The case of Rhino Albino and other B.C. human rights complaints Earl’s Albino Rhino beer had been on offer for 25 years when the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal agreed to hear a complaint by a woman with albinism The label for Albino Rhino Ale made in 2012 for Earl’s Restaurant in Western Canada. Genna Buck Genna Buck August 8, 2019 5:17 PM EDT Filed under News Canada Comment Facebook Twitter Reddit Email More The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has heard some offbeat complaints in its recent history, including a complaint about Albino Rhino beer and a waiter who said he was fired for being too French. Complaints have to be made within six months and many are resolved with mediation. They only proceed to a hearing if the tribunal rules that the complainant has a reasonable chance of succeeding. Here are some greatest hits: The Albino Rhino beer summit Ikponwosa Ero, the United Nations’ independent expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism, addresses a press conference at the end of her official visit to Malawi on April 29, 2016. AMOS GUMULIRA/AFP/Getty Images In 2012, Ikponwosa Ero, a woman with albinism, launched a human rights complaint against Earl’s Restaurants in Vancouver because it had a beer called Albino Rhino on tap. The product had been on offer for 25 years at that point. The company claimed the rhyming name was intended to be “whimsical and fun” and denote that the beer was “rare and special,” like a white rhino, and was not intended to be discriminatory. People with albinism, which is genetic, are completely or partially missing the natural pigment in their skin, hair and eyes. They’re susceptible to vision problems and skin cancer. In some cultures around the world, they face threats of violence, discrimination and even murder. Ero originally went through the advocacy organization where she worked to try to get Earl’s to drop the name, but was unsuccessful. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal agreed to hold a hearing, but instead the two parties managed to talk things out among themselves and Earl’s voluntarily agreed to phase out the branding. The restaurant put out a statement in early 2013 stating, “Like many Canadians we knew very little about the condition or the very real discrimination persons with albinism experience, both in Canada and around the world,” and agreed, “Persons with albinism are a stigmatized group that face prejudice and exclusion in many areas of Canadian society.” Not rude, just French When Guillame Rey, a server at a Vancouver Milestones restaurant, was fired from his job for rudeness in August 2017, he claimed it wasn’t his fault — he’s French. The professional manner Rey’s co-workers called “combative” and his employer described as “rude and disrespectful” was simply “direct and expressive” and totally within the norms in his home country of France, Rey claimed. He said firing him amounted to discrimination on the basis of place of origin — a creative interpretation of section 13 of the province’s Human Rights Code. Last year, the tribunal denied the restaurant’s application to have the case dismissed. It’s expected to proceed to a hearing. Is being called ‘creepy’ sexist and racist? Mokua Gichuru, a man whose use of the B.C. court system has been legally limited because of his long-established habit to sue over anything and everything, complained to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in 2016 because a Vancouver swing dancing club banned him for being “creepy.” This amounts to “blatant stereotyping” of older, black men interacting with younger women, and is discrimination on the basis of age, sex and race, Gichuru claimed. Though the tribunal has declined to hear the case twice, it may yet proceed to a hearing, as Gichuru said that directors of the club banned him from events in retaliation for his threat to make a human rights complaint. ‘Reorganizing her out of the workplace’ Many recent cases have pertained to issues of disability accommodation in the workplace. For example, in July the tribunal heard the case of Norma Graham, a woman with a mental disability who had worked for the payroll department at B.C. Transit since 1991. In 2014, the organization made the switch to an open-concept office, and Graham complained that she was no longer able to concentrate on her work because of noisy conversations taking place near her desk. She asked to have her workstation moved and was denied. She also provided a medical note, but ended up taking a two-year medical leave soon after. When she returned to work, she was shuffled between various positions. Graham alleged that she no longer received the benefits she had at her old job. BC Transit eventually decided she would not be able to return to the payroll department. Graham ended up taking medical leave again. The tribunal ruled that B.C. Transit had done enough to accommodate Graham. Though the decision states that it was “unfortunate” that Graham felt her employer was not acting in good faith, and instead “reorganizing her out of the workplace,” the complaint was dismissed.

The case of Rhino Albino and other B.C. human rights complaints

[The tyranny of human rights commissions. Enabled minorities oppress Canada’s dispossessed Majority.   Paul Fromm]

Earl’s Albino Rhino beer had been on offer for 25 years when the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal agreed to hear a complaint by a woman with albinism

The label for Albino Rhino Ale made in 2012 for Earl’s Restaurant in Western Canada.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has heard some offbeat complaints in its recent history, including a complaint about Albino Rhino beer and a waiter who said he was fired for being too French.

Complaints have to be made within six months and many are resolved with mediation. They only proceed to a hearing if the tribunal rules that the complainant has a reasonable chance of succeeding.

Here are some greatest hits:

The Albino Rhino beer summit

Ikponwosa Ero, the United Nations’ independent expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism, addresses a press conference at the end of her official visit to Malawi on April 29, 2016. AMOS GUMULIRA/AFP/Getty Images

In 2012, Ikponwosa Ero, a woman with albinism, launched a human rights complaint against Earl’s Restaurants in Vancouver because it had a beer called Albino Rhino on tap. The product had been on offer for 25 years at that point.

