Raphael, why are you focussing on Muslims? What if I’m a taxi driver that is violently allergic to dogs?

Don’t I have a right to drive a cab even if I’m allergic to dogs, and then have the right to protect myself?

Do people not have an inherent right to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of how irrational? Of course, I have a right to my expression and can point out the irrationality of the belief.

I was in Ottawa last weekend, and wanted to flag down a cab. I was told that the part of the city I was in, it was going to be very difficult - not because cabs don’t stop for potential passengers flagging them down - it’s because most cabs are in other parts of the city and I’d be waiting a long time before I even saw a cab.

Perhaps my human rights should be demanding the city provided more cab drivers that hung out in the part of the city I’m in? I could have used some human kindness that night.

Raphael, why are you focussing on Muslims? What if I’m a taxi driver that is violently allergic to dogs?

Then maybe you should consider the line of work you’re in.

Do people not have an inherent right to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of how irrational?

Not if they are in public service. Our citizens are defended by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the same kind of mentality in which the blind actually had to sue the TTC in order to get them to acknowledge the simple fact that they need the stops called out. Similarly, the blind have certain expectations which should be met, and that begins with the fundamental understanding that a blind person is disabled in eyesight, and must sometimes rely on a guide. We should be as accommodating as possible to those with genuine disabilities, not those who make theirs up [Allah says dogs suck].

All your other examples are fairly non sequitur to the point. We as a society decide that disabled persons deserve a little extra helpful treatment such as parking spots, ramps, handrails, etc etc. A guide dog is an extension of that, like a disabled parking spot.

“Raphael, why are you focussing on Muslims? What if I’m a taxi driver that is violently allergic to dogs?”

Also from that article:

“And taxi drivers are required to obey all laws. They do have the right to refuse to transport a passenger:

To avoid contravening a law or condition of licence.
To protect the driver’s, or any passenger’s, health or safety…”

I use cabs ALOT and have used them to take various & sundry pets to and from the vet, and always TELL the dispatcher that (especially the 170 lb dog, I figure it’s an important point). If a driver has a dog (or cat or guinea pig) allergy, they can tell the dispatcher to give it to someone else. How hard is that?

I know I’m closer to the neolithic stages of progressive development than you are, but sometimes I wonder about you stagie.

That’s OK Raphael, keep hanging out here and we’ll have ya into the stone age in no time ;-)

First of all, you of all people should admit that all humans in society have a universal right to the fair and equitable treatment under the laws and rights of our Charter.

Absolutely, and that includes, among other things, the right not to be forced by any level of government to break faith with your religion.

This means that blind people, who are in essence entirely dependent upon a little kindness and helpfulness from society in general…..

I’m sure blind people every where are happy to discover how helpless they are. Tell me, what sort of person, blind or otherwise, would willingly compel another to break faith with their religion to provide them service? My description would be arrogant and selfish.

…., should not be discriminated upon by superstitious Muslims who continue to use the 7th Century decree that dogs are unclean to defend their appalling indecency to a fellow human being.

But it is perfectly OK for a non-Muslim to discriminate against a Muslim I guess.

The Muslim can choose not to be a taxi driver. The blind man cannot choose not to be blind.

The Muslim can in fact choose not to be a taxi driver, and the blind person can in fact choose a different taxi, or a different taxi company - no?

This isn’t a matter of proprietary freedom from governmental interference. It’s about protecting our citizens from undue discrimination……

It absolutely is about freedom from government interference, you don’t see it that way because the government is not yet compelling you to do something that you are fundamentally opposed to — but give them an inch and they’ll be knocking on your door soon enough.

…. based on what amounts to little more than a silly superstition because some Muslim 1300 years ago didn’t like some dog jumping up on him sniffing his testicles and slobbering all over his face, so he wrote it down in the Qu’ran.

Glad to see that your tolerance for others and their beliefs is as high as it is. A good number of religious prohibitions are based on superstition, masturbation, gay sex, pork and lobster, sex before marriage…. it’s a really long list.

Respect for human rights and secular law MUST supersede religious freedom.

This is not a law that protects the health, safety, or property of the person - those are human rights. This is a law that says a private business individual does not have the right to refuse to provide service to someone - you have decided to focus on the religious aspect but if you read the part I highlighted it goes further than that doesn’t it?

I suppose if you’re allergic to dogs you shouldn’t permit dogs in your cab. But suppose you simply don’t like white people? Or blacks? Or Muslims? or Jews?

Suppose you don’t…. it would be really bad business practice, you would soon collect a bad reputation, you would lose a considerable chunk of money as a result of it, and pretty soon I bet you’d be poor and out of business - do you not believe that reasonable people and the market will not correct such stupidity?

sl: “Do the good citizens of Vancouver actually believe they have some sort of absolute right to taxi service?”

Chimera: Yes. Since the service is being offered to the public, it must be offered to everyone without prejudice, barring specific occasions when the driver may be in peril.

You would compel people to do something that they are fundamentally opposed to for your personal convenience? I’m afraid that the rights you have are those afforded to each of us, and the right to a taxi ride in the taxi of your choice simply ain’t one of them - sorry.

Check the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you do not have the legal right to a taxi ride, and you do not have the legal right to be offended of you are refused a taxi ride.

Raph focused on Muslims for two reasons:

I would add a third that we have discussed previously at his site in immigration related areas which is definitely related to the discussion…. lets include Islamic intolerance in the list as well.

(1) that’s what the article was about; and,

Neither you, nor Raphael seem to have noticed that is not the part I highlighted in the article, although it’s certainly been the focus….. interesting ‘eh?

(2) Muslim cab drivers have been the source of all the complaints that have been laid recently, not only for refusing to carry blind passengers with guide dogs, but any other handicapped passengers with assistance dogs (heart patients, people prone to seizures, and the deaf with hearing guide dogs).

All? That’s either a really sweeping generalization or there are some real problems in Vancouver - and not with just the taxi drivers either.

I dunno what public transit is like in your area, but Translink sucks unless you live on the bus route in the downtown core.

So is this one of the roots of the problem? People want those in the service industry to put aside their personal beliefs, practices, and individual rights, to make up for short comings in the city transit system?

Me thinks you’d be better off complaining to them….. start off by telling them that you believe that it’s your right to efficient transit right to your door and see how far you get.

Candace: I use cabs ALOT and have used them to take various & sundry pets […..snip…..] How hard is that?

It’s not hard, as a matter of fact it’s simple common sense….. something that if more people employed would significantly reduce controversy and conflict.

Mike: I do not infringe upon the rights of others, and expect others to do the same in return. If more people held such a philosophy I think we’d be living in a very different, and more peaceful, world. Far to many people seem not to know the difference between a perk, a privilege, or (in this case) a service - and a right.

Absolutely, and that includes, among other things, the right not to be forced by any level of government to break faith with your religion.

But think about it, stageleft, from a pragmatic point of view. If a person is Christian and works in government, should their views preclude them from serving homosexuals? Similarly, a taxi is a public service, whether it is privately owned or not, and as such is subject to a number of municipal regulations already. Discriminatory profiling based on religion has been shown to be in deficit of rights to disability. Look it up.

I’m sure blind people every where are happy to discover how helpless they are. Tell me, what sort of person, blind or otherwise, would willingly compel another to break faith with their religion to provide them service? My description would be arrogant and selfish.

They’re not asking anyone to “break faith”. Rather they are expecting that a municipally regulated transportation service be in compliance with human rights law.

The Muslim can in fact choose not to be a taxi driver, and the blind person can in fact choose a different taxi, or a different taxi company - no?

But that’s like saying blacks could just find their own school, or their own neighbourhood. At what point does a persons personal religion supersede a public benefit? Taxis operate at the permission of the municipality, and just as the blind are exempt from restaurant health laws, we allow leeway in other areas as well. From wikipedia:

“In several countries, guide dogs, along with most service and hearing dogs, are exempt from regulations against the presence of animals in places such as restaurants and public transportation.”

This would include taxis, which are regulated as transportation under municipal laws.

It absolutely is about freedom from government interference, you don’t see it that way because the government is not yet compelling you to do something that you are fundamentally opposed to — but give them an inch and they’ll be knocking on your door soon enough.

With due respect to your anarchic libertarianism, society must enact laws to protect the disabled of our society. Otherwise selfish assholes would use up all parking spaces, or refuse to provide walkways for wheelchairs, etc etc etc. Ensuring all cabs have access to guide dogs is seen as a necessary forcible governmental assurance that the disabled are properly cared for.

This is not a law that protects the health, safety, or property of the person - those are human rights. This is a law that says a private business individual does not have the right to refuse to provide service to someone - you have decided to focus on the religious aspect but if you read the part I highlighted it goes further than that doesn’t it?

