Cultural Conventions Collide

We glide easily from core values to encompass relative trifles analogous to satisfying the needs of survival on the one hand, to expanding the landscape of poverty to including the needs of telecommunications devices; from the compassionate caring society making certain that no one dies of hunger, to the society concerned that a family living under straitened economic circumstances hasn't a large enough flat-screen television, computers for Internet access and cellphones for easy communication.

Quality of life issues.  Where once that quality resided in having a dry, warm abode, three meals a day, medical care and educational opportunities for the young, it has now expanded to include all the peripheral issues of a well-endowed society with its technological advances to express the quality of life.  This is an issue that intersects with yet another societal issue, that of human rights entitlements.  It is a basic human right entitlement to have clean air to breathe, potable water, nutritious food, a bed to sleep in.

It is a human right if one resides within a society where all these are attainable.  And where all these are attainable then human rights entitlements move inexorably beyond the basics and into the realm of add-ons, among them the right to have your freedom of expression guaranteed, right to equality treatment, religious beliefs go unchallenged - because these are Charter rights guaranteed to Canadians living in a free and open society.

And when do those rights become threatened, and recourse to justice sought?  When a challenge to attain them exists.  And those challenges come from anticipated sources, from places where one person's right is another person's wrong, when to submit to one person's demand is to disenfranchise the right of another person to demur.  It's a wobbly stretch of the human imagination to believe that everyone's right to achieve satisfaction is sacrosanct, when to arrive at that point harms someone else.

"When we in Canada talk about human rights in foreign countries, we're talking about rights like the right you have for the government not to kill you - that is a genuine right.  When we talk about rights in Canada we talk about rights [that require] someone to do things for you.  I don't see that as a right at all.  It undermines the meaning of the word right because if they say this woman has the right to force the barber to cut her hair, essentially they're saying he doesn't have the right to practice his religion."  Karen Selick litigation director, Canadian Constitution Foundation, Calgary

Canada guarantees equality provisions for its citizens.  It guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom to practise the tenets of one's religion.  And sometimes those guarantees are not compatible with one another.  A woman entering a barbershop doesn't know that it is owned and operated by men who are practising Muslims whose religious culture forbids them from touching any woman they are not related to.  Until, that is, she is politely informed of that fact.

At which time she walks away, disgruntled and not the least bit amused or charitable but quite determined to see that her right to be served as an equal member of society is respected.  The barber who refused to give her service on the basis of his adherence to a religious/cultural dictum was obeying what he felt to be a higher order than her expectation as a citizen of Canada with all its guarantees, to be given equal treatment to men.

They're both right.  But in being right, they're also wrong.  And until they are able to reconcile themselves to their incorrect assumptions that each has the right to on the one hand demand and on the other to refuse, nothing can be resolved.  Unless simple human courtesy involves itself and one or the other walks away from the situation.  Which neither is able to do as a result of their belief in their singular ideologies.

"The problem is that you've got an irreconcilable contradiction between the classical liberal rights which impose virtually no obligations on others, versus the new 'human rights', which do impose obligations on others.  There's no way to bridge that difference.  Those two sets of rights are inherently contradictory ...  It's like asking for cool sunshine or dry water."  John Carpay, president, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Calgary

What works for Calgary works as well in Toronto. "Many of the current clashes involve religious rights competing with rights to sexual and gender equality.  I don't think it is helpful to think of them as clashes between new and old human rights, at least not in the Canadian context where they are all of the same vintage.  We have some difficulty around the margins, but I think we generally have a clear understanding of which rights prevail in which context", reflects the considered opinion of Bruce Ryder, York University Osgoode Hall Law School, study of equality rights and freedom of expression.

Rights are not absolute.  If you live in the Republic of Congo and you are a woman and you have a human right to live unmolested and in safety and security, that right will not protect you from being raped by a Congolese soldier, or a Rwanda-backed rebel.  If you live in Toronto and want a haircut there is a wide choice of barbers or hairdressing salons to select from among.  If one has a long waiting list or demands pre-arranged appointments you walk away.

If one has a barber who explains why he is unable to accede to your otherwise-reasonable request for a haircut, you may also walk away and take advantage of the services offered in another shop.  Unless you choose to dig in your heels and make life miserable for the unfortunate barber and in the process create a cause celebre of yourself for standing up to a sexist culture that demeans women and you won't have it, as a citizen of Canada.

In some ways it's hard to be critical of either Faith McGregor or Omar Mahrouk.  One has sympathy for the stance and the predicament faced by both.  By insisting that Omar Mahrouk deign to barber Ms. McGregor, he will be placed in a position where his cultural beliefs are assailed and insulted.  Those cultural beliefs do not reflect traditional Canadian values and are indeed abhorrent to them, but they are his beliefs.

"I think in this particular situation, we have to be accommodating.  I believe that he's going to have to accommodate in some capacity in order to meet requirements as a business-owner and provider of a service within this province and in this country, or he runs the risk of running into this time and again", pointed out Faith McGregor.

On the other hand, if he must be accommodating, why not her make the effort at accommodation?  On the other hand, Mr. Mahrouk and others who subscribe to a similar reluctance due to religious-cultural proscriptions might wish to identify their premises as being off limits to women by posting signage to that effect.  Whereupon another element is introduced; a very politically incorrect one.