Once in a while articles captures attention, along with a couple years back, two articles, both with first page headlines, grabbed attention. Because the articles were written around the anniversary from the announcement from the Canadian Charter of Legal rights and Freedoms, I needed to talk about these 3 things converging. I’m writing now since it is still a continuing issue and also the litigation continues….
The World and Mail headline of “Racial taunts cost Mounties $500,000” informs the storyline of Mr. Ali Tahmourpour’s unsuccessful attempt, in 1999, to get an RCMP officer. Another Globe headline of “Majority believes Canada coddles minorities” informs of the survey by which 61% of Canadians accept the statement, “We make a lot of accommodations to visible minorities in Canada.”
With Canada’s 2006 census telling us 21% of Canada’s human population is foreign born, which in the last five years 84% of immigrants originated from non-Countries in europe, I believe we better put 2 and a pair of together to generate a formula to find away out of accommodating certain variations and also to make certain people like Mr. Tahmourpour have the freedom from discrimination.
Many people think you’ve to maintain the most recent in human legal rights and employment law to deal with these complaints. Others think they need to get their corporate lawyer on speed dial, just in situation something totally new develops from a judge or adjudicator.
I only say, just return to basics, as well as in the situation from the RCMP and Mr. Tahmourpour, it’s returning to basics…training.
The government human legal rights adjudicator provides for us many examples where a number of officials, with authority, treated Tahmourpour yet others differently, and negatively, because of their race, ethnicity or gender. One instructor even testified he spoke towards the officer responsible for working out depot, saying they may end up getting a harassment or discrimination complaint when the mind instructor did not change his ways. Although the situation continues to be attracted the government Court and also the Federal Court of Appeal, the federal government (RCMP) does not dispute the discriminatory conduct. They are mostly attempting to retain the run-away damages.
Due to the ruling, and subsequent appeals, Mr. Tahmourpour will be presented another opportunity to prove his worth being an RCMP officer. He might allow it to be, or he might not. Actually evidence from the very credible corporal signifies she’d grave doubts concerning the skills of Tahmourpour which described why he did not allow it to be. But this is what the adjudicator needed to tell that:
“The issue with this particular explanation, however, is the fact that inside a training atmosphere where derogatory comments about race are condoned and fond of people like Mr. Tahmourpour, where evaluations are inaccurate and improper, where instructors are proud of being “politically incorrect”, it is not easy for somebody like Mr. Tahmourpour to build up and demonstrate his skills during these areas. I’ve found it reasonable to infer that such conditions erode a person’s confidence and skill to do well. Therefore, the Respondent’s explanation that Mr. Tahmourpour’s performance at Depot was weak isn’t acceptable. Mr. Tahmourpour’s performance was in all likelihood impacted by the discrimination that he was uncovered.”