Housing Discrimination
- newcitynewme007
- Aug 21, 2022
- 12 min read
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John Ames Birch <amesbirch403@gmail.com>
Date: Thu., Oct. 28, 2021, 10:43 p.m.
Subject: Housing Discrimination (Opinion)
To: <justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca>, <chrystia.freeland@parl.gc.ca>, <Anita.Anand@parl.gc.ca>, <assistance@liberal.ca>, <aclupreferences@aclu.org>, <antonio.ferrari@un.org>, <actso@naacpnet.org>, <anthony.rota.c1@parl.gc.ca>, <aasld@aasld.org>, <america@aljazeera.net>, <annamie.paul@greenparty.ca>, <Erin.OToole@parl.gc.ca>, <brienne.prusak@newyork.msf.org>, <bob.bailey@pc.ola.org>, <bernard.choi@boeing.com>, <barbara.warren@disney.com>, <calgary@globalnews.ca>, <carolyn.bennett@parl.gc.ca>, <cbcpr@cbc.ca>, <cnn.feedback@cnn.com>, <dujarric@un.org>, <drun@un.int>, <dir_enq@cso.gov.hk>, <drtheresa.tam@canada.ca>, <edmonton@globalnews.ca>, <eonline@bellmedia.ca>, <ecampaign@gop.com>, <FoxNationCustomerCare@fox.com>, <exclusive@the-sun.com>, <us@ocasiocortez.com>, <press@usda.gov>, <press@ocasiocortez.com>, <press@blacklivesmatter.com>, <ahmed.hussen@parl.gc.ca>, <Harjit.Sajjan@parl.gc.ca>, <askus@novascotia.ca>, <AskIA@fema.dhs.gov>, <themayor@calgary.ca>, <tonews@cbc.ca>, <tips@thetexan.news>, <anderson.cooper@turner.com>, <wayne.panton@gov.ky>, <webbgis@barbados.gov.bb>, <WeekendNews@globaltv.com>, <despacho@presidencia.gob.cu>, <Deborah.Mebude@gov.ab.ca>, <Depot.Division@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <david.muir@cfl.rr.com>, <David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca>, <Francois-Philippe.Champagne@parl.gc.ca>, <fatima@caj.ca>, <Fadi.El-Abdallah@icc-cpi.int>, <FAnyanwu@csis.org>, <sencom@sen.parl.gc.ca>, <sena_fitzmaurice@comcast.com>, <sean.walsh@mailonline.com>, <gov.pressoffice@alaska.gov>, <press@txdemocrats.org>, <info@strategicgroup.ca>, <LTB.Evidence@ontario.ca>, <CE-ltb@ontario.ca>, <TS-ltb@ontario.ca>, <TN-ltb@ontario.ca>, <co-opprocessingLTB@ontario.ca>, <info@ap.org>, <info@ccla.org>, <info@rttv.ru>, <info@abcfp.ca>, <info@ansi.org>, <info@bnn.com>, <Info@gregabbott.com>, <info@gov.tc>, <media@angusreid.org>, <media@boeing.com>, <media@aircanada.ca>, <media@veterans.gc.ca>, <lauri.l.hogan@abc.com>, <lawsociety@lso.ca>, <laurie.chandler@gov.ab.ca>, <letters@scmp.com>, <letters@gq.com>, <lspa@dps.la.gov>, <omc-bcm@hc-sc.gc.ca>, <osd.pentagonpressbadges@mail.mil>, <premier@gov.sk.ca>, <jsavikataaq@gov.nu.ca>, <jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca>, <jean-yves.duclos@parl.gc.ca>, <jeff_klein@dkcnews.com>, <jedminston@nationalpost.com>, <jamie.l.ruiz@cbp.dhs.gov>, <zkurz@osc.gov>, <zane@caj.ca>
Hey Everyone,
I have been reading more reports of discrimination targeting unvaccinated individuals and the fact that they will be denied housing due to their vaccination status.
This again harkens back to the system of segregation and discrimination that led to the Holocaust, the civil rights movement and apartheid. As we know this vaccine passport system is illegal and only serves to challenge our morality and doesn't protect us enough to justify this breach of our Charter Rights.
