|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE ABSURDITY OF THE BC HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
It was bound
to happen. Two special interest groups (they are legion in Canada)
went head to head within the sacred precincts of their own protector
and sugar daddy - the BC Human Rights Tribunal. This epic battle
threw the feminist movement in Canada into chaos.
In One Corner
- The Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre
On one side
of the dispute was the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre, which receives
$300,000 annually to operate a feminist shelter for about 120 women
- victims of alleged physical and sexual assault. The center pre-screens
all potential volunteers to ensure they accept its views, which
are feminist, anti-racist, pro-choice and pro-lesbian. The centre
bans men from working as voluntary peer counselors because the shelter
operates as a non-hierarchical collective that believes women's
oppression is a result of the social order in which men, from birth,
because of their place in the social order, control women. Thus,
according to the evidence provided by the Rape Crisis Centre to
the Tribunal, women can relate to the members of the collective
because of their common life experiences of occupying an historically
subordinate status in our society.
In the Other
Corner - A Transgendered Person
(a former male now a female)
Imagine the
consternation and anxiety of the Rape Crisis Centre, then, when
a large woman with long flowing tresses, but with easily identifiable
male features and mannerisms, strode in requesting to serve as a
volunteer counselor at the establishment. This person was Kimberly
Nixon, a former airline pilot, who, in 1990, underwent a sex change
operation to become a woman. Anxious to help her sisters in need,
Ms. Nixon had answered an advertisement to train as a volunteer
at the shelter.
At the first
training session, however, during the break, Ms. Nixon was taken
aside by one of the facilitators who, according to the evidence,
had immediately identified her as "someone who had not always
been a woman," a conclusion based on her appearance. Ms. Nixon
was requested to leave the training group because the center has
determined that a woman has to be oppressed since birth to be a
volunteer. Unfortunately, as Ms. Nixon had lived for some time as
a man, she did not qualify.
At her expulsion
from the collective, Ms. Nixon testified before the Tribunal that
she was distraught and could not stop crying. She felt hurt, humiliated,
useless and her sense of herself and her identity as a female were
undermined by this treatment. This led to Ms. Nixon laying a complaint
with the BC Human Rights Commission against the Rape Crisis Centre.
The Main
Event - The Tribunal Hearing
The Tribunal
Hearing was quite the event. More than 20 witnesses testified, and
the parties submitted lengthy written and oral arguments with completely
divergent views on the applicable law and social policy, as well
as on the meaning of being a woman. Judy Rebick, past president
of the feminist umbrella group, the National Action Committee on
the Status of Women (and itinerant broadcaster on CBC Newsworld),
testified on behalf of the shelter. According to Ms. Rebick, it
is the feminist movement's right to determine "who is a woman."
In her view, it should not be determined by anyone else, such as
a Tribunal. On the other hand, Rachel Giese, the resident lesbian
columnist for the ever liberal Toronto Star, in her column
of January 24, 2002, said the case was all about fear and ignorance,
which "are just as oppressive when they drive feminists as
when they drive everyone else." Then Ms. Giese attacked one
of the sacred cows of feminist ideology, by stating that "all
women do not have the same life experience," and that "simply
being born a woman does not make one more empathetic, supportive
and capable than someone who wasn't."
This treasonous
thought by Ms. Giese directly contradicted the evidence given at
the Tribunal by Dr. Ingrid Pacey, a Vancouver psychiatrist, and
expert on sexual assault. According to Dr. Pacey, women are helpless
victims, crushed under the heels of ruthless males. That is, Dr.
Pacey testified at the Tribunal that most women live with the fear
of male violence. Young girls and women recognize that they are
physically vulnerable, that oppression exists in our culture and
that women are often seen primarily as sexual beings.
Ms. Nixon
certainly stirred up trouble in the sisterhood.
The Tribunal
Decision
One knew even
before the hearing began, and before any evidence was presented
to the Tribunal that it would rule in favour of Ms. Nixon. This
was because the Commission, politically correct to a fault, had,
in October 1999, released a discussion paper entitled "Toward
a Commission Policy on Gender Identity." In March 2000, the
Commission had released a statement entitled "Policy on Discrimination
and Harassment Because of Gender Identity." The policy said
in part:
There
are arguably few groups in our society today who are as disadvantaged
and disenfranchised as transgenderists and transsexuals. Fear
and hatred of transgenderists and transsexuals, combined with
hostility toward their very existence are fundamental.
The Tribunal's
responsibility was clear. It had to protect a transsexual in distress
regardless of the facts, and even if this resulted in the
very politically correct feminist/lesbian shelter being branded
as a transgressor - so be it. The life of a Commissioner is not
always easy!
The only real
issue before the Tribunal was how to fit Ms. Nixon's complaint within
the wording of the Human Rights Code, which protects individuals
in "employment" and in regard to "services."
Ms. Nixon, however, had applied to the shelter to become a volunteer,
not an employee and she had not been denied a "service"
by the shelter, in accordance with the ordinary understanding of
the word. (The interpretation of the words "employment"
and "service" are fundamental to the BC Human Rights Code.)
This difficulty was easily dismissed by the Deputy Chief Commissioner
of the BC Commission, Heather MacNaughton, who sat on this one-member
Tribunal. She peremptorily declared that "volunteer" was,
in fact, captured by the word "employee," as set out in
the Code (even though there was no income earned or lost), and the
training program was, after all, a "service". The Commissioner
then triumphantly concluded that Ms. Nixon was the subject of marginalization
and discrimination by the Rape Crisis Centre. Justice was done.
The Remedy
The Rape Crisis
Centre was ordered to pay Ms. Nixon $7,500 for injury to her dignity,
feelings, and self-respect - the highest award ever made by the
Tribunal for injury to dignity.
The Tribunal
declined, however, to order the Rape Crisis Centre to hold a two-day
"unlearning transphobia" workshop for its collective members,
staff and volunteers or to incorporate in its training packages
for volunteers "trans" information, as had been requested
by Ms. Nixon.
Conclusion
Future generations
will look back in bewildered curiosity, wondering how we ever allowed
these foolish Commissions to operate in a country presumably populated
by intelligent, sensible people.
This hearing
points out that Human Rights Tribunals are even crazier than we
had thought. It also points out how the political correctness of
these Commissions has reached the ultimate in absurdity. The Commissions
deserve neither public respect nor the taxpayers' monies.
Please write
to the federal Minister of Justice (see article, "Throwing
Taxpayers Dollars Into the Garbage Bin," re the Federal Human
Rights Commission) and your own provincial Minister of Justice asking
him or her to abolish these ludicrous commissions.
The address
of the federal Minister of Justice is as follows:
The Honourable
Martin Cauchon, PC, MP
Minister of Justice
Justice Building
284 Wellington St.
Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8
Tel: (613) 992-4621
Fax: (613) 990-7255
Your provincial
Justice Minister can be reached c/o your provincial legislature.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
