Canada's charter of Rights protects people against discrimination based on religion, race and other characteristics but not on sexual orientation. The Charter should protect homosexuals too. (Agree or Disagree) This is an assignment I have for my introduction to Law class. Any views and opinions would be great, and so would permission to use them in my paper. I know you guys will have a fun time with this one
Seriously any and all minority groups should be protected from discrimination. What I find hard to understand is 'human rights' are for all humans right? So it shouldn't matter if you are black, Jewish, Hispanic, gay, one legged or bald! You are a human being thus the human rights are your rights!
Well obviously I agree but I'm surprised you would get assigned such an assignment in a law class given that sexual orientation was "read in" as a protected grounds in the mid-1990s with the Vriend case. That is, legally speaking, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom DOES protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vriend_v._Alberta
Hey Becky, Sadly, yet predictably, (as far as I know) no. I think there might have been some progress on that front by trying to handle gender identity discrimination as sexism... basically considering "sex" as not wholly biologically determined but rather more the modern theoretical way that "gender" is considered, so that if someone essentially transitions from male to female or vice versa and you refuse to acknowledge that and discriminate against the person because of the refusal to accept the transition, that is said to fall under the grounds of people being protected against discrimination on the basis of their "sex." As you probably know, that's a poor substitute for stronger and clearer language because really then it only covers transsexuality and not other forms of alternative genders. (I just checked on wikipedia to make sure I wasn't completely talking out of my ass and I did get it right--as much as one can rely on wikipedia--about things federally in Canada. One of our territories, the Northwest Territories, actually specifically protects people against discrmination on the basis of gender identity, and one of our provinces has more vaguely worded protections regarded the same thing.)
hmmm come to a GLBT website and then ask if we think protection of people due to sexual orientation should be provided.... hmm i'd have to say agree!!!
In an ideal world we wouldn't need laws that specifically provide protection for minorities, but sadly we do in this society.
as for the "gender identity" question, i don't know about legally, but its every year it shows up in our school policy pamphlets.
Our laws here in Oregon protect gender identity also. We are one of just a few states that do so. I think these people are discriminated against more then gays and lesbians.
This is a side note, but it is something that bugs me whenever non-discrimination issues come up. The natural idea is to think of the protected class to be the minority, i.e. for race issues most assume blacks, for gender identity most assume transgendered persons, for sexual orientation most assume homosexuals. Though the non-discrimination legislation to be valid, at least by United States standards, everyone must be equally protected under the law. That means that the protected class is not limited to the minority, it is that everyone is part of the protected class. It is just as discriminatory for a homosexual boss to terminate a person for being heterosexual as it is for a heterosexual boss to terminate a person for being homosexual. This is usually a fundamental argument that is overlooked by dissuaders when anti-discriminatory legislation is debated. Those seeking to place characteristics in anti-discriminatory legislation are seeking equal rights, not special rights. Sorry for the tangent, between this thread and the feedback from my city's recent anti-discrimination ordinance I have seen too many references to gay rights, implying a special right. Nonetheless, as you might imagine, I support equal rights being extended to include the characteristics of gender identity and sexual orientation.
excellent point, josh! it also really bugs me when people talk about implementing "women's rights" or "women's issues" in some situations too, implying that women are the minority. women are half the population of the whole bloody world!!! like in history, if we study a culture, one part of the topic is often "the role of women". as if the whole of the rest, about general society, is naturally about the more important men, and you just need one specialised little section to deal with those little women over there. we are not the minority! you could equally have a small section on "the role of men" but it would be seen for what it is - ridiculous! what we want is equal gender rights for all people, not "specialised women's rights issues". meh. btw, sorry, ebra, i have nothing to contribute to your assignment. but maybe you could say that basically, people should have the right so be themselves without discrimination, if it does not infringe other's rights, or lead to societal breakdown. so, you cannot be mistreated because of gender or race: that's just who you are. similarly, gay people do no harm, it is simply the way they are, so they should be protected in the same way.