I am not against vaccines, I am against discrimination.
Given that this system doesn't protect us it therefore doesn't meet the criteria for any government to infringe upon Charter Rights. The only thing that has been saving us from this virus is Mask usage as vaccines still are not fully effective against transmission.
They are now discriminating against people in regards to their housing based on their status which is protected under the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Genetic Non Discrimination Act as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
As follows are precedents that explain the right to housing in Canada that's void of discriminatory motives. These are as follows:
Tileubay v. Princess Management, 2013 HRTO 1414 (CanLII)
Courts and tribunals have recognized that a single comment can amount to a breach of the Code, but only in limited circumstances. In Hazdic v. Pizza Hut Canada (c.o.b. Pizza Hut), [1999] B.C.H.R.T.D. No 44, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”) stated at para 33:
The context within which the racial/religious harassment occurs is important. Usually repeated conduct is required to establish racial/religious harassment. However, if the conduct is considered extreme, there is less need to establish a pattern of behaviour and a singel act may be sufficient evidence: Bell v. Flaming Steer Steak House (1980), 1980 CanLII 3899 (ON HRT), 1 C.H.R.R. D/155 (Ont.Bd.Inq.).
In McGill University Health Care Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v. Syndicat des employes de’l’Hopital general de Montreal, 2007 SCC 4 at 130, Abella J. stated:
“The point of undue hardship is reached when reasonable means of accommodation are exhausted and only unreasonable or impracticable options for accommodation remain.”
Given that we know masks have been reducing the rates of transmission a more reasonable solution would be to have everyone wear masks no matter their status. When cities removed the mask mandate each area saw a jump in cases and given that the cases are now reduced with mask use, its safe to assume this is the preventative measure that should have been used before a system of segregation and discrimination.
Spence v. Kolstar Properties Inc., 1986 CanLII 6510 (MB HRC)
[40] In argument Mr. Berg pointed out the appropriate sections of the legislation and reviewed the purpose of the Act as set forth in section 13 which reads as follows:
13. The Commission has power to administer this Act and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is the function of the Commission,
(a) to forward the principle that every person is free and equal in dignity and rights without regard to race, nationality, religion, colour, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap, ethnic or national origin, political beliefs, family status or source of income;
(b) to promote an understanding of, acceptance of and compliance with this Act;
(c) to develop and conduct educational programs designed to eliminate discriminatory practices related to race, nationality, religion, colour, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap, ethnic or national origin, political beliefs, family status or source of income;
(d) to disseminate knowledge and promote understanding of the civil and legal rights of residents of the province and to conduct educational programs in that respect;
(e) to further the principle of equality of opportunities and equality in the exercise of civil and legal rights regardless of status.
[41] He also asked me to note certain sections of the Act as follows:
4(1) No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with another, by himself or by the interposition of another, shall
(a) deny to any person or any member of his family, the right to occupancy of any commercial unit or any housing accommodation; or
(b) discriminate against any person or any member of his family with respect to any term or condition of occupancy of any commercial unit or housing accommodation, unless reasonable cause exists for the denial or discrimination.
Given that vaccinated people can still become carriers of the virus we still need to have masks used in public spaces and as such there should be no cause to discriminate against someone based on their status. If everyone were to use masks in common spaces then the transmission risk between vaccinated and unvaccinated should be relatively equal. As such this mask use must be used prior to the applications of any undue restrictions including a system of segregation as we see now.
[40] Harassment based on a protected ground is discrimination within the meaning of human rights legislation. Racial harassment, for example, strips its target of dignity and combines with wider patterns of social inequality to subordinate already disadvantaged groups: Naraine v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada (No. 4), [1996] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 23 (QL) (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry) at para. 53, rev’d on other grounds (2001) 2001 CanLII 21234 (ON CA), 209 D.L.R. (4th) 465 (ONCA); Hinds v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), [1988] C.H.R.D. No. 13 (QL) (CHRT) at 5697; see also Katherine Hardie, “Scope of the Code Part II – The Boundaries of Discriminatory Harassment” (CLE, Human Rights Law Conference 2017).
