Human Rights Gone Crazy

The Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel recently published a report on how the Act should be revised.  The Act governs entities that are subject to federal legislation (banks, airlines, railways, telecommunications etc.).

Among its recommendations, the Panel proposes adding "social condition" (read this to mean poverty) as a prohibited ground of discrimination.  This is both fascinating and unworkable.

It is fascinating because of the possible consequences. Keep in mind that if the Federal Government makes it a prohibited ground, the provinces are likely to follow suit.

Businesses discriminate on the basis of social condition every day.  A bank won't loan you money unless you have the means to repay it.  A supplier may not extend credit to you without proof that your ?social condition? will allow you to pay up.  VISA will not give you a credit card without proof of adequate income.

What if an employee claims that they cannot afford a suit and tie?  Are you violating their human rights by having a dress code that requires a suit?

Would landlords be able to turf out non-paying tenants? Would collection agencies would be out of business, because everything they did would be discrimination against the people who couldn?t afford to pay their bills?  Would restaurants have to abandon their dress codes too?

Here?s the funniest part: the federal and provincial governments are the biggest discriminators on the basis of social condition! People who have more money pay more tax.  The more money you make, the more of each dollar you pay in taxes. 

There could be a challenge of the taxing powers by the wealthy (who have the money to make the challenge).  They would claim that the progressive tax system is discriminatory, as well as all the tax breaks for those who do not make a lot of money. 

One solution would be a flat tax rate.  To generate the same tax revenue, the higher-income earners would pay less overall tax and the lower-income earners would pay more tax.  This would have the opposite effect than what the Review Panel intended!  Lower income earners would actually pay more tax and make even less.

Of course, this is ridiculous.  There would be a whole set of rules and exceptions that will make a very complicated and unworkable system where discrimination on the basis of poverty is allowed in some cases and not others. 

Affirmative action (disguised in a term like ?taxation equity?) would be invoked and establish that the only discrimination that is bad is that which hurts the lower-income earners.  Discrimination that makes higher-income earners pay more would be just fine, thank you.

What?s next?  Will discrimination on the basis of personality become prohibited?  Will obnoxious people claim that they are being denied certain benefits (jobs, loans, etc.) because they have a bad personality? Will an employer be faced with ?You can?t fire me just because I am a jerk? arguments?

This is what happens when things go too far.