The company claimed the rhyming name was intended to be “whimsical and fun” and denote that the beer was “rare and special,” like a white rhino, and was not intended to be discriminatory. People with albinism, which is genetic, are completely or partially missing the natural pigment in their skin, hair and eyes. They’re susceptible to vision problems and skin cancer. In some cultures around the world, they face threats of violence, discrimination and even murder. Ero originally went through the advocacy organization where she worked to try to get Earl’s to drop the name, but was unsuccessful.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal agreed to hold a hearing, but instead the two parties managed to talk things out among themselves and Earl’s voluntarily agreed to phase out the branding. The restaurant put out a statement in early 2013 stating, “Like many Canadians we knew very little about the condition or the very real discrimination persons with albinism experience, both in Canada and around the world,” and agreed, “Persons with albinism are a stigmatized group that face prejudice and exclusion in many areas of Canadian society.”

Not rude, just French

When Guillame Rey, a server at a Vancouver Milestones restaurant, was fired from his job for rudeness in August 2017, he claimed it wasn’t his fault — he’s French.

The professional manner Rey’s co-workers called “combative” and his employer described as “rude and disrespectful” was simply “direct and expressive” and totally within the norms in his home country of France, Rey claimed. He said firing him amounted to discrimination on the basis of place of origin — a creative interpretation of section 13 of the province’s Human Rights Code.

Last year, the tribunal denied the restaurant’s application to have the case dismissed. It’s expected to proceed to a hearing.

Is being called ‘creepy’ sexist and racist?

Mokua Gichuru, a man whose use of the B.C. court system has been legally limited because of his long-established habit to sue over anything and everything, complained to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in 2016 because a Vancouver swing dancing club banned him for being “creepy.” This amounts to “blatant stereotyping” of older, black men interacting with younger women, and is discrimination on the basis of age, sex and race, Gichuru claimed.

Though the tribunal has declined to hear the case twice, it may yet proceed to a hearing, as Gichuru said that directors of the club banned him from events in retaliation for his threat to make a human rights complaint.

‘Reorganizing her out of the workplace’

Many recent cases have pertained to issues of disability accommodation in the workplace. For example, in July the tribunal heard the case of Norma Graham, a woman with a mental disability who had worked for the payroll department at B.C. Transit since 1991. In 2014, the organization made the switch to an open-concept office, and Graham complained that she was no longer able to concentrate on her work because of noisy conversations taking place near her desk. She asked to have her workstation moved and was denied. She also provided a medical note, but ended up taking a two-year medical leave soon after. When she returned to work, she was shuffled between various positions. Graham alleged that she no longer received the benefits she had at her old job. BC Transit eventually decided she would not be able to return to the payroll department. Graham ended up taking medical leave again. The tribunal ruled that B.C. Transit had done enough to accommodate Graham. Though the decision states that it was “unfortunate” that Graham felt her employer was not acting in good faith, and instead “reorganizing her out of the workplace,” the complaint was dismissed.

Report to THE EVENING STANDARD of Antifa Efforts to Shut Down London Forum, Feb. 4

Report  to THE EVENING STANDARD of Antifa  Efforts to Shut Down London Forum, Feb. 4
 
Dear  Sir,
 
 Whilst in Central London on Saturday anti-Trump protesters were making full use of their liberty of expression by demonstrating  against President Trump, another set of demonstrators dressed in black and wearing balaclavas have received much less attention; they were trying to deny the liberty of expression to those they didn’t agree with, by trying to close down a legal, peaceful, orderly  meeting of British and European nationalists, identitarians and independent thinkers – often bracketed as ‘alt-right’, which was being held at The Holiday Inn.   Speakers  came to ‘The London Forum’ meeting   from across Europe and as far afield as Canada and Iran.   
 Unbeknownst to most of those at the meeting the antitfa movement, with the usual  sprinkling of ‘Hope Not Hate’ supporters,  were putting intense pressure  on the Hotel management  to close the meeting down; the pressure was applied by blockading the hotel entrance, harassing hotel staff and  prospective patrons of the hotel, letting off smoke bombs, chanting and generally disrupting  and terrorizing anyone who wasn’t wearing a balaclava.  (See Ruptly TV news clip on youtube below)  It was made clear to management that if it wanted the disruption to stop it had better break up the meeting.  
Around 2pm  the hotel manager, police and the meeting chairman met to discuss the situation and to raise concerns regarding the safety of hotel patrons and other members of the public.  After some discussion, and to the credit of the Hotel Management an agreement was reached to allow the meeting to continue and for it to finish at its scheduled time.  The police eventually issued a Dispersal Order to the demonstrators and once the meeting had finished were again on hand to provide security as the meeting attendees left.  I have nothing but the highest praise for the actions and conduct of the police and hotel staff, for without ‘safe spaces’ to hold political meetings of all persuasions of what use is democracy?
As for the masked demonstrators it will be recalled that in  early January the Home Secretary banned ‘National Action’ labelling them a terrorist group for doing nothing more than wearing balaclavas whilst carrying out public protests.  The law should be applied justly, evenly and fairly, is it therefore not time that the Government also banned the masked thugs of  ‘antifa’?
Yours truly,

Adrian   Romilly  
Devon