As such given that this will negatively affect religious individuals and not only violate their rights but dignity, its immoral. Like racial harassment, status discrimination strips the target of dignity as well as disenfranchises them further. We are seeing unvaccinated individuals being denied jobs, business licenses, medical care and now housing is being targeted which will create a unequal society in our nation. This system will unduly disenfranchise those with religious grounds and allow them to be targeted by society as a whole.
We have built our entire society to ensure that we can build collectively and feel safe collectively. We cannot dismantle the fundamental principles of our nations in defense of them, This is fear, not democracy.
Sonnenberg v. Centre universitaire St-Louis-Maillet, 1987 CanLII 8588 (NB BHR)
[20] Subsection 5(1) of the Human Rights Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, H-11, states:
5.(1) No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with another, by himself or by the interposition of another, shall
a) deny to any person or class of persons any accommodation, services or facilities available to the public, or
b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any accommodation, services or facilities available to the public, because of race, colour, religion, national origin, ancestry, place of origin, age, physical disability, mental disability, marital status or sex.
This indicates that they cannot be denied housing on the basis of religion as its a protected ground. Given that this system targets unvaccinated individuals and doesn't provide the adequate protections needed, its in violation of the Human Rights Act.
[29] In order for section 5 of the Act to apply, the violation must be a denial of a service or facility available to the public. In Gay Alliance Toward Equality v. Vancouver Sun, 1979 CanLII 225 (SCC), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 435, at 454, Martland J. says:
"In my opinion the general purpose of s. 3 was to prevent discrimination against individuals in respect of the provision of certain things available generally to the public. The items dealt with are similar to those covered by legislation in the United States, both federal and state. "Accommodation" refers to such matters as accommodation in hotels, inns and motels. "Service" refers to such matters as restaurants, bars, taverns, service stations, public transportation and public utilities. "Facility" refers to such matters as public parks and recreational facilities. These are all items "customarily available to the public." It is matters such as these which have been dealt with in American case law on the subject of civil rights".
Given that this passport system is segregating people and preventing them from using these public services like restaurants, bars and service stations this is in violation of section 3. Therefore we need a new mask policy that extends to all regardless of status to both defend our society and its morality.
"Discrimination" as recognized by s-s.15(1) of the Charter has been defined in Andrews v. The Law Society of British Columbia,
1989 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 at 174-5, per McIntyre J. for the majority on this point:
"I would say then that discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits, and advantages available to other members of society."
Given that unvaccinated individuals are being denied their rights, opportunities, benefits and advantages this is a clear violation of this provision. This further states about discrimination:
"There is no single test under s.1; rather, the Court must carefully engage in the balancing of many factors in determining whether an infringement is reasonable and demonstrably justified.
The section 15(1) guarantee is the broadest of all guarantees. It applies to and supports all other rights guaranteed by the Charter. However, it must be recognized that Parliament and the Legislatures have a right and a duty to make laws for the whole community; in this process, they must make innumerable legislative distinctions and categorizations in the pursuit of the role of government. When making distinctions between groups and individuals to achieve desirable social goals, it will rarely be possible to say of any legislative distinction that it is clearly the right legislative choice or that it is clearly a wrong one. As stated by the Chief Justice in R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., at pp.781-82:
This provision indicates that while the governments may not have meant to cause undue hardship, the imposition of this system has had a negative effect on our unvaccinated communities. A government has a duty to make laws for everyone in the community and this includes unvaccinated individuals. This system was setup in an effort to protect vaccinated people from unvaccinated people however given the delta variant is highly transmissible between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals the protections verses infringement criteria is not met. It goes on to say:
"The degree to which a free and democratic society such as Canada should tolerate differentiation based on personal characteristics cannot be ascertained by an easy calculus. There will rarely, if ever, be a perfect congruence between means and ends, save where legislation has discriminatory purposes. The matter must, as earlier cases have held, involve a test of proportionality. In cases of this kind, the test must be approached in a flexible manner. The analysis should be functional, focusing on the character of the classification in question, the constitutional and societal importance to the individuals affected of the benefit of which they are deprived, and the importance of the state interest."
This system as we know was meant to separate vaccinated and unvaccinated people into groups with different rights. As such this is a system of segregation and clear in its discriminatory aims as that was its intended purpose. As such given that this system has discriminatory purposes it doesn't meet the criteria for section 1.
