Tolerant Intolerance

As Austin Power's father, Nigel, says in the movie Goldmember, "there are only two things I can't stand -- intolerance for other cultures and the Dutch". Gay bashing in Amsterdam raises some curious problems for the intolerant -- and for the Dutch.

The story, apparently, is that an American gay couple were walking down an Amsterdam street, hand in hand, when one of them, the editor of a Gay magazine, was beaten allegedly by Moroccan muslims. Commentary abounds on the rising intolerance in the Netherlands towards muslims, especially since the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Does the right thinking person condemn the bashing and thus stand for the rights of gays to walk hand in hand down the street?

Of course, most can condemn violence of any sort in a civil society and leave it to the authorities to watch and wait for breaches. And wait they did. According to reports there were 15-20 people in the vicinity who may have witnessed the beating but did nothing about it. That seems like an awful lot of tolerance for violence.

But the other thing that must be recognized is that despite the fact that homosexuality is gaining more acceptability -- intolerance is present even in those countries where acceptablity has risen to the level of state sanctioned marriage. It would seem like laws against violence are not enough. Hate motivated crimes abound. Must tolerance reach the level where hate is abolished? I have difficulty accepting a society that seeks to regulate values. Even in Orwell's totalitarian society in 1984 where values were highly controlled and levelled, the expression of hate was encouraged -- even required. It seems an unlikely emotion to abolish. Is it not better to allow for diversity of opinion and abhor any violence that from there flows?

The biggest crime in Amsterdam that day was not the hate, but the apathy that allowed the violence to occur. The oft quoted words of Martin Niemoller are apt

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up
because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was
left to speak up.

The other quote that rings with some relevance is "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Tolerance is not enough.

Does the same apply to the workplace. Recently, the Royal Bank of Canada estabished a rainbow triangle program. The essence of the program is to have employees declare their workspaces as a safe space for gays -- or gay friendly.

There are several problems that I see with this. First it is a value engineering program. It seeks to place too high a value on the declaration of certain common values. One assumes that in the group of people that witnessed but did not go to the aid of the man being beaten, there were those who would declare themselves as tolerant or pro gay. Having the value isn't enough.

In a society that values freedom of thought, belief and opinion, it is not only diversity of cultures and orientation that must be protected but also diversity of opinion. Whatever is done to quash that diversity, whether it is re education programs or violence, is done contrary to what is fundamental to our society.

Religious Freedom

"Tell me, are you a Christian Child?" I said, "Ma’am I am tonight". The senseless shooting of Marc Cohn recently, causes me to think of that line from Walking in Memphis. Maybe Muriel, down at the Hollywood, can ask that question, but what about the employer in Edmonton? Such questions raise the interesting debate on the freedom of religion versus the freedom from discrimination on the basis of religion. Is an employer free to voice religious opinions? Is an employer free to require workers to have certain religious values?

There is often a desire to view issues of religion, and the other well known grounds under Human Rights legislation, as off limits in the workplace. Indeed, most of us are familiar with litigation removing religion from the public domain: schools, sports teams etcetera. Is the manager of a private corporation, precluded from asking religious questions?

From a legal perspective, the starting point in Canada is the relevant Human Rights legislation; discrimination on the basis of creed or religion is prohibited. Even employment applications and advertising cannot include references to prohibited grounds, i.e. creed. However, such questions may be allowed at the interview stage (Ontario Human Rights Code, s. 23) of the hiring process provided that the discrimination is otherwise allowable. The clearest example of discrimination being allowable is philanthropic and religious exemptions. Religious organizations are expressly allowed to employ only, or give preference to, members of that religion. Clearly, there would be no problem asking questions about the religion if the employer were such an organization. Given the widespread awareness of Human Rights prohibitions, it is increasingly unlikely, as the Supreme Court noted in one case (Meiorin), that a modern employer would discriminate directly - i.e. by asking questions such as "Are you a Christian?" However, indirect questions serve as well to get the answer sought after. Whether intentional or not, such questions may be interpreted by the candidate as religious. Questions such as: "Can you work on Saturday?", "Can you wear our uniform?", " Can you wear a hard hat?", "Can you work five hours without a break?" may be questions revealing legitimate work requirements and they also may allude to religion. Should such qualifications interfere with a person's religious practices, then, the employer's duty to accommodate arises.


But there is no prohibition against asking such questions at the interview stage. Questions which are designed to reveal the candidate's personality, attitude, moral views, or other indicators of suitability for a job may also be double edged. Questions such as "Do you believe in birth control?", "What do you think about condoms?", "Are you against abortion?", "What do you think about same sex marriage?", may have religious overtones. There is nothing wrong with a company screening for personality profiles that fit within the organizational character - provided that those profiles do not exclude candidates on the basis of religion. Psychometric testing, for example, is considered to be a perfectly legitimate method of personality screening. The Human Rights Commission only cautions against screening tools that may indirectly discriminate. Personality and value revealing questions may be asked. Although there is a prohibition against asking religious questions directly, one issue that arises is whether or not the questions result in discrimination.

In an Alberta case involving The City of Edmonton Police, the complainant, Dale Kliparchuk, alleged that he was not hired because of questions asked during the interview. The questions included the following: "Are you a Christian?", "Are you a born again Christian?" and, "Are you a traditionalist, sexually?". Although the Alberta legislation precludes asking such questions, the Commission determined that the information adduced did not contribute to the decision not to hire Kliparchuk; accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

Another interesting case of questions and screening involves Trinity Western University of British Columbia. The university asked students to affirm their Christianity and confirm that they would not engage in homosexual activity. The B.C. College of Teachers challenged the University's policy on the basis that graduates with those views would be unsuitable as teachers. The College was essentially attempting to screen for religion before the employment applications even occurred. The Supreme Court upheld the University's right to screen for students whose attitudes were consistent with its philosophy and distinguished between holding views and acting on them in a discriminatory fashion. Like the Kliparchuk case, the Trinity decison evinces a willingness of the courts to be wary of absolute prohibitions on religious or value laden discussions so long as there is no resulting discrimination.