The Unintended Consequences of Diversity Statements

[Blackadder1916]

You're right, poor wording on my part. What I mean to ask is along the lines of if someone attempted to fly a Straight Pride flag and discriminatory comments were made (and a complaint filed) would they treat it the same way/take it seriously.

I'd be curious if there's a double standard.

I'm also curious about drag queen story time being a thing in a town of 1300. I wonder if it's become raison d'être to try and get people riled up.

Is there such a thing as a "Straight Pride flag"? (rhetorical sarcasm)

If it was as simplistic as your brief description - someone raised a flag and someone else made "discriminatory comments" (I don't know what that means) - then probably not.

However, if the circumstances were similar to the Emo Township case which were - a request was made to the town council (an organization that provides a service) for them to proclaim "Pride Month" (that is the service they requested and was one that had been provided before to the requesting group and to other groups - the flag thingy had been requested but because the town said they didn't have a flagpole, it was not raised for a vote at the council meeting and the HRTO did not considered it discriminatory for the same reason); the town refused to provide the proclamation (accomplished by the vote of the town council); following the vote, the Mayor made the comment about flags that was discerned to be evidence that the mayor had made his decision based on discriminatory grounds.

If the same thing happen to someone who requested of a town to fly a "Straight Pride" flag on public property and that request was refused, then it is conceivable that it may fall under the jurisdiction of the HRTO. How an adjudicator may decide would be wild speculation at best, but would not likely be treated in the same manner. I wasn't able to find any HRTO decisions that could be comparable (there may be some, I just didn't look hard), but I did come across a BCHRT decision concerning a "Canadian Christian Flag" and the City of Langley. It's discussion may likely be similar to a hypothetical Straight Pride flag complaint. In honesty, I found that case when I changed the search terms to "Nazi flag".

And in one NB case, a community did display a Straight Pride Flag. While it did result in numerous complaints to the town's administration leading to it being removed, it doesn't appear that any complaint was made to that province's human rights tribunal by either persons offended by the flag or the individual who had requested the flag to be flown.

N.B. village’s straight-pride flag controversy shows we can’t treat everyone the same: commissioner - New Brunswick | Globalnews.ca

Human rights commission chair Nathalie Chiasson said people need to understand the impact of indirect discrimination - when there is an adverse effect on someone even when the original intent may not have been to discriminate.

globalnews.ca

And for some background on what HRTO doesn't look at;

HRTO | Practice Direction on Jurisdiction

What is Outside of the HRTO’s Jurisdiction?​

A common jurisdictional issue that the HRTO reviews is that the application fails to link the applicant’s Code ground(s) to the adverse treatment that the applicant received.

For a matter to fall within the HRTO’s jurisdiction, an applicant must provide some factual basis beyond a bald assertion linking their ground(s) to action(s) taken by the respondent and provide an explanation as to why they think that these actions were discriminatory. It is not enough that the treatment that the applicant received was unfair.

An applicant cannot just say that they have been discriminated against and were treated badly by the respondent. They must provide some detail linking the unfairness experienced, in whole or in part, to one of the protected grounds set in the Code (e.g. race, disability, sex, etc.). In other words, they must provide some detail about their enumerated ground(s) and explain why they believe that the negative treatment they experienced was because of their enumerated ground(s).

An application which fails to do so may be outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction.

Other common examples of applications that have been found to be outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction include (but are not limited to):

• The respondent is a federally regulated employer or service provider
• The application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination and the applicant failed to cite facts that constitute “good faith”
• The events are not connected to Ontario
• The applicant is challenging an unfavourable adjudicative or judicial decision
• The respondent is not providing a service to the applicant
• The application does not set out the elements of reprisal under the Code

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think it's funny the township is called Emo lol

 

[Jarnhamar]

Lots of food for thought thanks @Blackadder1916

 

[Cloud Cover]

Here is a little more food for thought …

When the human rights codes were established in Canada, it was not supposed to trigger the onset of malicious litigation, or compelling expression one way or the other.

What we have now are vile creatures bent on destroying - for life - anyone or any entity - that does not immediately comply with their demands.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Here is a little more food for thought …

When the human rights codes were established in Canada, it was not supposed to trigger the onset of malicious litigation, or compelling expression one way or the other.

What we have now are vile creatures bent on destroying - for life - anyone or any entity - that does not immediately comply with their demands.

A very strong statement from Borderland Pride's director? lawyer? spokesperson? whatever? I was wondering the context in which it was issued; was it a continuation of the HRTO Emo decision? Actually not. This goes back to August and Mr. Judson's quote as above (which is less than a quarter of his total quoted comment - some of the rest is more interesting) is included in the following article as well as the context of his statement. If "vile creature" labelling is appropriate for anyone, it may be more apt to apply it to the individual who Mr. Judson took to court for defamation.

‘Free expression doesn't mean freedom from consequences’: Borderland Pride

This case further highlights that the small claims court is an effective process for those seeking justice in a political climate where violence against the 2SLGBTQIA community is on the rise.

www.nwonewswatch.com

FORT FRANCES – A ruling from small claims court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has awarded the maximum cost in damages to Borderland Pride as compensation arising for the defamatory social media comments made by Fort Frances resident Luke Cawston.

Cawston must pay Borderland Pride $35,000 in general damages plus fees, according to Douglas Judson, Borderland Pride’s chair.

Back in March, the town’s SIJHL team, the Fort Frances Lakers, partnered with Borderland Pride to host their first-ever “Lakers Night Out” Pride Night event. Along with the hockey game, the event would also feature drag performers.

However, not everyone was happy to see the minor league hockey team celebrating inclusivity and diversity in sports.

Cawston took to a Fort Frances-area Facebook group to voice his disdain on a post advertising the event. He wrote crude and defamatory statements accusing the Pride organization of being "diddlers" and "child predators" who were organizing a "pedophile show," as stated in the court case.

"Unfortunately, these types of events continue to be the target of a lot of hate and prejudice in the community and online," Judson told Newswatch.

"This one was no exception. One individual took it upon himself to describe Borderland Pride, myself, and my partner who are organizers with that organization as 'diddlers,' people who are engaging in sexual predation targeting children or promoting sex to children.
. . .