The Genetic Non Discrimination Act also states that goods and services cannot be denied or made contingent upon genetic testing, information or disclosure of genetic status. As such given that this vaccine passport system infringes on every right we hold including the Generic Non Discrimination Act. It is therefore unconstitutional in its application and force. The following provisions apply:
Interpretation
Definitions
2 The following definitions apply in this Act.
disclose includes to authorize disclosure. (communiquer)genetic test means a test that analyzes DNA, RNA or chromosomes for purposes such as the prediction of disease or vertical transmission risks, or monitoring, diagnosis or prognosis. (test génétique)health care practitioner means a person lawfully entitled under the law of a province to provide health services in the place in which the services are provided by that person. (professionnel de la santé)Prohibitions
Genetic test
Refusal to undergo genetic test (2) It is prohibited for any person to refuse to engage in an activity described in any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) in respect of an individual on the grounds that the individual has refused to undergo a genetic test.
Disclosure of results
4 (1) It is prohibited for any person to require an individual to disclose the results of a genetic test as a condition of engaging in an activity described in any of paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (c).
Refusal to disclose results (2) It is prohibited for any person to refuse to engage in an activity described in any of paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (c) in respect of an individual on the grounds that the individual has refused to disclose the results of a genetic test.
Klinck v. Dorsay, 2021 ONSC 6285 (CanLII)
[99] In the event the matter proceeds to trial, Ms. Lane and Mr. Koenderman will be entitled to request a sealing order in relation to genetic test results.[1] Plaintiffs’ counsel invites the court to, in effect, pre-determine this issue when he submits that sealing orders in this case would not be available based upon the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, 458 D.L.R. (4th) 361. I decline to do so. I would, however, note that to satisfy the test for discretionary limits on court openness, an applicant must show the information in the court file is sufficiently sensitive such that it strikes at the “biographical core” of the individual and there is a serious risk that, without an exceptional order, the affected individual will suffer an affront to their dignity: Sherman Estate, at para. 35. In the GNDA Reference, Karakatsanis J. observed at para. 87: “[i]n a very real sense, an individual’s genetic makeup is their “biographical core”” and “[t]he dignity, autonomy and privacy interests in individuals’ detailed genetic information were understood by Parliament to be unique and strong.”
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 3 January 1976, in accordance with article 27
Article 2 - 2. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 3 - The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the present Covenant.
Given that this system infringes upon rights and dignities as set forth in the Human Rights Act, the Canadian and American Bills of Rights as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights its inherently flawed.
Article 6 - 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which (they)he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.
This system is not only denying people their business licenses but also is allowing the removal of unvaccinated individuals from their jobs. Therefore, this system infringes on the above provision as it is supposed to include everyone and this system seeks to devalue ones rights over the other.
Article 9 -The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.
There was also talk of unvaccinated individuals who lose their job to lose access to social assistance programs. As such this is a clear violation of this provision.
Article 11 - 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
This system seeks to now challenge housing in relation to vaccination status and therefore it will reduce the standard of living for those unvaccinated individuals amongst us. As we have seen ages past, when we separate people into groups with different rights, there standard of living is reduced. As such we cannot allow such a system to proceed that will regress the standard of living for our people.
Article 12 - (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.
This system has also caused people to be denied medical care due to their status and as such violates this condition.
Article 15 - 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:
(a) To take part in cultural life;
This system of segregation removes the ability for unvaccinated people to take part in cultural life. They are prohibited from certain places and activities based on genetic characteristics which not only violates this provision but as well, the Generic Non Discrimination Act.
Given that parliament has created the Genetic Non Discrimination Act this indicated the need to preserve the rights held around genetic testing. This entire vaccine passport system for the provision of goods and services is therefore in violation of this act.
In closing, I understand the need for public safety. However, given the immense violations of rights and caselaw coupled with the hate we are seeing directed at unvaccinated people, proves this system violates our values and dignities. As such this vaccine passport system must be removed and a new non discriminatory system must replace it otherwise we violate every tenent of our society.
"This isn't Freedom, this is fear" - Captain America.
Stay Safe, Stay Sanitized and Stay Supportive,
John Ames Birch
@johneames2
Comentários