But here goes. Canadian Press:

quote:

---

VANCOUVER (CP) - A transgendered B.C. woman has lost the latest round in her battle with a women's group to become a volunteer rape counsellor.

The B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Kimberly Nixon to overturn her expulsion from Vancouver Rape Relief. Gwendoline Allison, the lawyer for the women's group, says the decision essentially protects the right of Vancouver Rape Relief to choose its counsellors.

Nixon, who was born a man but underwent a sex-change operation in 1990, was ejected from a training session for volunteer counsellors when a staff member learned she had not always been a female.

---

Well, still one step left in the appeal process, I guess. I agree with BCG's comments in her post below. This is a lousy precedent, so I hope it can get overturned.

Rape Relief Defeated

[ 07 December 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Tape: Thanks for posting this.

Let me just say that there are many kinds of feminists, and I think this ruling is transphobic and wrong. I'm glad you posted this here, as I know that not all feminists will agree with this ruling, and have been supporting Nixon in this many-years-long struggle.

---

I don't think they're transphobic, just plain old anti-male. Any taint of maleness is unacceptable.

I remember when I tried to volunteer at a local women's shelter. This was way back in the early 90s -- I was sixteen or seventeen. The woman asked me what I wanted to do. I said whatever I could do to help. The woman on the phone -- bless her -- said "we've got some boxes that need breaking down." I said I'd be there at three.

An hour later they called me back and said don't come, first they needed to do a psycological screening, which I did. It went well; the interviewer said I sounded like someone with a graduate degree in social work. (She meant it as a compliament.)

They called my references (they asked for three women) and they talked me up. Then, for six weeks, nothing. No boxes. Finally I got a letter in the mail that offered -- in condesending language and exhorbent cost -- a seminar "not an exchange of views, but you listening to women's experience" (paraphrase). Afterwords we were supposed to go out and speak to groups of men about what we'd learned.

That was the end of it. Today I better understand the place of pain and anger that they were speaking from -- though Lord knows, not because of anything they did -- but they still handled it in a way that was hurtful to their cause and incidentally hurtful to someone who wanted to be an ally and thought he was an ally until they made it abundantly clear that all men were the enemy.

[ 07 December 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

Yes, those nasty evil women, so terrible for wanting female volunteers in a woman's shelter due to very sensitive issues and concern for the women. You of course must come first by all means. Of course they don't deserve you as an ally.

Frankly with that post, they made a very good decision.

quote:

---

That was the end of it. Today I better understand the place of pain and anger that they were speaking from -- though Lord knows, not because of anything they did -- but they still handled it in a way that was hurtful to their cause and incidentally hurtful to someone who wanted to be an ally and thought he was an ally until they made it abundantly clear that all men were the enemy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
So, lets get this straight rsfarrel, they didn't give you a job volunteering at a women's shelter and now you've decided that you're no longer on their side because of that. Is that right? Did I miss something? Oh boohoo on you!!

Yes, those nasty evil women, so terrible for wanting female volunteers in a woman's shelter due to very sensitive issues and concern for the women. You of course must come first by all means. Of course they don't deserve you as an ally.

Frankly with that post, they made a very good decision.

Very telling quote. Next time, please don't volunteer.

---

quote:

---

So I gather Stargazer that you agree with the BC Court of Appeal decision that says a transgenderd woman can be barred from being a counselor?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So I gather Stargazer that you agree with the BC Court of Appeal decision that says a transgenderd woman can be barred from being a counselor?

---

So at what stage does it become a transgendered person's right to claim they are an exemption from no males in woman's shelters. [by the way I agree barring men is a good idea] For instance should a trasnvestite be allowed to claim that right.

quote:

---

Today I better understand the place of pain and anger that they were speaking from -- though Lord knows, not because of anything they did

---

While I agree with the "no male volunteers" policy, I think the shelter handled that the wrong way.

If they have a policy of no male volunteers inside the shelters, they should state it up front, and also state why.

What was with sringing him along and jerking him around? The way they handled it comes off as some having sort of bizarre passive-aggressive control issues.

And since I am not of the warm, fuzzy, "oh, that doesn't mean you are a bad person" variety, I too would have moved on to someone else who not only needed my help but was actually prepared to accept it.

Too many not-for-profit environments are utterly toxic to the psyche, and that sounds like a prime example. They're full of power struggles and glory-seekers (and let's not disingenuously claim they aren't).

It's too bad that learning this the hard way this tends to sour people from volunteering permanently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:
I'm the type of feminist that believes a transgendered woman can be a rape counsellor. They can certainly be raped and abused like the women they'd be trying to help!

