The rulings of the Ontario Human Tribunal often make for interesting--if confounding--reading. This recent one, for example, details the misfortunes of a retail store manager who was in a serious car accident, and who therefore could not do her job. When her employer wasn't as understanding as she had hoped it would be re her plight, she lodged a "human rights" complaint. The basis of her complaint: she claimed she was being "discriminated" against because she was "disabled" (the "disabled" being one of Canada's extra-special protected victim groups). Not surprisingly, the OHRT, a body that's exquisitely attune to such, er, "discrimination," awarded the complainant a whack of cash.
Begging the question: how can it be a case of "discriminating" against a disabled person if the person was able-bodied up until her accident, and only became "disabled" (injured, really) afterwards? Isn't that a wee bit of a stretch, even for Ontario's "human rights" shakedown artistes?
2 comments:
... it's actions like these that make most disabled people's blood boil.
Reminds me of when Bob Rae as Ontario's NDP leader got smooth talked into buying at quadruple the cost of a standard bus, a fleet of (cough) disabled-friendly buses.
Given that TTC buses at the best of times are sardine cans on wheels, most wheelchair bound individuals do not use them for the hassle of getting stared down by an angry mob of passengers.
The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. And this ruling is a truly abusive practice to the disabled.
It's another instance of stretching "human rights" to the point of meaninglessness: If everything is a "human right," then, really, nothing is.
Post a Comment