Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-ean!ubc-cs!manis
From: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: The new equal rights rule and taxation
Message-ID: <1043@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-May-85 19:05:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1043
Posted: Wed May  1 19:05:07 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 20:43:54 EDT
References: <262@looking.UUCP> <610@lsuc.UUCP> <491@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science
Lines: 19
Summary: 

The equal protection provisions of the Charter do not equate ``lack of
ability'' with ``disability''. First, there is the concept of fundamental
justice: it is clearly unjust to require an employer to hire someone with
minimal intelligence for a highly technical job. For example, we might
require a system programmer to be able to count to 20 without taking off his
shoes. On the other hand, there are many other jobs which don't require such
intellectual acuity: being a Social Credit cabinet minister is one.

Second, the disability in question is one that is irrelevant to the job at
hand. For example, a person confined to a wheelchair ought not to be barred
from a sedentary job (even though we wouldn't want to hire her as a
high-wire artist).

The point of this whole discussion is one I've made before: the intent of
the Charter is to provide equality of opportunity, and to *prevent*
infringing on people's rights. The fact that it occasionally causes us to
have to provide services to people we don't like is just one of those things
about pluralistic societies.