Well, duh. Dudes aren't one of our extra-special victim groups, and therefore cannot expect to be treated as such by our "human rights" apparatus.
What interests me is not so much the tortured logic of the tribunal apparatchiks as the way an attorney with an interest in the system validates it. She writes:
The adjudicator emphasized that the Code is aimed at achieving substantive equality, and that not all differential treatment is discriminatory and unlawful.
The decision confirms the principle that the Human Rights Code is aimed at achieving “substantive equality” and as a result, not all differential treatment is discriminatory. The language of the case is interesting:
“The attraction of more women into a bar is designed to increase overall attendance at the bar and the bar owner’s profit. This is apparently a successful business strategy that has been used by many in the business for many years. Far from operating to exclude or discourage men from entering a bar or to keep bars segregated between genders, one of the primary functions of a “ladies’ night” is to try to increase the attendance of men because of the presence of more women. I fail to see how this strategy can be seen as substantive discrimination in the overall societal context, in light of the privileged position that men hold in our society”.
The adjudicator dismissed the application has having no reasonable prospect of success.
Actually, what it reminds us is that in Pierre's Trudeaupia, all animals are equal but animals who belong to an identified victim group are more equal than other animals (the reason why the tribunal would always deem "differential treatment" directed at a member of a designated victim group discriminatory).Although it may be surprising that such an application was brought, it does give pause for thought. The language of this last paragraph could be controversial. While legally sound, the case reminds us that not all differential treatment is necessarily discriminatory and therefore unlawful.