Human rights violation?

[Lisa]

Canadian single dad accused of breaching human rights act after asking about babysitter's gender and then canceling when 'he found out the applicant was a 28-year-old man.

Todd posted an advertisement on Kijiji.com, a popular classified Canadian ad site, seeing a ‘babysitter wanted for evening Friday September 1’ for his two sons, then five and eight, as he was planning to meet a friend for dinner.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7389349/Canadian-single-dad-faces-human-rights-complaint-asking-babysitters-gender.html

 

[DavidSon]

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/babysitter-files-human-rights-complaint-against-edmonton-area-father

Posting another link because I think people should be aware of tabloid "news" sites such as dailymail. Their platform is clickbait from top to bottom, full of sensationalism, murders, and naked celebrities on their sidebar. You don't have to corrupt your mind/spirit with their filth- there are always other options.

 

[imsickofyoshi]

I m not judging him for using a classified site but its sad its come to this. We need to bring back community.

 

[DavidSon]

Dailymail does trend towards tabloid, but having read other sources besides DM, I'm not seeing anything they printed to be false.



Facts aren't filth, and facts are what they have so far presented, as supported by other reports. Just as a father should not be told who can/cannot babysit their kids, I'm not going to be told what to read/not read. Get it?

Haha, good one. Enjoy looking at your naked stars parading around at the beach.

 

[justjess]

Absolute insanity. A father or mother has the right and responsibility to know who is watching their children. They have the right to ask questions and determine the suitability of a candidate. They have the right to refuse anyone access to their children.

Why doesn't the father have 'human rights', too? What kind of subhumans in the AHRC investigte a father for doing his due diligence to find a babysitter he's comfortable with IN HIS OWN HOME? The complaint should have been thrown out, not investigated.

What a despicable person the babysitter is to sue the father. No one should ever be able to force their services on someone else, especially in their own home.

Thanks again, liberalism.

This is asinine and wrong. So I’m not sure exactly what your sarcastically thanking liberalism for...

Apparantly this man has tried this before and the case was dismissed, as this one will be as well. I am 99% sure. If it is not I will join you in your outrage.

There are some people on this earth that have learned the lawsuit game and will just keep trying until someone settles. It’s a career for them. This says nothing about liberalism - I don’t see any liberals coming out saying they support this suit.

 

[justjess]

Believe what you want..

Most of the time government agencies HAVE to investigate every case brought to them. There isn’t any discretion allowed. I’m not sure that’s the case here but it very well might be.

The case will be dismissed. Just like the other one. It’s a horrible inconvenience for this father but unfortunately people suck. I’ve known many many people in my life who were what I’d call “lawsuit chasers” and it appears this man found himself on the wrong end of one.

 

[polymoog]

Absolute insanity. A father or mother has the right and responsibility to know who is watching their children. They have the right to ask questions and determine the suitability of a candidate. They have the right to refuse anyone access to their children.

they should, but i am having a hard time differentiating the essence of this case and the canadian transsexual who wanted his male genitalia waxed by a female (theres another thread on this). in the latter, a transgender was refused services on the basis of gender, sued, and won. in this case, the 28 year old was seemingly rejected on the basis of gender.
since the fathers plans were scratched and he no longer needed a sitter, i cannot see how this case will not be dismissed. if the male babysitter can prove that his plans were still on and he was refused on the basis of gender, i think the courts will rule in favor of the male sitter.
again, this is how the law is written, and i dont believe canada has the concept of jury nullification.

i read both, by the way. the daily mail article was more informative than the edmonton journal.

 

[Lisa]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=3773637332678659

I think you put this is the wrong thread.