雖然魁北克人權法庭是在“魁北克人權和自由憲章”的權威下運作，其職權範圍和加拿大其他省份的人權機構很相似，職責是處理歧視，而不是偏見事件。一般來說人權法(Human Rights Code) 規定個人有權在就業，住宿，貨物服務，合同等15 方面不受歧視。更具體來說，雇主不可借種族，血統，出生地，膚色，人種，國籍，宗教信仰，性別（包括孕婦和性別認同），性取向，殘疾，年齡，婚姻狀況（包括同性伴侶），家庭狀況，公共援助住宿，和犯罪記錄為原因歧視雇員。
The Human Rights Commission operates under the authority of the Human
Rights Code. The Code sets out the right of individuals to be free from
discrimination in employment, housing accommodation, goods, services and
facilities, contracts, and membership in vocational associations and trade unions,
based on fifteen prohibited grounds. These include: race, ancestry, place of origin,
colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed (religion), sex (including pregnancy and
gender identity), sexual orientation, disability, age (18 and older, except 16 and
older in housing, and up to 65 in employment), marital status (including same sex
partners), family status, receipt of public assistance (in accommodation only) and
2cents I have to agree with you and 昭君. I, from my own personal experience, am often in an awkward situation to address employees from China or Asia out of a rather international work force for stuff like personal hygiene or self disciplines. I think there are a lot of home work to do for our Chinese (yes I take side as Chinese) to follow the rules facing all the people before expecting a better view from your employer, or before claiming racial discrimination.
It's a good thing that you said "I can understand why some people take it personally." " And I would say, it's a good thing if you said "I don't understand why some people take it personally." What does that mean? It means I believe you are entitled to say however or whatever you understand about taking it personally.
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong to have a personal opinion or take a stand.
Thanks for briefing us with your legal family background, and I see you explained why you tried to be neutral. Fine. It's a good thing to be neutral and objective. However,when stating that "人權法庭的判決已超越其職權範圍", you indicated your judgment that 人權法庭的判決 is wrong. Is that "neutral" and "objective"? I don't think so.
Many people are reluctant to recognize their own biases, but there are also many people who are psychologically strong enough to acknowledge their own bias.
I think just because of the bias you hold, you are confused as whether this is a case of discrimination --as you put in the title of this post: 這是種族歧視嗎？ To me, it is racial discrimination, no doubt about it.
You wrote: It’s too bad if I don't feel personally involved with your cause. I'd say: Don't feel too bad. I did not expect that you will be involved with my "cause".
As a matter of fact, I don't even have a cause. Or, maybe I do have a cause, now that you mention it. Maybe my cause is that I identify with Chinese, as I came from China,and as I have lived here for so long, I'm acculturated and have adopted values here in believing in "Speak up even when your voice is shaken," especially when there is such a case of racial discrimination.
And it's perfectly OK for you not to identify with Chinese, and not to be involved with "my cause".
Again, I repeat here that I think your reporting this case here is highly commendable.
他說的不是“你們這幫人像豬一樣(You guys are like pigs)，而是“你們中國人像豬一樣（you Chinese)”，那麼他的意識里，就是整個“華裔像豬一樣”，而不是這幾位特定的雇員。他的言論所產生的心理作用和社會效果的也是，“華裔像豬一樣”，他羞辱傷害的就是華裔。對這種羞辱人格和種族行為，如果屬實，就應予以嚴懲，不然還有什麼社會正義？
但我不會指責2cents先生的bias。因為他來自於不同的background。這件羞辱華裔事件本與他無關("This is not about me."，他說的)，他只是以旁觀者的立場討論。而我作為華裔，那就和我有關，我是間接受害者，我要看到正義的伸張。I want to see justice served。
在美國，我們一般接受的社會學定義的discrimination是“The unequal treatment of a person or persons based on group membership.”如你所言，歧視是行動，行為，而偏見是心中的看法，是態度性的。侮辱性的語言，由於已經明確地說出來，而且是在公司會議上說，是針對Chinese這一個種族（或ethnicity）這樣說，那就不僅僅是偏見，而是歧視。由於經理的權力很大，還可以討論是否構成制度性歧視。不過那要看更多的證據了。
偶燈斯陋, I can understand why some people take it personally.
