Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:51:40 -0500 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
The difference here might be the fact we don't have access to the ADA.
As a Canadian, our source is the Federal and Provincial Human Rights
Commissions. The good thing is, its an arm of the government. The bad
thing is, also, that its an arm of the government.
Federally, a lot has been accomplished including both revision and
review of the Act to make it more effective. Individuals make the
complaints, but its government investigators that do the work. They can
be a powerful ally in a war against discrimination.
Provincial governments can be the downside. In Ontario, the Human
Rights Commission is not a favourite of the governing Tories, and they
respond by cutting budgets and attempting to weaken such legislation. In
Canada, we need an over-arching federal law, equal in power to the
Constitution, and that in fact is what has been recommended in the
recent review. It could mean that provincial statutes do not withstand
the federal act - a good thing.
This may be a reason for our differing viewpoints.
Rick
Paul Chapin wrote:
> The Japanese have a different take of this. Their saying is, "The nail that sticks up gets hammered."
>
> In other words, pick your fights. And don't go running to the courts all the time. Minorities are inherently paranoid, but the majority gets to make the rules of the game. Annoy enough people and ADA could go away.
|
|
|