brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/17/85)
As you know, the new clause in the charter of rights that assures equal protection and benefit from the law without discrimination of any kind comes into effect shortly. I know they will screw this up, but what if they took it at face value. For example, the tax system discriminates on the basis of wealth and income. Why are computer scientists, who almost without exception make more than street cleaners, discriminated against by Revenue Canada? If you took this literally, I would say it mandates one of three things: 1) A fixed tax (everybody pays the same, ie. $2000) 2) A flat rate tax (everybody pays the same percentage) or 3) A fixed income (everybody gets the same after-tax income) These are all equal, and fortunately #3 is so ridiculous that nobody will consider it. If you want you can interpret the charter as saying, "The LAW can no longer treat people differently." And that includes treating them differently because of what they do for a living. No more special tax breaks for some and not for others. No more tarrifs on some goods and not on others. No more special subsidies for some people and not for others. Leave the decisions of the economy to the people! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
robertj@garfield.UUCP (Robert Janes) (04/18/85)
Sender robertj@garfield (Robert Janes) Reply-To: robertj@garfield.UUCP (Robert Janes) Followup-To: Distribution:can.politics Organization: Memorial U. of Nfld. C.S. Dept., St. John's In article <262@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP writes: >As you know, the new clause in the charter of rights that assures >equal protection and benefit from the law without discrimination of any >kind comes into effect shortly. > >1) A fixed tax (everybody pays the same, ie. $2000) >2) A flat rate tax (everybody pays the same percentage) > or >3) A fixed income (everybody gets the same after-tax income) > >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Sorry but the provisions apply to only certain kinds of discrimination such as discrimination by race, religion, sex, physical or (maybe) mental disability, there are a few others however I don't have a reference at hand. Furthermore this clause is qualified by two major things: 1) If such laws are "reasonable" discriminatory laws are acceptable to maintain the functioning of the state. What this means, well we will see as variuos court rulings come down. 2) Provinces can exempt specific laws from equality provisions subject to a sunset clause (I think), that is after so many years the exemption has to be put into place again by the provincial parliament or lose effect. Thus the above statements concerning income and tax problems are not really relevant. Now if the tax system could be show to be discriminatory against woen because of their sex...... Anyways what this all really means won't be seen for several years as the various court cases work their way through the system to the Supreme Court. Robert Janes Memorial University of Nfld.
dave@lsuc.UUCP (04/18/85)
In article <262@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: ||As you know, the new clause in the charter of rights that assures ||equal protection and benefit from the law without discrimination of any ||kind comes into effect shortly. || ... the tax system discriminates on the basis of wealth and income. The relevant words are (s.15(1) Charter): "without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." Nothing in there about wealth, ability or profession, Brad. [Anyone remember the Tom Lehrer line (in the preamble to "It Makes a Fellow Proud to be a Soldier") about how the U.S. Army not only didn't discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, etc., but also didn't discriminate on the basis of ability?] Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
ron@uthub.UUCP (Ron Wessels) (04/19/85)
> The relevant words are (s.15(1) Charter): > > "without discrimination and, in particular, > without discrimination based on race, national > or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or > mental or physical disability." Just a second here. "Mental disability"? Does that mean that if company 'X' refuses to hire 'John Smith' as a programmer because X feels that John isn't bright enough to write quality programs, John can sue for discrimination based on mental disability? -- Ron Wessels Computer Systems Research Institute University of Toronto UUCP: {decvax,floyd,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsri!ron CSNET: ron@Toronto ARPA: ron%Toronto@CSNet-Relay
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (04/22/85)
> > The relevant words are (s.15(1) Charter): > > > > "without discrimination and, in particular, > > without discrimination based on race, national > > or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or > > mental or physical disability." > > Just a second here. "Mental disability"? Does that mean that if > company 'X' refuses to hire 'John Smith' as a programmer because > X feels that John isn't bright enough to write quality programs, > John can sue for discrimination based on mental disability? > -- > Ron Wessels Computer Systems Research Institute University of Toronto > UUCP: {decvax,floyd,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsri!ron > CSNET: ron@Toronto > ARPA: ron%Toronto@CSNet-Relay Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think section 15 deals only with "equality before the law", and (fortunately, in my opinion) makes no mention of the hiring practices of private companies. Besides, even though they sound like they should be the same, in this context I think "disability" and "insufficient ability" mean very different things. "Disability" means significantly below average, while "insufficient ability" could mean not significantly above average (since John Smith's programming ability would have to be significantly above the average Canadian's in order for him to earn a programming job). -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (04/22/85)
In article <204@uthub.UUCP> ron@uthub.UUCP (Ron Wessels) writes: ||Just a second here. "Mental disability"? Does that mean that if ||company 'X' refuses to hire 'John Smith' as a programmer because ||X feels that John isn't bright enough to write quality programs, ||John can sue for discrimination based on mental disability? An interesting thought. I would think that the "such limitations as are reasonable in a free and just society" wording would come into play here, and the prohibition against discrimination on the grounds of mental disability would be held to apply to cases where there was no real justification for such discrimination -- but it's certainly hard to know where to draw the line. -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (04/24/85)
In article <1531@dciem.UUCP> jeff@dciem.UUCP ( Richardson) writes: >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think section 15 deals only with "equality >before the law", and (fortunately, in my opinion) makes no mention of the >hiring practices of private companies. You might think that section 15 does not pertain to hiring practices of private companies, but there are a whole lot of people out there who wll disagree with you. It seems that many groups have got it in their heads that section 15 somehow paves the way for "equal pay for work of equal value". We've even got the leaders of the three federal parties espousing the virtues of this amazing notion. It is most interesting, at least to me, that none of these people is willing to explain what a radical departure this concept is from the present way of doing things; and admit that it is nothing short of a restructuring of the economic order. No longer would the free market ( and the unions ) decide how much an employee should be paid. In this utopia the ever-present government would be there to *tell* an employer what to pay his employees - supply and demand be damned. I would have been extremely surprised if the NDP had not embraced this idea with mega-enthusiasm, but to witness Brian M. and Co. doing likewise leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. I also see Ontario premier Frank Miller intends to test out EPFWOEV in the public sector with the intention of foisting it on all Ontarians if it works out. So much for the fear of Frank being too conservative. EPFWOEV aside, there is another train of thought that goes something like this: 95% of domestic workers ( or secretaries or whathaveyou ) are women and the low wages that these people receive is directly due to their gender and is thus an infringement of their rights under section 15. I personally find this position totally untenable since (among other reasons) it conveniently overlooks the fact that these jobs are open to, and occupied by, both men and women; but then again I'm not a member of one of the many SIGs who are more interested in redistributing the wealth their way, than in creating wealth. And let's not forget about the ex-cook for 24 Sussex who is so peeved that the Big B fired him without even tasting his work that he is launching a Charter suit. This, despite the fact that he was serving "at the pleasure of Her Majesty the Queen". For once it would be nice to hear someone tell us about the negative aspects of these policies: like the increased cost of doing business that would invariably be passed on to the consumer; or the increased unemployment resulting from companies laying off workers rather than paying them unrealistic salaries; or the decline of this country's export sector as Canada finds it even harder to compete with countries where workers are not paid astronomical wages. Needless to say EPFWOEV does not attack the heart of the problem: i.e. the relatively small percentage of women in the professions and other fields which have traditionally been regarded as the exclusive domain of males. Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me to encourage school age females to take an interest in math, science, law, etc than to create a ridiculous new bureaucracy - but then again primary and secondary school students don't vote, do they? Lastly, I would like to introduce the concept of "greater pay for work of greater value". If one assumes that EPFWOEV is fair, then how could GPFWOGV not be fair? Considering that grocery clerks in B.C. make more than $16 per hour (no s**t) I think it would be only reasonable that newly graduated university students who use even the least bit of their education in their job should get a starting salary in excess of this. What say you? J.B. Robinson
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (04/29/85)
Without doing any research, the line of reasoning which
should be applied in this situation should run something
like this:
1. There are proper legal activities in our society.
Making money is one of them.
2. In the pursuit of a proper purpose, we may hire people for
reasons which clearly arise from the nature of the pursuit.
3. Since mental agility and knowhow is central to computer
programming, and kicking a soccer ball isn't, it would be
improper to discriminate against a quatraplegic in regard to the
job of programming. It is not improper to 'discriminate' against a person who isn't able to understand the concept of
programming.
Something like that ...fred@mnetor.UUCP (05/01/85)
> The relevant words are (s.15(1) Charter): > > "without discrimination and, in particular, > without discrimination based on race, national > or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or > mental or physical disability." > > Nothing in there about wealth, ability or profession, Brad. It's Fred again, Dave. I don't mean to be critical, rather I seek enlightenment. When a person, or document, refers to 'mental disability' are they not also refering to 'mental ability'? It seems that if a glass is half full of water that it is also half empty of water. I've always equated 'dis_______' to mean lack of '_______'. Are you saying that legally there is another meaning? I know lawyers have a language all their own and the constitution will follow the legal conventions if anything will. Just how do you think the courts would interpret it? > Dave Sherman > -- > {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave > {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave Cheers, Fred Williams utcs!mnetor!fred *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) (05/02/85)
The equal protection provisions of the Charter do not equate ``lack of ability'' with ``disability''. First, there is the concept of fundamental justice: it is clearly unjust to require an employer to hire someone with minimal intelligence for a highly technical job. For example, we might require a system programmer to be able to count to 20 without taking off his shoes. On the other hand, there are many other jobs which don't require such intellectual acuity: being a Social Credit cabinet minister is one. Second, the disability in question is one that is irrelevant to the job at hand. For example, a person confined to a wheelchair ought not to be barred from a sedentary job (even though we wouldn't want to hire her as a high-wire artist). The point of this whole discussion is one I've made before: the intent of the Charter is to provide equality of opportunity, and to *prevent* infringing on people's rights. The fact that it occasionally causes us to have to provide services to people we don't like is just one of those things about pluralistic societies.
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (05/06/85)
> > The point of this whole discussion is one I've made before: the intent of > the Charter is to provide equality of opportunity, and to *prevent* > infringing on people's rights. The fact that it occasionally causes us to > have to provide services to people we don't like is just one of those things > about pluralistic societies. I am well aware that the intent of the people who wrote the charter was as you state, above. The thing that I am trying to determine is, "How well did they succeed?" Does the charter actually say that a court should use common sense in the event that a case is found where applying the charter to the letter would be less than sensible? Frankly, I think the charter was poorly written and suspect that the main reason for it's existence was to get Trudeau's name into the history books yet again. Cheers, Fred Williams
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (05/11/85)
If you think that incorporating 'common sense' is a desirable
trait for a Charter of rights, then how can you say that our Charter
is 'poorly written'? Our charter incorporates it right in the first
Section:
"... subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as
can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Yes, to answer your question, that's what that phrase is all
about. The right of the court to apply it's version of 'common sense'.
is built in.
The Charter is about as good a charter as you could get, considering
the 10 provinces carping about it.