---

quote:

---

So, lets get this straight rsfarrel, they didn't give you a job volunteering at a women's shelter and now you've decided that you're no longer on their side because of that. Is that right? Did I miss something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Yeah that was a definite 9 out of 10 on the stupid things to say-o-metre. No sensitivity awards for this guy!

---

quote:

---

I don't think they're transphobic, just plain old anti-male. Any taint of maleness is unacceptable.

---

Transphobia is marginalization of an extremely marginalized group. I expect more from women who call themselves feminists and have at least a basic analysis of power and oppression in society.

"Anti-male" is not anywhere near the kind of marginalization of transphobia or sexism. The whole power system for one thing. A woman being anti-male has a very small sphere of control in which to enact that, if at all (an example is your story).

But what about being anti-woman? Well, let's see, there's the advertising industry, rape and sexual assault stats, the diet industry, the media, no public day-care, the list goes on. Being anti-woman is institutionalized and, yes, is slowly changing (not fast enough for my liking, but that's life).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
So, lets get this straight rsfarrel, they didn't give you a job volunteering at a women's shelter and now you've decided that you're no longer on their side because of that. Is that right? Did I miss something? Oh boohoo on you!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:

What is the source of this rage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:

Transphobia is marginalization of an extremely marginalized group. . . . Being "anti-male" while unfortunate, is not in the ballpark.

---

I agree comnpletely. It's not a question of which is the greater promblem in society -- you're absolutely right, it's not even in the ballpark. The question I was addressing was, why did they do this? I don't think (and I'm just speculating) that it's because they have LGBT issues. Rather it was that this women was considered just a little bit male, and that was enough to disqualify her.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginger Jar:
Is that like " I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member? "

---

Yes! I almost went with the photo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Transgendered people are probably the most marginalized group in modern society.

---

quote:

---

You'd think that an organization that is ostensibly there to help other marginalized people would recognize that, but apparantly not.

---

quote:

---

You'd also think that such a group would be opposed to sexism. Again, apparantly not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavisMavis:
Hmm, how about thousands of years of patriarchy, for starters...

---

quote:

---

I'm the type of feminist that believes that feminists try to help each other out rather than engage in protracted, scarce-funds-draining legal battles to prove a personal point.

---

So you're saying Rape Relief should just let it go? They could too, right? Especially if it's their funds being drained.

quote:

---

Yes, of course, but I meant the rage at that one particular poster was a little out of line given his crimes.

---

Please, what I said was completely warrented. And I don't appreciate his lame attempts to feign bullshit concern for this woman. His only contribution to this thread has been about how we women have apparently oppressed him. Sorry if I'm not jumping up and down in his defense. Why you are is beyond me and it's not rage, its called decency. Of which he has none.

Now can we get back to the topic at hand and let rsfarrel take his anti-woman stance to yet another anti-woman thread?

[ 08 December 2005: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

If it's a problem of 'transphobia' then I would suggest that this is not the way to go about changing attitudes. Nixon's approach will simply harden the organization's stance against her, as well as possibly that of other people and groups. The whole issue of transsexualism and transgenderism is so new that it's going to take some time, especially for women's organizations, who have only recently (ie; last 30 years) taken the time and space to look st some issues and heal. Beating someone over the head with your questionable (in this context) human 'right' is not the way to make someone recognize it, imo.

[ 08 December 2005: Message edited by: jas ]

In the end I believe that Nixon is a woman - that's how she identifies herself on the gender continuum. IMHO a woman is anyone who goes through the hormones, heartache & transformation that comes either with puberty or via medical intervention.

[ 08 December 2005: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

quote:

---

Beating someone over the head with your questionable (in this context) human 'right' is not the way to make someone recognize it, imo.

---

Um, so its ok to go slow with Gya rights, womens rights, minority rights etc? So we dont beat up anyoen over the head for it? We cna let everyone not be a bigot at their own speed? Is this seriously what you are suggesting? Would you have allowed such a view for the womans movement? Or any movement?

edited to add
This is in no way directed toward stargazer who did not make any of the same conclusions that jas did that I could see

[ 08 December 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
I'm the type of feminist that believes that feminists try to help each other out rather than engage in protracted, scarce-funds-draining legal battles to prove a personal point. Not every crisis worker in Vancouver agrees with the way Rape Relief does things, but they don't try to beat them into the ground. Nixon needs to move on. Find a place that welcomes her experience.

