commission feels it does.
Strangely enough the Ontario Human Rights Code recognizes the need for facilities to serve a single sex, citing public decency. It gives its permission to such facilities because it feels that this does not constitute discrimination otherwise seen as illegal. Of course there are facilities that serve both genders, and these are co-ed types of facilities. Large enough to offer the genders separate change rooms and bathroom facilities.
But when the owner of St.Catharines Downtown Health Club for Women was targeted by a series of men-in-transition-to-female and he balked at the idea of exposing his female clients to fully-hung male guests, he was set up for extortion. He could have settled 'out of court', so to speak, by paying a hefty tithe to the complainant who would then rescind his complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
John Fulton, however, chose not to submit to something that reeked of extortion. And for his troubles he has been left with a $150,000 legal bill, reflecting his need to defend himself against the accusations launched against him by a man who had dressed as a woman but confided to him while applying for membership that "I'm really a guy". Planning, he claimed, to undergo a sex-change operation.
Oddly, within a week of that introduction, two more 'men in transition' also applied to join the women-only health club. In instant fad.
A new scam is born. And, despite the fact that the original gender-confused gentleman ultimately withdrew his human rights complaint, Mr. Fulton has been left holding the $150,000 bag. When his lawyer suggested to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that it was within their power to process an award for costs of these legal fees, the tribunal yawned with disinterest. Mr. Fulton, as far as they were concerned, could pay his own legal fees.
While the scam-artist who accused him of inhumanely flouting his right to join a women-only athletic club was able to manipulate this horribly flawed system so that taxpayers picked up the legal costs involved, the ultimately-unsuccessful shakedown artist withdrew the complaint when it became clear he would be paid nothing. The man who had to defend himself was stuck with costs imposed upon him.
The complainant is under no obligation to prove anything; his complaint is the focus of attention, taken seriously by the human rights group, despite the obvious absurdity, even illegality of the claim, and the accused is in nowhere-land, damned if he did or did not. He did defend himself, he did not succumb to clear extortion, where it was made abundantly clear he could pay the mediated penalty for 'hurt feelings' or a far larger sum for believing in himself.
How reasonable, fair and just is that?
Strangely enough the Ontario Human Rights Code recognizes the need for facilities to serve a single sex, citing public decency. It gives its permission to such facilities because it feels that this does not constitute discrimination otherwise seen as illegal. Of course there are facilities that serve both genders, and these are co-ed types of facilities. Large enough to offer the genders separate change rooms and bathroom facilities.
But when the owner of St.Catharines Downtown Health Club for Women was targeted by a series of men-in-transition-to-female and he balked at the idea of exposing his female clients to fully-hung male guests, he was set up for extortion. He could have settled 'out of court', so to speak, by paying a hefty tithe to the complainant who would then rescind his complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
John Fulton, however, chose not to submit to something that reeked of extortion. And for his troubles he has been left with a $150,000 legal bill, reflecting his need to defend himself against the accusations launched against him by a man who had dressed as a woman but confided to him while applying for membership that "I'm really a guy". Planning, he claimed, to undergo a sex-change operation.
Oddly, within a week of that introduction, two more 'men in transition' also applied to join the women-only health club. In instant fad.
A new scam is born. And, despite the fact that the original gender-confused gentleman ultimately withdrew his human rights complaint, Mr. Fulton has been left holding the $150,000 bag. When his lawyer suggested to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that it was within their power to process an award for costs of these legal fees, the tribunal yawned with disinterest. Mr. Fulton, as far as they were concerned, could pay his own legal fees.
While the scam-artist who accused him of inhumanely flouting his right to join a women-only athletic club was able to manipulate this horribly flawed system so that taxpayers picked up the legal costs involved, the ultimately-unsuccessful shakedown artist withdrew the complaint when it became clear he would be paid nothing. The man who had to defend himself was stuck with costs imposed upon him.
The complainant is under no obligation to prove anything; his complaint is the focus of attention, taken seriously by the human rights group, despite the obvious absurdity, even illegality of the claim, and the accused is in nowhere-land, damned if he did or did not. He did defend himself, he did not succumb to clear extortion, where it was made abundantly clear he could pay the mediated penalty for 'hurt feelings' or a far larger sum for believing in himself.
How reasonable, fair and just is that?
Labels: Justice, Ontario, Sexism, Traditions
posted by Pieface | 7:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home