Human Rights – Shirt Weekly Reflections
Usually one can only claim to have been discriminated if they are in a position to present evidence. This evidence might be in the form of recorded statements of the manager talking negative actions done to a worker who is now the victim. According to the peel Law Association, the court confirms that to find an act of discrimination intention is not as an essential requirement (Arlow 2013). The court put more emphasize that discrimination inquiry should only focus on the impact the act had on the victim and not what the perpetrator intended.
This concept is important as it reminds workers that the principal test of finding proof for discrimination presents a comparatively low threshold. As an employer, one should be considerate of the recommendations when studying the efficiency of Ontario’s human rights adjudication system. It is advisable for employers to thoroughly go through their non-discrimination policies just to be certain that familiar with the regulations. However from this concept I question the logic of those employers who would have wanted to go away with any act of discrimination with the excuse that they initially meant well.
Statutory Human Rights
The concept of equality is a chief pillar in the constitution. Applying it has a crucial effect on contract law since as market transactions regulated it acquire authority to direct order of power and wealth. The legislative arm of government has had to meddle so much with the contract law so as to provide refuge for those undergoing hardships and poverty (Arden 2015).
Right to equality is faced with two challenges, namely the redistributive of wealth and distributive scheme. These two are important as they explain how the government is able to make sure the poor are not extremely poor and neither are the rich extremely rich. It is from here that one is able to understand why a progressive tax system is most preferable (McLaughlin, 2001). Evading being taxed is a vice that should be ashamed and those found practicing such acts should be brought to book. A question that popped into my mind from all these is, is it ever possible to have a society where people are completely equal in all perspectives.
The Duty to accommodate
Despite the fact that the duty to accommodate is not present in the BC Human Rights Code a case law in Canada confirmed that it ought to be inclusive and should apply to all provincially regulated managers. Therefore employers are obligated to have to accommodate employees when need be to avoid being unfair. As a manager, I should not put job applicants to the same visual test if one of them is visually impaired.
It is important to always be considerate of the condition of a worker before passing judgment upon them (Pothier 2008). Being cautious comes in handy in avoiding wastage of time being in court after being sued by a worker for discrimination, a type of discrimination brought forth by being arrogant to a workers condition. From this concept of duty accommodation I am made to wonder what actions a manager should take when regardless of the condition of one worker being unfavorable to a certain test, that test is very crucial in order to qualify.
Accommodation of people with disabilities and Religious accommodation
As soon as a worker has established some standard tests of a firm to be discriminatory, it now becomes the responsibility of the firm (defendant) to convince the jurisdiction that the discriminatory standard is genuine and a rational justification (Humphrey & Barbara G. Humphrey Professional Corporation 2013). This can only be made possible by proving that it was adopted on grounds that it was rationally linked to operations being conducted.
This concept is important as it shows employers that there are times when they might not have to accommodate duty at the expense of the finances of a firm just because they are avoiding discriminatory charges. Therefore as a manager, if a worker is completely unable to deliver what is expected of him or her as a result of a physical impairment terminating them from work is not a discriminatory act. A question I asked after reading the article is whether when a firm lets go of a disabled person are they paid or supported financially before they find another job in which they can fit?
Competing Human Rights
The advantages of restraining hate speech and it negativity exceed the harmful impact of restricting freedom of expression. The prejudiced effects of hate speech have become part of what Canadians have to experience on daily basis (Williams & Tregidga 2014). Frank statements can be presented in a way that meets the definition of hate speech; therefore not all honest and truthful statements should be free from restriction.
This concept is vital as it reveals that although transparency is advisable there are times when it can be manipulative and be similar to a hate speech. When true statements have the same impact as a hate speech they should be restrained to avoid conflict or disagreement. What are the negative impacts and positive effects hate speech has brought forth in America?
Competing Human Rights
People might be well aware of their rights and want to exercise them but it might be at the expense of conflicting other people’s rights. This is true owing to the rapid increase in complexity and diversity in societies (Bekker 2013). Disagreement arises when people try enjoying a right, but on the other hand, another citizen wants to enjoy his or her right that that is completely the opposite. Sadly it is not possible to have a complete balance in the rights of people.
The importance of this concept is that it makes a person come into agreement with the reality that conflicts will always be there. There cannot be balance in rights; there are those who will have to sacrifice in order to appease others. Since disagreeing is a normal thing, which should not be the reason for people not to interact with one another. On the contrary, what people should do is come up with peaceful ways of handling disagreements. What would happen if everyone wanted to exercise his or her rights regards of those around them?
Individual vs. collective Rights
An individual right is different from collective rights and it is the debate over what splits the two that is at the core of the dialogue over the Second Amendment. Collectively, the natives of America have a right to assemble, to request the government for a rectification of grievances. The term ‘the people’ is not used to refer to person rights — to exercise speech, religion, and press (Currie & John, 2001).
Understanding the difference between the two is important as it helps to avoid violating a law collectively yet when it comes to being penalized you are in alone. There are also people who may use the distinction between collective and individual rights in taking advantage of those who are not conversant with the two. What would be the impact of making individual rights be similar and equal to collective rights?
Arden, M. 2015. Statutory Interpretation and Human Rights. Human Rights and European Law, 130-142.
Arlow, R. 2013. Re St Paul, Peel Little Hulton. Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 15(03), 380.
Bekker, G. 2013. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Remedies for Human Rights Violations. Human Rights Law Review, 13(3), 499-528.
Currie, John H. “International Human Rights: Development and Scope of the International Human Rights Framework.” Public International Law. Toronto, Irwin Law, 2001. Chapter 10.B.5.
Humphrey, B. G., & Barbara G. Humphrey Professional Corporation. 2013. Human resources guide and toolkit: The duty to accomodate and disability management.
McLaughlin, B. 2001. Equality: the most difficult right. The Supreme Court Review, 2001.
Pothier, D. 2008. How Did We Get Here: Setting the Standard for the Duty to Accommodate.
Ross, J. 2000. The Burden of Proving Discrimination. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 4(2), 95-117.
Townshend, H. R., & McClurg, M. 2014. The Duty to Consult and Accommodate Aboriginal Peoples: A Primer for Ontario Surveyors Working in Resources Development. GEOMATICA, 68(1), 15-24. doi:10.5623/cig2014-002
Williams, M. L., & Tregidga, J. 2014. Hate Crime Victimization in Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 54(5), 946-967.