I’m afraid you are of inadequate information of municipal laws governing taxi cabs. They are certainly not seen as a private enterprise, but a government regulated form of private transportation for the public.

I would add a third that we have discussed previously at his site in immigration related areas which is definitely related to the discussion…. lets include Islamic intolerance in the list as well.

I don’t have Islamic intolerance. I think the religion is a spiritually enriching part of our mosaic. I oppose political Islam.

I find it disappointing you would put forward the religious freedom of an invited guest over the genuine disability of the blind.

balbulican, we’re ganging up on stageleft, not me right now.

And just let me add this caveat: It was not my intention to divert the discussion to one of feminism. I was simply using that as an example of how stupid things could get if we were to allow it. ‘Kay?

“Since the service is being offered to the public,

Yeah, don’t you just love that? A private business starts up, some level of government decides to regulate it, and now it’s become a “public service.”

Sorry pal - just because the government demands of me through the threat of force if I don’t comply to put their markers on my vehicles doesn’t mean my vehicle is now “public property” regardless of what service I’m offering.

So Ian…in your view, what is the mechanism that would have desegrated schools in the US? Here you had a clear example of local and community values being trampled underfoot by an insensitive central government, usurping the will of the local populace to shamelessly impose some foreign (to the region) notion of “equality”.

What SHOULD have happened, in your view?

Well, “the market” didn’t integrate US schools,

Apples and oranges

That took government action.

And in some cases it was necessary, but we are now discussing (in the case of the service animals) freedom of religion issues - do people have freedom of religion in this country or not?

But think about it, stageleft, from a pragmatic point of view.

I would rather think of it from a rights point of view.

If a person is Christian and works in government, should their views preclude them from serving homosexuals? Similarly, a taxi is a public service, whether it is privately owned or not,….

We are not talking about public government service, we are talking about the private service sector - again apples and oranges. But if you do want to go down slightly different road and discuss whether or not Catholic pharmacists should be forced to carry contraceptives in their stores I would back their decision not to do so based on their religious belief.

…. and as such is subject to a number of municipal regulations already.

And I have asked multiple times just why the municipal corporation has the authority to regulate the taxi industry to the degree that it does - here they went as far as regulating what a driver could and could not wear for petes sake.

Discriminatory profiling based on religion has been shown to be in deficit of rights to disability. Look it up.

Somewhere you have been able to find a legal reference to the rights of the disabled having greater legal standing than freedom of religion rights? I would most certainly like to see that however even if it does exist my position would not change. Give me a link to back it up.

With due respect to your anarchic libertarianism, society must enact laws to protect the disabled of our society.

The rights of disabled persons are not being infringed upon, unless of course we have been given the legal right to the taxi of our choice while I wasn’t looking.

Did that happen>

I don’t have Islamic intolerance.

I happen to believe, based on your own words in a discussion on your site where you advocated restricting (for example) the right of association for immigrants, restricting speech rights of immigrants, and even restricting mobility rights for immigrants, that you do in fact exhibit intolerance for different cultural groups, and that would include Muslims.

I find it disappointing you would put forward the religious freedom of an invited guest over the genuine disability of the blind.

Guests? Are these taxi drivers not Canadian citizens? Are religious beliefs not genuine? Do you really think that independent business people are rubbing their hands and cackling oh Ackmed, I turned away 2 paying customers today, I think I lost at least $50, I am so happy!! Are you not happy for me?

…… but it got really tiresome to hear that yet another lawsuit was being launched against a cab company or a driver or a passenger or a civil rights group by all of the above and more — all over what is and is not allowed or demanded of cab drivers and expected of passengers.

Then wouldn’t it be a far better solution to have stupid lawsuits by people and groups who don’t seem to know the difference between a right and a private service stopped before they get started? I mean Christ almightly, where does it end already? Are my rights being infringed upon because the closest grocery store to my apartment has chosen not to carry pork kidney in the meat cooler and I am forced to spend $2.80 for bus tickets and ride crowded public transit (where I just might catch a cold fer-gods-sake-already… oh the humanity!!) on my semi-monthly trips to the butcher shop downtown?

And if I should, who should I launch my lawsuit against? The local grocery store, OCTranspo (who is sometimes late fer-gods-sakes-already… I might catch a cold!!), the butcher shop downtown for not having a shop within walking distance of my apartment? Can I sue all three…. and maybe the city because the sidewalk had snow on it where the bus stops and my boots got wet and salt stained (they’re really comfortable combat boots fer-gods-sake-already, I paid a lot for them)? Can I get public funding for my suit?

