BC HRC CASE

THE ABSURDITY OF THE BC HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

It was bound to happen. Two special interest groups (they are legion in Canada) went head to head within the sacred precincts of their own protector and sugar daddy - the BC Human Rights Tribunal. This epic battle threw the feminist movement in Canada into chaos.

In One Corner - The Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre

On one side of the dispute was the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre, which receives $300,000 annually to operate a feminist shelter for about 120 women - victims of alleged physical and sexual assault. The center pre-screens all potential volunteers to ensure they accept its views, which are feminist, anti-racist, pro-choice and pro-lesbian. The centre bans men from working as voluntary peer counselors because the shelter operates as a non-hierarchical collective that believes women's oppression is a result of the social order in which men, from birth, because of their place in the social order, control women. Thus, according to the evidence provided by the Rape Crisis Centre to the Tribunal, women can relate to the members of the collective because of their common life experiences of occupying an historically subordinate status in our society.

In the Other Corner - A Transgendered Person
(a former male now a female)

Imagine the consternation and anxiety of the Rape Crisis Centre, then, when a large woman with long flowing tresses, but with easily identifiable male features and mannerisms, strode in requesting to serve as a volunteer counselor at the establishment. This person was Kimberly Nixon, a former airline pilot, who, in 1990, underwent a sex change operation to become a woman. Anxious to help her sisters in need, Ms. Nixon had answered an advertisement to train as a volunteer at the shelter.

At the first training session, however, during the break, Ms. Nixon was taken aside by one of the facilitators who, according to the evidence, had immediately identified her as "someone who had not always been a woman," a conclusion based on her appearance. Ms. Nixon was requested to leave the training group because the center has determined that a woman has to be oppressed since birth to be a volunteer. Unfortunately, as Ms. Nixon had lived for some time as a man, she did not qualify.

At her expulsion from the collective, Ms. Nixon testified before the Tribunal that she was distraught and could not stop crying. She felt hurt, humiliated, useless and her sense of herself and her identity as a female were undermined by this treatment. This led to Ms. Nixon laying a complaint with the BC Human Rights Commission against the Rape Crisis Centre.

The Main Event - The Tribunal Hearing

The Tribunal Hearing was quite the event. More than 20 witnesses testified, and the parties submitted lengthy written and oral arguments with completely divergent views on the applicable law and social policy, as well as on the meaning of being a woman. Judy Rebick, past president of the feminist umbrella group, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (and itinerant broadcaster on CBC Newsworld), testified on behalf of the shelter. According to Ms. Rebick, it is the feminist movement's right to determine "who is a woman." In her view, it should not be determined by anyone else, such as a Tribunal. On the other hand, Rachel Giese, the resident lesbian columnist for the ever liberal Toronto Star, in her column of January 24, 2002, said the case was all about fear and ignorance, which "are just as oppressive when they drive feminists as when they drive everyone else." Then Ms. Giese attacked one of the sacred cows of feminist ideology, by stating that "all women do not have the same life experience," and that "simply being born a woman does not make one more empathetic, supportive and capable than someone who wasn't."

This treasonous thought by Ms. Giese directly contradicted the evidence given at the Tribunal by Dr. Ingrid Pacey, a Vancouver psychiatrist, and expert on sexual assault. According to Dr. Pacey, women are helpless victims, crushed under the heels of ruthless males. That is, Dr. Pacey testified at the Tribunal that most women live with the fear of male violence. Young girls and women recognize that they are physically vulnerable, that oppression exists in our culture and that women are often seen primarily as sexual beings.

Ms. Nixon certainly stirred up trouble in the sisterhood.

The Tribunal Decision

One knew even before the hearing began, and before any evidence was presented to the Tribunal that it would rule in favour of Ms. Nixon. This was because the Commission, politically correct to a fault, had, in October 1999, released a discussion paper entitled "Toward a Commission Policy on Gender Identity." In March 2000, the Commission had released a statement entitled "Policy on Discrimination and Harassment Because of Gender Identity." The policy said in part:

There are arguably few groups in our society today who are as disadvantaged and disenfranchised as transgenderists and transsexuals. Fear and hatred of transgenderists and transsexuals, combined with hostility toward their very existence are fundamental.

The Tribunal's responsibility was clear. It had to protect a transsexual in distress regardless of the facts, and even if this resulted in the very politically correct feminist/lesbian shelter being branded as a transgressor - so be it. The life of a Commissioner is not always easy!

The only real issue before the Tribunal was how to fit Ms. Nixon's complaint within the wording of the Human Rights Code, which protects individuals in "employment" and in regard to "services." Ms. Nixon, however, had applied to the shelter to become a volunteer, not an employee and she had not been denied a "service" by the shelter, in accordance with the ordinary understanding of the word. (The interpretation of the words "employment" and "service" are fundamental to the BC Human Rights Code.) This difficulty was easily dismissed by the Deputy Chief Commissioner of the BC Commission, Heather MacNaughton, who sat on this one-member Tribunal. She peremptorily declared that "volunteer" was, in fact, captured by the word "employee," as set out in the Code (even though there was no income earned or lost), and the training program was, after all, a "service". The Commissioner then triumphantly concluded that Ms. Nixon was the subject of marginalization and discrimination by the Rape Crisis Centre. Justice was done.

The Remedy

The Rape Crisis Centre was ordered to pay Ms. Nixon $7,500 for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect - the highest award ever made by the Tribunal for injury to dignity.

The Tribunal declined, however, to order the Rape Crisis Centre to hold a two-day "unlearning transphobia" workshop for its collective members, staff and volunteers or to incorporate in its training packages for volunteers "trans" information, as had been requested by Ms. Nixon.

Conclusion

Future generations will look back in bewildered curiosity, wondering how we ever allowed these foolish Commissions to operate in a country presumably populated by intelligent, sensible people.

This hearing points out that Human Rights Tribunals are even crazier than we had thought. It also points out how the political correctness of these Commissions has reached the ultimate in absurdity. The Commissions deserve neither public respect nor the taxpayers' monies.