SoylentNews

Waiter Asks: Is Being "French" a Protected Human Right?

posted by janrinok on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:33AM   
from the Oooh-La-La! dept.

Appalbarry writes:

An apparently obnoxious restaurant employee in Vancouver BC has filed a human rights complaint claiming that he has been discriminated against because he's "too French." CBC News reports that Guillaume Rey has filed a complaint at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal against Milestones Restaurant and its parent company, Cara Operations, where he worked as a waiter from October 2015 to August 2016. Rey says his co-workers misinterpreted his "direct, honest and professional" French personality.

Although Rey was reportedly well-liked by customers, on several occasions he was disciplined and warned about how he treated his colleagues, which the restaurant described as "combative and aggressive." Rey was fired for violating the company's Respect in the Workplace policy.

Rey might want to look closely at another recent decision, in which the Human Rights Tribunal decided that a local "'Brash, loud and obnoxious gay male' doesn't have right to (send) rude emails" to his local city council.

---

Original Submission

• Re:First Amendment? Re:First Amendment? (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday March 28 2018, @12:30AM (2 children)

  by dry (223) on Wednesday March 28 2018, @12:30AM (#659246) Journal

  True but the 1st has entered English (and perhaps other languages) as a synonym for free speech. A Canadian is more likely to associate the 1st amendment with free speech then section 2 of the charter.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		2

• Re:First Amendment? Re:First Amendment? (Score: 2) by aclarke on Wednesday March 28 2018, @09:02PM (1 child)

  by aclarke (2049) on Wednesday March 28 2018, @09:02PM (#659684) Homepage

  I look at that differently. Someone who doesn't understand that American law doesn't apply outside the United States (yeah, extraordinary rendition, world police, but I don't mean that) might use "First Amendment" outside its correct context, but I have a hard time imagining people who pass a certain bar of understanding using it in the context you've described.

  Maybe it's the same argument as for people who mean "figuratively" when they mean "literally".

  Parent

  • Re:First Amendment? (Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Thursday March 29 2018, @01:11AM

    by dry (223) on Thursday March 29 2018, @01:11AM (#659799) Journal

    The average Canadian is really bombarded by American media and is probably more aware of American law then Canadian. Of course, with any thought, they'd agree that the 1st doesn't apply to us. I also wouldn't be surprised if more Canadians can quote the 1st then section 2 and don't realize that section 2 is actually more inclusive then the 1st.
    Text of section 2

    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

            (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
            (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
            (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
            (d) freedom of association.

    Parent