[ql06] Re: PUBLIC: Potty Act and s. 15(1) Discrimination
- From: "Kenneth Campbell [QL06]" <2kc16@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:25:55 -0500
[From complainant counsel's presentation and questions before the Court.
Excerpted section of questions, with Weisberg C.J., studied in Advocacy
next year.]
FLAHERTY: I would like to address what the government counsel said, as
regards the Law Test and the concept of "human dignity" being at the
heart of the test. I agree with her, but I think my distinguished friend
has her facts backwards in the application of the "human dignity"
aspect, here, to fem-
WEISBERG CJ: Mr. FLAHERTY?
FLAHERTY: Yes, Your Honor.
WEISBERG CJ: I have a question.
FLAHERTY: Yes, Your Honor.
WEISBERG CJ: You mention dignity...
FLAHERTY: Actually, I was res-
WEISBERG CJ: Have you ever read Denise Reaume's article in the Queen's
Law Journal?
FLAHERTY: ... no.
WEISBERG CJ: I think you should.
FLAHERTY: ... Okay. I will ask my-
WEISBERG CJ: I have it right here!
FLAHERTY: Oh, I -
WEISBERG CJ: I could read it to you, right now?
[Loud shifting of chairs and muttering from other 8 Justices of the
SCC.]
WEISBERG CJ: Right now, if you would like?
FLAHERTY: Your Honor, may be after I answer questions about the
submission relating to s. 15(1) on-
WEISBERG CJ: I find it instructive to read aloud from documents to help
instruct the Court.
[Loud shifting of chairs and muttering from other 8 Justices of the
SCC.]
FLAHERTY: *cough*
WEISBERG CJ: It's a wonderful piece. It's all about dignatory torts.
FLAHERTY: Torts?
WEISBERG CJ: Which is why I thought of it. Because I think you were just
talking about... dignity... or something...?
FLAHERTY: The underlying and critical concept of human dignity, which is
the real thrust to the Law Test, as articulated by this Court when-
WEISBERG CJ: [flipping through QLJ, leaning back in chair] You know what
my favorite part is?
FLAHERTY: Of the Law Test?
WEISBERG CJ: No, no. The Denise Reaume article.
FLAHERTY: Sorry, Your-
WEISBERG CJ: It's the part at the beginning. Where she thanks my class.
FLAHERTY: I will look that up when-
WEISBERG CJ: I could at least read that part to you, Mr FLAHERTY.
[Loud shifting of chairs and muttering from other 8 Justices of the SCC.
TROTTER J rises from his seat and leans toward the CJ, back to the
courtroom.]
TROTTER J: Perhaps you could return to your point, Mr. FLAHERTY. You
were saying... that...
FLAHERTY: ... that... the... government's lawyer has tried to... right,
I remember now, that government counsel has tried to hijack the term
human dignity and only apply it to women. Well, I wanted to repeat
Iacobucci J.'s "preamble" to the actual Test (para. 59), and go through
it line by line-.
WEISBERG CJ: How come he gets to read?
TROTTER J: Shut up.
FLAHERTY: ... line by line.
What is human dignity? There can be different conceptions
of what human dignity means. For the purpose of analysis under
s. 15(1) of the Charter, however, the jurisprudence of this
Court reflects a specific, albeit non-exhaustive, definition....
the realization of personal autonomy and self-determination.
Fair enough so far!
The _males_ affected by this scandalously discriminatory and
heavy-handed government action are claiming THEIR personal autonomy and
self-determination are shaken. If this Act is allowed, males will have
fewer places to... to... self-determine... in.
And why? Because of the governmentally-condoned
sexually-disproportionate distribution of commodious cubicles based upon
a conspiracy of female lawyers being produced by law schools in
disproportionate measure.
Coincidence?! That just after females numerically outnumber males in
law, that there is a law to make toilets equally disproportionate?
Let me read further from the Law Test:
Human dignity means that an individual or group feels self-
respect and self-worth. It is concerned with physical and
psychological integrity and empowerment.
See? The "psychological integrity" of this unfair distribution of
potties is acknowledged.
There are developmental consideration! It can scar young boys for life.
Why are _they_ singled out for fewer toilets? Why are _they_ forced to
walk a little further down the hall? Why are _they_ forced to give up
their own toilets to girls? Why?! Because they have a penis?!
This will not stand in our land.
I see the female counsel for the government snickering. Laugh while you
can! You are tarnishing the basis of our social equitable development.
You are creating rends on the fabric of the constitutional landscape.
I believe the DSM-IV will eventually have a new listing: Ontario Potty
Act Personality Disorder, a sort of "potty envy."
And then where will this province be, when we sit down to negotiate
trade deals with other nations, and file complaints with the WTO?
Indeed, where will great trade institutions like the WTO deign to hold
its global conferences? Will they chose a place where the regard for the
mental health of developing boys is, dare I say it??, flushed down the
toilet?
No! No! No!
And when the Olympic Committee returns for another round of bribes and
payola, and our city stands tied with a city like Paris, where men are
free to pee anywhere they please, will that tip the scales against our
proud founding province in exalted international competition?
And what if this Olympic Committee were to take a drive through Toronto,
to survey the port lands, and see thousands of men running from
government buildings, bladders bursting, looking for an alley to relieve
themselves in?
Do we want THOSE IMAGES gracing the covers of Time and Le Monde?
The conscience of the Court cannot allow such a thing!
Justice Iacobucci wrote further:
Human dignity is harmed by unfair treatment premised upon
personal traits or circumstances-
WEISBERG CJ: I found the spot you're at. Let me read this part.
[Loud shifting of chairs and muttering from other 8 Justices of the
SCC.]
[END EXCERPT]
Other related posts:
