Balance, Perspective = Idiocy

If anyone doubts that the various Human Rights Commissions in Canada have lost sight of their original design and purpose, a case recently brought before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission proves it rather conclusively. Unless the general public is in collective agreement that to claim a job for which the applicant cannot supply the most basic of requisites can be considered a right, in the prosecution of which, that "right" becomes an endangerment to others.

The British Columbia Health Act and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, in recognizing that sanitary food preparations and personal habits of those who handle food for public consumption must meet specific standards, set out those very standards with the expectation that employees of restaurants will adhere to them. A restaurant employing personnel who don't respect those basic hygiene practises in the handling of food is aware that they are susceptible to being fined.

In fact, if they have been proven over a number of subsequent visits by health inspectors not to have complied with those requirements those same restaurants can receive additional fines, they can be forced to comply with standards, they can face the potential of having their establishments closed until they can prove compliance. Furthermore the very bad publicity surrounding non-adherence to basic hygienic standards in food preparation and presentation will most certainly affect their business, as customers may stay away in droves.

Owners of food establishments, understandably, see it in their best interests - as well as in the best interests of their customers - to comply with reasonable standards of cleanliness. Yet here is an instance, yet again, where a Human Rights Commission felt it necessary to intervene to represent a woman whose skin condition left her incapable of compliance with the necessity to wash her hands when required.

Which meant this woman would be handling foods meant for public consumption, without taking steps to ensure that no bacterial contamination might imperil the health of the consuming public. This woman had a skin condition so severe she was unable to even wear protective gloves; her disability was such that she was unable to wash her hands, while all other employees of the McDonald's outlet where she worked washed theirs, hourly.

Bearing in mind that people normally touch surfaces that can be contaminated, including touching other peoples' hands, touching door handles, cooking implements, and other possible sources of contamination. Before entering the food preparation areas, hands must be washed; and thereafter, every hour, to ensure that the hands that prepare and distribute foods that are consumed by the paying public do not constitute an inadvertent health hazard.

This woman was unable to comply. Her dermatologist agreed that if she attempted to continue working to cleanliness standards her "hands would disintegrate in a week". What's the problem here? Someone not suited for a job, should not be attempting to cling to that position. Most people wouldn't want a general practitioner attempting to conduct a precise surgical procedure for which they have never received training.

Yet the woman complained to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal who, in turn appointed a lawyer to adjudicate the complaint. This former family law practitioner was no more qualified to judge the issue - one might venture, on reading her conclusion - than was the complainant's "right" to a job whose basic qualifications she was incapable of fulfilling. The adjudicator recommended that a position be created for the woman which would not require hand-washing.

At a fast-food outlet whose business it is to capably and efficiently prepare meals for a demographic accustomed to placing an order and having it speedily delivered. A customer base that believes that the most trustworthy standards of hygiene are exercised and which trusts that botulism will never result as a consequence of their ordering their meals at McDonald's.

There are no positions in that establishment which would not require basic hygiene be practised. As a result, the complainant, Beena Dat, was rewarded when her employer was found liable by the adjudicator, Judy Parrack, for not making an effort to create the recommended position. An imposition of $50,000, including $25,000 for injury to Ms. Dat's "dignity, feelings and self-respect" was directed against McDonald's.

McDonald's was also ordered to "cease the discriminatory conduct or similar conduct and refrain from committing such conduct in the future". Amazing, simply amazing.