---

If you don't like your job, if you think the pay is too low or the conditions are bad, quit and find another job. If you don't like the way the good ol' boys run things in this here county, pack your bags and leave. You need to move on!

Is that the kind of attitude Nixon should accept? No one forced Rape Relief into court, they themselves chose to fight this lofty principle every last single step of the way, cost no object. That's their call and no one else's as you well know. Pretending that Nixon forced them into court is, of course, the exact opposite of the truth.

BTW, Barbara Findlay is the lawyer for Nixon, but does anyone know who is acting as the corporate counsel for Rape Relief? Is this a lawyer with a recognized track record in human rights cases, or a lawyer experienced in acting as legal counsel for employers?

[ 08 December 2005: Message edited by: MasterDebator ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:

Um, so its ok to go slow with Gay rights, womens rights, minority rights etc? So we dont beat up anyoen over the head for it?

[ 08 December 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

---

Good point. But this is a different context. Nixon, as a marginalized person, is attacking another marginalized entity. This is not attacking centuries-old bias and systemic discrimination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:

No one forced Rape Relief into court, they themselves chose to fight this lofty principle every last single step of the way, cost no object. That's their call and no one else's as you well know.

---

quote:

---

This is in no way directed toward stargazer who did not make any of the same conclusions that jas did that I could see

---

Not much has been said about the victims of rape and the right they have to not be forced into another situation that might be painful or scary.

I am not in a position to pass judgement on what might scare a rape victim. No one is, not any of us and certainly not Nixon. Nixon's rights don't surpass their rights surely?

Are we now going to force a rape victim to be counselled by someone that upsets them?

Instead of caring for the victims welfare we are suggesting the women who are caring for the victims are sexist or transphobic because they aren't putting Nixon ahead of the rape survivor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
Good point. But this is a different context. Nixon, as a marginalized person, is attacking another marginalized entity. This is not attacking centuries-old bias and systemic discrimination.

---

So when women fought for inclusion and proper representation in the labour movement, and didn't bow to pressure from the men in the labour movement who said, "There, there, you're just dividing us and giving comfort to the REAL enemy, now run along and make us a pot of coffee, honey," then what was REALLY happening was that those women were a marginalized entity fighting another marginalized entity (poor, oppressed workers)?

Also, I don't buy the "life experience" thing either. From what I remember, she had been a woman for a decade.

Does that mean they also don't allow 25 year-old women (who, arguably, have been an adult woman for less time than Nixon) to be rape counsellors because they also do not have enough life experience as a woman?

[ 08 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

I am not in a position to pass judgement on what might scare a rape victim. No one is, not any of us and certainly not Nixon. Nixon's rights don't surpass their rights surely?

Are we now going to force a rape victim to be counselled by someone that upsets them?

---

You've been raped, you're in crisis, you find a counselling centre, you go in, you find yourself with a PHENOtypic woman counselor. I'll now go out on another limb and suggest that the first thought in your mind isn't 'Sister, please give me a cheek swab so's I can check you're a GENOtypic woman and therefore safe to reveal my story to'. Much more likely, you'll make the skirt:bone structure:voice pitch connection and relate to Nixon as a woman, just as Nixon sees herself.
edit: Magoo, from my own counseling experience, all trained counselors are fully aware that the counselor-patient relationship is a two-way street, and if either participant isn't comfortable or feels they aren't getting what they need, then seeking another counselor, even within the same organization, is no big deal at all.

[ 08 December 2005: Message edited by: aRoused ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I thought the decision had been made by management not to have this person do counselling because she was formerly a man, not because they were getting complaints from the women using the shelter.

Also, I don't buy the "life experience" thing either. From what I remember, she had been a woman for a decade.

Does that mean they also don't allow 25 year-old women (who, arguably, have been an adult woman for less time than Nixon) to be rape counsellors because they also do not have enough life experience as a woman?

[ 08 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

BC Cout of Appeal Decision

Michelle that is what I was trying to get at is what life experience is necesary. Just the life experinece of feeling like a woman or the experience of becoming tras-gendered or experience as a woman after being trans-gendered. And that does lead to the question is 25 year old woman who has not experienced rape or abuse herself qualified to counsel a 50 year old woman either trying to leave a long term abusive relationship or who has been raped. These are not easy questions for a Board like the Rape Crisis Centre.

