Toronto woman denied haircut files human rights complaint

[grammafreddy]

I think Rex missed part of the point - at least the point I was trying to make anyway.

[theyeti]

this whole story is ridiculous cant believe what makes news or a human rights issue these days.

[normaM]

The Terminal barbershop - could be an Opera. Saw her pic, she needs a good stylist.

[theyeti]

this woman is too much if she is even a real person i am not sure but if she is she is a problem . i hope she does not get one red cent out of this . also i hope her name and image r posted everywhere so no one will ever give her a job or credit or credibility ever again

[grammafreddy]

this woman is too much if she is even a real person i am not sure but if she is she is a problem . i hope she does not get one red cent out of this . also i hope her name and image r posted everywhere so no one will ever give her a job or credit or credibility ever again

That's so extreme and over the top, it's funny.

[Artofthedeal]

I think Rex missed part of the point - at least the point I was trying to make anyway.

Well Gramma, perhaps Ezra's take on this nonsense is more to your point...

So a lesbian walks into a Muslim barbershop, and asks for a “businessmen’s haircut”.

It sounds like the beginning of a joke, but it really happened, and now a government agency called the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario will hear her complaint.

Faith McGregor is the lesbian who doesn’t like the girly cuts that they do at a salon. She wants the boy’s hairdo.

Omar Mahrouk is the owner of the Terminal Barber Shop in Toronto. He follows Shariah law, so he thinks women have cooties. As Mahrouk and the other barbers there say, they don’t believe in touching women other than their own wives.

But that’s what multiculturalism and unlimited immigration from illiberal countries means. A central pillar of many immigrant cultures is the second-class citizenship of women and gays.

So if we now believe in multiculturalism, and that our Canadian culture of tolerance isn’t any better than the Shariah culture of sex crimes and gender apartheid, who are we to complain when Omar Mahrouk takes us up on our promise that he can continue to practise his culture — lesbian haircuts be damned?

He’s not the one who passed the Multiculturalism Act, and invited in hundreds of thousands of immigrants with medieval attitudes towards women and gays and Jews, etc. We did.

Mahrouk’s view is illiberal. But in Canada we believe in property rights and freedom of association — and in this case, freedom of religion, too.

But McGregor ran to the Human Rights Tribunal and demanded that Mahrouk give her a haircut.

In the past, human rights commissions have been a great ally to gay activists. Because, traditionally, gay activists have complained against Christians. And white Christians are the one ethnic identity group that human rights commissions don’t value, and that multiculturalism doesn’t include.

In recent years, Canadian human rights commissions have weighed a complaint about a women’s-only health club that refused a pre-operative transsexual male who wanted to change in the locker rooms.

They’ve ordered bed and breakfasts owned by Christian families to take in gay couples. They’ve censored pastors and priests who have criticized gay marriage. Gays win, because it’s a test of who is most outraged and offended.

But in the case of the Muslim barbers, the gay activists have met their match. If the test is who can be the most offended or most politically correct, a lesbian’s just not going to cut it.

Oh, McGregor is politically correct. But just not politically correct enough. It’s like poker.

A white, Christian male has the lowest hand — it’s like he’s got just one high card, maybe an ace. So almost everyone trumps him.

A white woman is just a bit higher — like a pair of twos. Enough to beat a white man, but not much more.

A gay man is like having two pairs in poker.

A gay woman — a lesbian like McGregor — is like having three of a kind.

A black lesbian is a full house — pretty tough to beat.

Unless she’s also in a wheelchair, which means she’s pretty much a straight flush.

The only person who could trump that would be a royal flush. If the late Sammy Davis Jr. — who was black, Jewish and half-blind — were to convert to Islam and discover he was 1/64th Aboriginal.

So which is a better hand: A lesbian who wants a haircut or a Muslim who doesn’t want to give it to her?

I’m betting on Mahrouk. And I predict that Muslim activists — not quiet barbers like Mahrouk, but professional Muslim busybodies — will start using human rights commissions more and more to push their way into places where they have no legal right, but where the human rights commissions are more than happy to engineer things for them, if they complain loud enough.

If I were a gay activist, I’d probably want to declare victory and shut down these human rights commissions right now.

In five years time, it won’t be gay activists forcing themselves into Christian B&Bs. It’ll be Muslim activists vetoing the gay pride parade.

http://www.ezralevant.com/

[grammafreddy]

Yup, Ezra is certainly a lot closer to what my point is. Plus, I didn't know the woman was gay. That really adds fuel to the fire, doesn't it? Is she white and Christian, too? Too bad she's not some other colour/radical religion - she'd be more likely to gain brownie points for that.

[Captain Awesome]

So which is a better hand: A lesbian who wants a haircut or a Muslim who doesn’t want to give it to her?

I’m betting on Mahrouk.

Yeah, I bet the same.

[grammafreddy]

http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/art ... of-ontario

Mahrouk’s response to the tribunal, provided through his lawyer David Kolinsky, doesn’t dispute McGregor’s complaint but says being forced to cut a woman’s hair would violate his freedom of religion.

“We live for our values. We are people who have values and we hold on to it. I am not going to change what the faith has stated to us to do. This is not extreme — this is just a basic value that we follow,” said Karim Saaden, co-owner of the Terminal Barber Shop.

He noted that it was a matter of adherence to faith, not a gender issue.

I have looked at about six or more various news stories on this and nowhere can I find anything about the woman being gay and it does not appear that she has pulled any kind of "gay rights" card over this. It only seems to be mentioned in the comments sections by what I assume are commentators making that assumption. She may be but I have known many females who prefer a very short cut - mostly because it is easy-care or it is what suits them best appearance-wise - and they have not been gay. The woman is also not seeking any monetary reward. There is also no mention of the woman's faith so its not a religion vs religion thing. So let's forget those angles.

In the quote above, I do not see any difference between that and the religious rights of the Molnars. They both operated businesses serving the public. They both denied serving their customers based on the faith-based values they adhere to. In the Molnar's case, the HRT said they have to deny their faith-based values and serve everyone equally. It will be interesting to see if the same holds true in this barber shop case.

If the tribunal rules against the barber shop, they do have a solution - to hire another barber who is not religion-restricted who will cut a woman's hair. In the Molnar's case, since their business was in their home, they did not have that option. They were forced to pay a penalty and also forced to close their business, thus denying them that income, too.

[Artofthedeal]

I have looked at about six or more various news stories on this and nowhere can I find anything about the woman being gay and it does not appear that she has pulled any kind of "gay rights" card over this. It only seems to be mentioned in the comments sections by what I assume are commentators making that assumption.

You are right Gramma. Not sure why they would have jumped to this assumption.



Your overall point is well-founded though. If the HRC finds in favour of the barber shop in this case, then the Molnars well and truly were screwed over. But of course they were screwed over - that was the point of Ezra's book "Shakedown". The fake "human rights" industry in Canada is a complete sham.

[grammafreddy]

I have looked at about six or more various news stories on this and nowhere can I find anything about the woman being gay and it does not appear that she has pulled any kind of "gay rights" card over this. It only seems to be mentioned in the comments sections by what I assume are commentators making that assumption.

You are right Gramma. Not sure why they would have jumped to this assumption.



Your overall point is well-founded though. If the HRC finds in favour of the barber shop in this case, then the Molnars well and truly were screwed over. But of course they were screwed over - that was the point of Ezra's book "Shakedown". The fake "human rights" industry in Canada is a complete sham.

Here ... try to pick out the gay ones ... https://www.google.com/search?q=women+s ... 37&bih=881

And, yes, if the barbers win, the Molnars got screwed over.

[Ranger66]

People in my family died so that we could have freedom. Freedom is a very significant word giving us choices in how we live our lives. I don’t agree with some lifestyle choices but believe they have the right to make them. A person who selects to move to Canada needs to leave their extreme views behind. To decide on Canada as a new home means supporting the freedoms that all Canadians have the right to.

[ukcanuck]

And, yes, if the barbers win, the Molnars got screwed over.

i've looked through this thread to find it but can't so I apologise if some already pointed it out, but the difference between the Molnars and the Muslim Barber is that the woman who wants the haircut is asking the Barber to touch her so he can perform the service. He can't touch her without violating his religious beliefs. This a common and accepted belief in Islam and it would be unreasonable for the tribunal to try to force the Barber to betray his religion.

The Molnars on the other hand were not being asked to get into bed with their clients and perform acts that transgressed their beliefs. They could hold that being gay is a sin all they want and still rent the room. besides as Christians they had no business claiming its against their religion to rent to gays while betraying the Christian ethos to hate the sin and not the sinner.
one cant pick and choose either. Technically we are all sinners so the Molnars should rightly be disgusted with the world and not rent rooms to anyone..

[GlenComment]

I wonder if she would have been bleeding and a Muslim doctor refused to touch her ... if we would be having this discussion? Take this argument to its extremes and you have a woman dying in Ireland because the doctors refused a medical abortion necessary to save her life as it is against their laws based on religion. His job requires touching as do many professionals upon which we rely. Religious rights can't trump human rights and still have this world make sense.

[ukcanuck]

I wonder if she would have been bleeding and a Muslim doctor refused to touch her ... if we would be having this discussion? Take this argument to its extremes and you have a woman dying in Ireland because the doctors refused a medical abortion necessary to save her life as it is against their laws based on religion. His job requires touching as do many professionals upon which we rely. Religious rights can't trump human rights and still have this world make sense.

That's over stretching the situation a lot. Rights are not hierarchical it's true but I'm thinking that religious rights trumps coiffure rights by a schmidge. There must be a thousand starving hairdressers in Toronto go find one and *bleep* about men for an hour, I hear its therapeutic.