People may expect to be accomodated by private business, and indeed the private sector generally tries to accomodate the consumer because it is in their best financial interests to do so - but that does not mean that the public has the legal right to accomodation by the private sector.

PS: Quite frankly I could care less if SUZANNE doesn’t want to associate with feminists, or give them rides in her taxi, that’s her business.

…. and ya know what? I don’t associate with religious fundamentalists, rabid anti-fur idiots, or evangelicals on a mission - and if I was in a cab and they started their nonsense it would be my right to stop the cab on the next corner and tell them to get out.

“So Ian…in your view, what is the mechanism that would have desegrated schools in the US?”

Let’s look at “root causes,” Balb.

Segregation was caused by States that didn’t recognize inherent rights of individuals and even went to the degree that some States sponsored the trade in slaves of individuals of races and ethnic backgrounds considered “heathen” because of different beliefs and customs.

Desegregation was an attempt by the State to fix a problem that Leviathan had created - in both by sponsoring the slave trade, and also by regulating schools and education.

I’m not a public school fan either, Balb.

Okay, so let’s use private sector examples.

Should stores be allowed to practice discriminatory hiring practices if they feel it helps sales?

Should restaurants be allowed to refuse service to visible minorities if they feel that their presence discourages whiter diners?

And for the record, let me set it straight in regard to my last comment about the State being one of my customers (or, me refusing to have the State as one of my customers).

Some years ago, (before I had a clear vision regarding Leviathan, principles, inherent rights, etc) I was convinced to participate with some others in a Tender process for some government contracted out work.

What a farce that was.

The State is the biggest god damn discriminator going as far as business is concerned. No, I’m not bitter that we were not awarded the contract - but it was quite obvious by who was awarded the contract that quality of work, ability to complete deadlines, and good price for tax payers were NOT major criteria for the decision.

It was “who ya knew, who ya blew.”

And a whole bunch of wordsmithing like some are very good at was used to justify the whole thing. The fact of the matter was, the winner was already picked out before the tender was ever made.

An utter waste of time for good, honest businesses to even bother trying to provide the community with an excellent service.

Balb, EVERYBODY discriminates on some level. What some try to do is regulate the basis of discrimination.

Tell me - if I go to a Church, and select my employees from the body of that Church membership because that is who I am comfortable with, am I “discriminating” against everyone else?

Guess it depends on your perspective.

If SUZANNE (as she has been brought up here in this thread already) decides to start a business, and for her employees, chooses only to look at potential hirees from her Church, and then hire from that list, and doesn’t even look at my resume - I’m seriously fine with that.

I’m with SL on this one.

I’ve lived in Chicago and I’ve seen the discrimination against black riders first hand but that’s not what is at issue in Vancouver. The dominant reason for the regulation is that taxis don’t want to take passengers out of the city to the outlying suburbs at night when they won’t get a return trip.

The CBC article zeros in on potential ( and there have been one or two real complaints ) problems of muslim drivers and dogs but that’s mostly sensational journalism at work. The drivers ( no pun intended ) of these new regulations are people who want vancouver drivers to take them 35 miles into the suburbs and live with a dead head trip back.

If the regulations were put in place to protect against actual discrimination I’d likely support them depending on the circumstances but that’s not the case and they are, IMO, useless new regulations.

Okay. Ian and Stageleft don’t have a problem with businesses refusing service to people they don’t want to serve, for any reason.

That’s unfortunate. But that’s not what I think, and I have no problem with our Charter, which, in fact, makes that illegal, I believe.

“I have nothing but derision for those who think they can legislate against prejudice or discrimination.”

You can’t eliminate prejudice or discrimination through legislation, for sure. But when you’ve finished deriding King, Kennedy, and Mandela, you might wonder if there is more or less discrimination in their countries because they tried.

You’re putting words in my mouth b.

Okay. Ian and Stageleft don’t have a problem with businesses refusing service to people they don’t want to serve, for any reason.

I didn’t say that now did I?

Personally I think that discrimination based on race, creed, religion, height, facial hair, or lack of an American Express card, is stupid and counter productive.

Furthermore I do not think that in each and every case of “discrimination” is in fact actual discrimination at all. The service dog issue in Vancouver (for example) is not discrimination against the blind although legislation requiring people to break faith with their religion or face legal penalty most certainly is.

The best mechanism for dealing with real discrimination is societal as opposed to legislative….. refer back to my pork kidney problem - just how far should we go with this?