Let me repeat, I am NOT biased and this is NOT a personal thing with me.
Coming from a family of legal practitioners I can see this case from both points of view. In writing about it I have to be neutral and objective. I do not take sides, although you may think that by not siding with you I am biased, but that is just not true.
I write about this case THE WAY I THINK THE LAW SEES IT.
It’s too bad if I don't feel personally involved with your cause.
I am glad to see that you clearly indicated your "personal opinion" here in your reply. This is actually what benznj asked (he was asking about your opinion, which I think he has a very valid point, yet you refused to answer, saying it's not about you).
I believe your action of reporting this case here is highly commendable, as it alerts us about such a rather important racial discrimination case, however, your writing also reflects your attitude inevitably, which in my opinion, is with certain degree of bias. You seem to take the same stand as Rapps, the manager/owner, and believe that 魁北克人權法庭 is over aggressive "人權法庭的判決已超越其職權範圍"(your words).
You wrote you are not convinced whether there is an action of "EXCLUDES". I am afraid that perhaps your bias blinds you in not seeing the exclusion of those Chinese workers ("You Chinese") from Rapps' group of people who he thinks "每天洗澡洗頭，用肥皂洗手，上廁後沖水，不隨地吐痰...". Pardon me for being frank but-- Don't you see the clear EXCLUSION here?
If I were you, I would be proud that there is such a thing as Quebec Human Rights Tribunal that fights for the interests of the minorities in Canada, I am not sure I could say the same for USA (eh, maybe ACLU...)
1%, You are right about that. It is conceivable that a charge of harassment could stand if that was the ground for the Tribunal’s finding. (As I said I have not read the actual findings.) But if that were true, you'd think the company would not be appealing, would they?
So, again it's up to the Court of Appeal.
This is exactly one of my points; the case has become a battle of lawyers and semantics. It should have been handled much better right from the beginning.
Harassment is also with the code of Canada Human Rights Commission. At least, this manager’s comments violate the code for harassment. Further, this harassment was based on race ground, and suppose should be a discrimination.
Harassment is simple which means one’s word, or behavior influence other’s work performance . You can make any comments on streets. But at work place, the code set a limit on what you said, especially supervisor.
偶燈斯陋, My personal opinion is that discrimination (the English definition) requires an act or action which EXCLUDES someone or someones from an activity or activities available to all others. I am not convinced that this is the case here. As I mentioned in my reply to 昭君，because in Chinese it translates as “種族歧視”, and the“視” in“歧視” does not require an actual act or activity barring a person or a group. “歧視”has a more subjective （主觀）connotation, so to a Chinese it may be perceived as “種族歧視” by the person at the receiving end, even though in English this is not so.
It will be interesting to see where the Appeals Court comes down on this.
Yes it is“種族歧視”. Prejudice (偏見) is an attitude, not action, may not be the discrimination (behavior) per se, but when the racist remarks were made at a meeting (that's openly and publicly), then, it became the behavior, it is discrimination. Those words have impact on the listeners (the workers).
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal>1%, The point you raised is very key: “this action (by the boss) subjects this group (or person) to an adverse work environment, and demeans their human dignity.” <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal>Discrimination means <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal>“To <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">TREAT DIFFERENTLY</SPAN></B> a person or group of people based on their racial origins. Power is a necessary precondition, for it depends on the ability to give or withhold <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">EQUAL</SPAN></B> social benefits, facilities, services, opportunities etc., from someone(s) who should be entitled to them, and are denied on the basis of race, colour or national origin.” <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p> </o:p></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal>Simply to scold or insult a group of people in itself is not discrimination. The boss could defend his action by saying that he treats every person/group which act “like pigs” and “foul up the toilets” exactly the same way and therefore he does not discriminate.”