The legal issue though at this point in the litigation is very dangerous for women's organizations. The Court of Appeal was not trying to determine whether or not Ms. Nixon had been discrininated against because not only the Tribunal but the lower court both agreed she had been discriminated against. The Centre relied on section 41.

quote:

---

[23] Section 41, on which the outcome of this appeal depends, exempts non-profit organizations from the application of the Code in these terms:

41 If a charitable, philanthropic, educational, fraternal, religious or social organization or corporation that is not operated for profit has as a primary purpose the promotion of the interests and welfare of an identifiable group or class of persons characterized by a physical or mental disability or by a common race, religion, age, sex, marital status, political belief, colour, ancestry or place of origin, that organization or corporation must not be considered to be contravening this Code because it is granting a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons.

---

It said that Nixon HAD been discriminated against.

Madame Justice Saunders, for the Court wrote:

quote:

---

In my view, the behaviour of the Society meets the test of ‘discrimination’ under the Human Rights Code, but it is exempted by s. 41.

---

In other words, because the Rape Crisis Relief Society is an organization which is directed at redressing imbalances resulting from group membership, it is exempt from the Human Rights Code.

That same principle, the principle of exemption, is set out in s. 15(2) of the Charter, and is thus part of Constitutional law also.

That principle makes very good sense in most of its applications. For example, the claim that an Abused Women's Housing Society discriminates against men would go nowhere in a court, because
the Society works to ameliorate the situation of a disadvantaged group.

In this particular application, there is a twist, because the person excluded does not belong to the oppressor group, but to a third, also- oppressed group.

Not only that, but the person excluded is not seeking the benefit of the programme offered in amelioration, but to help in the efforts of the Society to do the amelioration.

However, s. 41 does not deal with these subtleties, but grants a very broad exemption from the Human Rights Code to the Society.

On the reading by the Court, I think the Society could also decide they will not hire any black women, since there would be no enforcement mechanism, except the inapplicable the Human Rights Code.

It seems to me that the Court decision is legally right. But I myself think that s.41 of the Human Rights Code may end up protecting decisions which are morally reprehensible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
On the reading by the Court, I think the Society could also decide they will not hire any black women, since there would be no enforcement mechanism, except the inapplicable the Human Rights Code.

---

This was the example I was going to use, too.

What if they decided that some of their clients would be uncomfortable with (enter race here)? Would they say, "Well, in that case, we won't hire any East Asian counsellors because it's possible that some of our (enter race here) clients wouldn't be comfortable with them"? Or would they instead say, we'll hire women of any race, and if an individual client has a reason why she doesn't want to be helped by a woman of X race, then we will assign another counsellor to her? And would anyone have a problem with it if a woman who was denied employment or even a volunteer opportunity because of her race were to sue the organization for it? I wouldn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
I feel bad that Nixon can't do this job, but only in a non-concrete way. I am more concerned that we think it's okay to push something scary and uncomfortable on a victim of a violent crime to prove we feminists aren't transphobic sexists.

---

Were any of the centre's clients asked to testify on this point? Did any of them say that a transgendered woman would be unacceptable?

I think she should have started a political campaign within the women's movement to educate the Board or remove them in the Board elections. Some decisions are political.

Now whether s.41 should exist is another question that is debatable from both sides within the progressive community.

The black woman scenario would likely not succeed for an organization that served all women regardless of race or ethincity but what about if the group was a group founded to support aboriginal women in particular. Should a black women or a white woman have the right to say I get to be a counselor?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Oh look at rsfarrel now! Now he is really concerned about the rights of the transgendered woman. Looks like he hooked on to her's to cover his own bias. Why do I not believe your fake empathy?

---

[edited to remove flame, as per new year's resolution]

Star, your repeated angry denouncations of me are dumb, and hateful. Dumb because you think you can see into my soul and say that my concern is faked, while my insensitivity (as you would call it) is irrefutable evidence of a raging "anti-women" bias.

It's hateful because the very worst you can accuse me of is unjustified resentment at being rejected, and you reply to that with repeated, over-the-top abusive personal attacks.

You have a blind spot common to a lot of activists: you don't realize that being "marginalized" does excuse you from acting like a decent human being, controlling your temper, and not venting your resentment and rage all over the place.

Blind bias and anger may be more dangerous in the hands of the un-marginalized, but it's not harmless in the hands of the marginalized, either.

Successful activists -- and now I'm talking about the Nixon problem and inclusion in general -- make use of everyone who wants to be useful. MLK did not exclude white people. Gandi made use of sympathetic Brits. The women's sufferage movement included men, as the abolitionist movement included whites.

There isn't any good reason to meet intolerance with intolerance. It doesn't strengthen the movement, it is a failure to practice what feminism preaches, and it wastes energy and resources.

Not to let a woman be a cousellor because she was once a man, or a teenager work in an office because he one day will be, is both counterproductive, and morally wrong.

[ 08 December 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
BTW, Barbara Findlay is the lawyer for Nixon, but does anyone know who is acting as the corporate counsel for Rape Relief? Is this a lawyer with a recognized track record in human rights cases, or a lawyer experienced in acting as legal counsel for employers?

---

That was Gwendoline Allison and she does a lot of human rights stuff. BTW, acting for employers doesn't mean you can't be a great advocate for an employee.

Added later: I'm with you, rsfarrell. I think you were needlessly attacked. FWIW, I was attacked myself for pointing this out. (... retreats cautiously ....)

[ 08 December 2005: Message edited by: Chubbles ]

quote:

---

PRESS RELEASE
December 9 2005

NIXON HEADED TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

The B.C. Court of Appeal on December 7, 2005 dismissed Kimberly Nixon's appeal in her ten year battle against Vancouver Rape Relief Society. The Court said that Rape Relief had discriminated against Nixon, but that as a women's group they are entitled to discriminate among women.

Rape Relief expelled Nixon from its volunteer training when it concluded that she was a transsexual, even though her birth certificate shows her to be female.

Said Nixon, "I feel vindicated that the Court of Appeal has held that Rape Relief discriminated against me. Though we lost in the Court of Appeal, I feel that we are more than half way to final victory. We have always known that we would have to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada."

The case has been hard-fought. After Nixon filed a human rights complaint in 1995, Rape Relief applied for judicial review and argued unsuccessfully that transsexual people were not protected by the Human Rights Code. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal then held in favour of Nixon, and awarded Nixon the highest award of damages in the province's history. But Rape Relief was successful in its application to BC Supreme Court for judicial review and the tribunal decision was overturned. At the BC Supreme Court level (which is a court inferior to the Court of Appeal), the judge held that Rape Relief had not discriminated against Nixon, because she had not "suffered an injury to her dignity" since "any reasonable transsexual" would know she was not welcome at Rape Relief. The Supreme Court also held that even if Nixon was not a victim of discrimination, Rape Relief was protected from a finding of discrimination by the 'group rights' section of the Human Rights Code. That section provides that if a non-profit group has, as a primary purpose, to advance the interests of a group of people sharing a common gender, race, sexual orientation, etc, they are not discriminating if they give a preference to members of that group. That provision protects women's groups for example from being sued for discrimination by men.

Each of the three judges of the Court of Appeal issued separate reasons for dismissing the appeal. But simply put, the Court said that Nixon had been discriminated against by Rape Relief, rejecting Rape Relief's argument that no finding of discrimination should be made against them because it would unfairly besmirch their reputation as an equality-seeking group.

The Court then relied on a pre-Charter decision that held that a Catholic school could dismiss a teacher if she lived married a divorced man, since their teachers were supposed to be role models. The Court decided that although Rape Relief had indeed discriminated against Nixon when they expelled her from their training session, Rape Relief was shielded by the 'group rights' section of the Human Rights Code. That section says that if you are a non-profit group offering services to people characterized by a common race, religion, sex, etc, then you are entitled to discriminate among those people.

Said barbara findlay, one of Nixon's lawyers, "The decision is worrying for all equality seeking groups. It means, for example, that if a group of people with disabilities decided they didn't like people who were HIV+ because they were probably gay, they are allowed to exclude people with HIV. Or a women's group could say 'no lesbians' or 'no women of colour'."

Findlay expressed confidence that Nixon would be successful in the Supreme Court of Canada. "We think that the Supreme Court of Canada will apply its post-Charter judgement out of Quebec, and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal on the meaning of the group rights section.

The Court did not address the issue of whether Rape Relief had the right to decide whether Nixon was a woman or not. The Court took for granted that Nixon is a woman; but said that because Rape Relief is entitled to discriminate among women, Nixon must lose the appeal.

Said findlay, "It is deeply troubling that after thirty five years of feminist legal activism in Canada, a feminist group is asserting the right to discriminate among women."

Nixon intends to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

For more information:

barbara findlay QC 604 251-4356
Joseph Arvay QC 604 505-1728


The Law Office of barbara findlay QC
635-1033 Davie St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6E 1M7
t 604 251-4356 f 604 251-4373
e [email protected]

---

quote:

---

Rebick defends rape centre's right to reject transsexual
National Post, December 19, 2000

VANCOUVER - A centre for sexual assault victims was right to reject a transgendered woman as a volunteer, says Judy Rebick, one of Canada's leading feminists.

"The issue at stake is whether a women's group has the right to decide who its members are," she said yesterday in an interview after testifying at a hearing of a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

...

"The challenge is 'who is a woman?'--which we're just beginning to deal with" said Ms. Rebick, 55.

"What makes this tense there's no question that transgendered people suffer from discrimination, they suffer a great deal. So, of course, [in] your heart as a feminist you want to be on their side in every fight but you can't because there is a conflict of rights."

"It goes to the very heart of what the women's movement is and what feminism is. It's a very important discussion and a difficult one!"

Ms. Rebick, who is writing a history of the women's movement in Canada since the 1960s, acknowledged the irony of her stand.

"I have a reputation of always being on the side of the most oppressed women, but here the question is 'Who is a woman?' It's a different kind of question."

---

[ 10 December 2005: Message edited by: Ron Webb ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
I think it's interesting that in this thread most of the discussion is about the organization Rape Relief or Nixon and the politics of feminism.
Not much has been said about the victims of rape and the right they have to not be forced into another situation that might be painful or scary.

I am not in a position to pass judgement on what might scare a rape victim. No one is, not any of us and certainly not Nixon. Nixon's rights don't surpass their rights surely?

Are we now going to force a rape victim to be counselled by someone that upsets them?

---

Mr. Magoo pointed out that there would undoubtedly be other counsellors available if a particular client felt uncomfortable dealing with Ms. Nixon. That's true, and in most organizations I'd agree that that ought to be sufficient. However, a rape centre is a special case. Their clients are probably already upset and emotionally fragile. To expect them to assert themselves by requesting a different counsellor and possibly be lectured about political correctness is asking too much.

quote:

---

To which I would only add that Vancouver Rape Relief is probably in the best position to determine what might or might not upset a rape victim. If they don't feel that Ms. Nixon is a suitable counsellor, I would respect their judgement.

---

The underlying question in this context is whether the users of the Rape Crisis Centre have a right to impose a discriminatory policy on the Centre's hiring.

Just as an employer cannot refuse to hire gay people because they might "upset" straight customers, leaving the decision to the users of the Rape Crisis Centre would be wrong.

While it is likely that the Rape Crisis Society will prevail in the Supreme Court of Canada, because that court has tended to interpret s. 41 broadly, such braod interpretation carries dangers.

Specifically, s. 41 also shelters groups who might discriminate in quite negative ways:

quote:

---

If a charitable, philanthropic, educational, fraternal, RELIGIOUS or social organization or corporation that is not operated for profit has as a primary purpose the promotion of the interests and welfare of an identifiable group or class of persons characterized by a physical or mental disability or by a common race, RELIGION, age, sex, marital status, political belief, colour, ancestry or place of origin, that organization or corporation must not be considered to be contravening this Code ....

---

Capitals added.

If the Rape Crisis Society achieves the broad exemption it seeks, will women be better off?

For example, the Caldwell case allowed the Catholic School Board to fire a woman because she married a divorced man, contract to church teaching. Presumably, a woman teacher who gets divorced could also be fired, if s. 41 is given a broad reading.

I guess it gets at a basic philosophical divide, in which there is truth on both sides, to wit: for the people at the Center, rape is one of the extreme forms of patriarchy, and all men are implicated or at least a reminder of patriarchy, and so the male, or the formerly male, can't have anything to do with rape victims.

The other way to look at it is to say that rape is a violent crime, and when a man commits rape, his actions are charged to him, and not to men in general, just as Jeffery Dalmar's murders are his crimes, and not the crimes of the gay community.

My own experience with caring for abused women as a paramedic is that they are more willing to talk to other women (isn't that the case for non-abused women, too?) but they are not further traumatized by the presence of men, they accept the care of men; they respond to kindness and respect with graditude.

So I can see why the Center would want exclusively female councilers, but I don't think that talking to a man, or someone who was once a man, is going to be emotionally traumatic or create a feeling of betrayal.

[ 10 December 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Just as an employer cannot refuse to hire gay people because they might "upset" straight customers, leaving the decision to the users of the Rape Crisis Centre would be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Webb:
They already have the right to refuse to hire men as counsellors. Are you saying that is wrong too?

---

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: dcm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dcm:
That said, some of the material posted on their website, including Michelle Landsberg's column from a few years back, is pretty dismissive of the idea that she, or any transsexual, can be a woman.

---

quote:

---

Out of politeness, I'd be willing to call that surgically altered person a woman and use the feminine pronoun. But a part of me will always feel outraged that "woman" could be defined as an outward set of physical characteristics - lack of penis, fake breasts - along with an ultra-sexist "female impersonator" style of clothing and gesture...Want to cross-dress and send up our culture's gender strictures by playing the vamp with a feather boa and sequins? Fine. But don' t show up at the rape crisis centre and ask to counsel women who have been victimized by male sexual violence.

---

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:
BTW, acting for employers doesn't mean you can't be a great advocate for an employee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
Perhaps I am dealing in caricatures here, but I don't think so. Generally in labour and employment law a lawyer acts either for workers or for employers, rarely, if ever, for both. Now, if the two cases were twenty years apart, maybe. But at least in so far as unions are concerned, they simply won't consider going to a law company that's practice includes a lot of buisness clietns.

---

Oh, no, many if not most lawyers represent both sides, e.g. employees/employers, personal injury/insurance companies, etc.

Added later: And who decides to use (or not use) any particular lawyer is not necessarily a reflection on that lawyer's skills.

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: Chubbles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:

Oh, no, many if not most lawyers represent both sides, e.g. employees/employers, personal injury/insurance companies, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Webb:
To which I would only add that Vancouver Rape Relief is probably in the best position to determine what might or might not upset a rape victim. If they don't feel that Ms. Nixon is a suitable counsellor, I would respect their judgement.

---

I think another point that may have been missed is that trans women are often victims of violence against women, and they (should) have access to these shelters. Unfortunately, I've heard from word-of-mouth that some women's shelters are openly hostile to trans people, which keeps them from accessing these services. A major news story like this does nothing to make trans women feel welcome in these spaces.

To the people who insist that we should accommodate victims of violence, regardless of whether their fears are transphobic or not - I completely agree. There must already be a system where victims may express their discomfort with a particular counsellor, and be reassigned. But that is no reason to say Nixon will be unable to counsel anyone, unless you're asserting that virtually all women are transphobic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Webb:

They already have the right to refuse to hire men as counsellors. Are you saying that is wrong too?

---

A good question, I suppose. Except that Nixon is now a woman, and the Appeal court accepted that as fact, but not a big enough fact to require that the Centre accept her as an employee.

If this centre were a branch of government providing services to victims of sexual assault, what would the standards be in terms of clients and employees? Would the service be restricted to counselling women only? Would its counsellors be women only?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Baboon:
This ruling effectively says that transgendered women are not women. That is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:
My sense is that labour/employment is one of the fields where this is less common - although representing both sides (one different cases, obviously) is less uncommon in employment law (non-unionized workplaces) than in labour law (unionized workplaces).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
I should qualify this note however. It is not fair perhaps to use such a blatetly hotile, perhaps even transphobic, point of view as an example of the centres position. It is easy to see how this could be used cynically to attack their position. Obviously many of those who oppose Ms. Nixon do so out of transphobia, and many of those who support Ms. Nixon do so out of antifemenism. I believe that the centre should at least agree to consult with their client base, and see if a non-counselling position (fundraising perhaps) could be obtained in the meantime. Unless of course, the problem is also with staff and other volunteers, in which case they have a larger issue.

---

Makwa, I strongly agree with you that there is a need for the Centre to consult with its clients and find out what they think. I have asked a couple of times if any clients were called as witnesses, but no reply. It seems the Centre's testimony came from academic experts, a UBC law professor for example, who could provide ... what? Results from surveys of other sexual assualt centre clients? That would more likely come from a psychology professor. I suspect that the law professor dealt with legal issues only, and had nothing to say about the facts around client interactions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:
My sense is that labour/employment is one of the fields where this is less common - although representing both sides (one different cases, obviously) is less uncommon in employment law (non-unionized workplaces) than in labour law (unionized workplaces).

---

OKay, I was thinking of the union context for the most part. However, I really dispute that employers would be any more likely that employee organizations to hire as advocate a law company that has acted for the other side.

I really do think it's rare for any lawyer to have business on both sides of that street, whether the setting is union or non-union. A lawyer might be of the attitude that they are willing to act on either side, but the clients will tend to sort themselve into two mutually exclusive groups.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:

That was Gwendoline Allison and she does a lot of human rights stuff.

---

Gwendoline Allison, Commercial & General Litigation, Bull Housser & Tupper LLP

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:

Gwendoline Allison, Commercial & General Litigation, Bull Housser & Tupper LLP

According to the profile being publicly offered by her employer, Gwen Allison has compiled a text or at least selected course materials on "Dismissal Planning". Would this be a text explaining to employers how to dismiss employees without being sued for too much money?

---

And what does this prove, exactly? Would you prefer that employers not retain lawyers?

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: Chubbles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:

And what does this prove, exactly? Would you prefer that employers not retain lawyers?

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: Chubbles ]

---

It may not "prove" anything. It certainly very strongly suggests that Gwen Allison is an employer's lawyer in employment law situations. Her special expertise is helping employers get rid of people they don't like and making sure they do so without getting sued, or at least, not getting sued for so much money as to make the dismissal an unattractive proposition.

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: MasterDebator ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
It may not "prove" anything. It certainly very strongly suggests that Gwen Allison is an employer's lawyer in employment law situations.

---

I don't think so. I don't think there's such a thing as an "employer's lawyer" or an "employee's lawyer."

quote:

---

Her special expertise

---

Not clear at all.

quote:

---

is helping employers get rid of people they don't like

---

Or who are toxic employees, harmful to their coworkers and the company.

quote:

---

and making sure they do so without getting sued,

---

An impossible goal.

quote:

---

or at least, not getting sued for so much money as to make the dismissal an unattractive proposition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:

As would anyone advising an employer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:

So in other words, she is an employer's lawyer, contradicting your first assertion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:

No, we have no knowledge of whether she primarily advises employers or employees. What we do know is she contributed to a text on advising employers.

---

OKay. Did she write a similar text for employees?

quote:

---

We are collecting the email addresses of women who are allies of Kimberly Nixon in her fight for the right of transsexual women to be included in women's services, for purposes of dissemination of
information and organizing.

If you are such an ally, please send your name and email address to:

The Law Office of barbara findlay QC
635-1033 Davie St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6E 1M7
work: 604 251-4356 fax: 604 251-4373
[email protected]

---

[ 13 December 2005: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

rsfarrell, I see that you've had a bad personal experience with a women's rape crisis centre because they wouldn't accept you as a volunteer because you are male. The problem with your participation in this thread is that you have decided to come into the feminism forum, tell all the feminists here that feminists who work in rape crisis centres are "anti-male" (the proof being your experience and your interpretation of the female-only rule at most rape crisis centres) and that has understandably gotten the backs up of feminists here who believe strongly in women-only safe spaces for rape victims.

I'm not going to go into the whole history and reasoning behind women-only rape crisis centres. They were built by feminists FOR women, and we shouldn't have to go back to basics in every thread in the feminist forum to explain why women-only safe spaces are important to feminists, whenever some guy with a chip on his shoulder comes along and demands an answer, or calls activist feminists "anti-male" for it.

Stargazer was not very measured in her response, and I think she escalated this flame war with rsfarrell. However, I can also take the provocation into account (being told that feminists who run female-only rape crisis centres are "anti-male"). And then she mentioned this thread in another thread in rabble reactions and, without mentioning rsfarrell or anyone else in this thread by name, said that she didn't like how this thread went, and felt that feminists were being attacked in it. I think being called "anti-male" for embracing a basic tenet of feminist activism (female-only crisis centres run by feminists for women) IS an attack.

And now, I have a complaint that this flame war has moved to private messages where there has been an abusive message sent. Private messages are not to be used for this function. Therefore, rsfarrell is now banned from posting to babble.

[ 29 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The yodelling brakeman:
...still retain a lot of male characteristics (deep voice and imposing size, for example)....
For a traumatized person at a vulnerable point in their lives, such a person may appear as a parody of a woman and exacerbate an already bad situation. I mean no respect to the transgendered here....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The yodelling brakeman:
Evidently this Nixon person is so concerned about helping rape victims that she is suing the Rape Crisis Centre, and draining its already tenuous finances....I think that the crisis centre knows what it's doing when they screen counsellors. Nixon is far more concerned about her so-called 'rights' than helping sexual assault victims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The yodelling brakeman:
Evidently this Nixon person is so concerned about helping rape victims that she is suing the Rape Crisis Centre, and draining its already tenuous finances....I think that the crisis centre knows what it's doing when they screen counsellors. Nixon is far more concerned about her so-called 'rights' than helping sexual assault victims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by montrealais:
As a thought experiment, say there were a non-transgendered woman who was tall and had a deep voice. Would the centre be justified in excluding her as a volunteer, on the grounds that the clients might become uncomfortable because they were reading her as trans?

---

At some point we have to trust the judgment of the crisis ctre. to train their own volunteers and assign them as they see fit. Men are not allowed to be counsellors. Is this discrimination? Yes. Is it justified? Again, the answer is yes. If the management feels that the clients might be uncomfortable with a prospective counsellor for whatever reason, I believe that they have the right to 'discriminate', and exclude that person from counselling duties.