I read in the National Post that the membership rules of the club in question do not explicitly exclude men, its just implied because it is called a "womens only" gym. Also, when the complainant asked to see the manager, he was apparently brought into another room where he was verbally assaulted by several women who threatened him and he claims to have been genuinely fearfull of an attack. When he lodged his complaint with the human rights commission, 2 individuals posing as police officers came to his residence and either beat him or attempted to beat him. The next day, he received threatening phone calls of more beatings. The police investigated, they found the complaint either founded or well founded, but have not yet laid charges.
On to the BC human rights commission. Generally, in Canada it is illegal to threaten someone after you have complained about their conduct to the human rights commission. Going from memory of the article in the post, when this guy filed the complaint about the threats and the beating, the human rights commission rejected the second complaint because he didn't attach a copy of the police report to the human rights complaint. Do you think the human rights commission would have done so if he was anything but a white male? Imagine a person of colour having their complaint about physical violence rejected because the paperwork was not in order? Don't think so, at least not in Canada and especially BC.
Apparently what
will be treated as evidence though, is this guys alleged membership in an organization which calls for equal treatment of fathers in family law/custody/support/divorce issues. Go figure, by the time the HRC is done with this case the gym will come out as the victim. Great country, eh?
Last, what I have said is based on my recollection of an article I read 2 days ago, so I stand to be corrected. That being said, even if I have everything right, it is based on what was in the print media, and we all know that smart people should treat everything they read in the media with a fair degree of critical analysis and keep an eye open for bias in the writing. [just like my post here
]
Actually, one final note for all consider: Despite the gravity of the situation the parties in this case find themselves in, it is truly spectacular that this very important issue is open to much more honest debate in this thread than the artificial, theoretical, tightly controlled grounds of a tribunal hearing, where truth can often legitimately be suppressed or excluded by operation of procedural law. We can consider ourselves lucky, unless the BCHRC objects to freedom of speech and freedom of expression of political and social belief. [which, they just might!!!].
Cheers all. Have a good work out!!
ushup: