Re: [OT] Terminology [was: Affecting Institutional Change (Yeah Right)]
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 07:57:29PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 07:42:00PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 07:10:28PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> >
> > > Seriously, if a business is not accessible to someone, that person is
> > > free to patronize a business that is willing to cater.
> >
> > But what if none do. Until smoking in public places was banned in
> > Ontario, there were many places I couldn't go. period. Then it was
> > restraunts. fine, I have food allergies and can only eat at SwissChalet
> > and they are big enough that I could sit far away from the smoking
> > section or get takeout. But until very recently, workplaces were
> > allowed to be smoking if they chose. Kinda hard when I was a temp
> > worker saving up for UofT by doing data entry (paid a nice premium
> > because of speed and accuracy).
> >
> Well, I could say requiring government facilities to be accessible.
> However, why should *private* entities which own or lease *private*
> property and run *private* businesses be forced to something like that?
> It should be up to the individual business owner. Same as businesses
> which hang up a "Se habla Español" sign out front. Clearly they want to
> attract Spanish-speaking customers. However, if they were forced to be
> accessible to Spanish-speaking customers, that would be wrong, IMHO.
I am a citizen of the country. I have right to employment for which I am
qualified. Disabilities must be accomodated by the employer. If you
rely on individual companies to be accessible to people with
disabilites, they wont until 1. they decide that people with a specific
disability are a good target market for their products or make good
employees. In general, it doesn't happen.
So if the government doesn't enforce accessibility standards then either
people with disabilites end up on welfare or homeless.
The way a society addresses human rights tends to define that society.
In the US you have Texas. In Canada we have Alberta. However, since
Canada is a federation and human rights are enshrined in our
constitution the differences between the provinces is more in
implementation rather than in weather or not a particular right is
respected. Its a work in progress; not all rights are respected
everywhere and lawyers cost money, especially to take something to the
Supreme Court.
I don't want this to sound like a Canada-US thing. There are more
differences between provinces and states within each country than there
is between the two countries as wholes.
As for the language thing, we have two official languages (French and
English); people can demand services by any governement or
government-run organization in either. I don't expect to be able to go
into Toronto's China Town and get service in perfect english. On the
other hand, if you go into any hospital you have a right to service in
whatever language occurs in the community; you'll get a larger choice in
Toronto than in Wawa. Its part of our tradition of multiculturalism.
Doug.
Reply to: