quote:

---

May 30, 2007 01:01 PM
Canadian Press

MONTREAL – A woman who was turned away from a gay bar has filed a human rights complaint.

Audrey Vachon was recently refused service at Le Stud in Montreal's gay village after sitting down with her father for a quiet afternoon pint.

A waiter came over and told her father, Gilles, that the bar doesn't serve women.

---

What The Fuck! We are 2007, right?

quote:

---

Bar owner Michel Gadoury says Le Stud has banned women most nights since it was established 11 years ago. He says he doesn't understand the fuss.

"We're not discriminating, women have the right to come on certain days," Gadoury told Radio-Canada.

---

So if this customer wins her case does that mean that I can crash ladies night in the local bars on "human rights" grounds?

What a spurious complaint. Didn't she notice the gay porn playing on the big screen??

quote:

---

The bar, an understated spot in a flamboyant part of the city, has the trappings of a local pub with pool tables and video poker terminals.

On many nights it shows gay pornography on TV screens instead of the usual hockey game fare.

"Le Stud is the best place in town for a truly manly meat market," said a review on one travel website.

---

quote:

---

The bar, an understated spot in a flamboyant part of the city, has the trappings of a local pub with pool tables and video poker terminals.

On many nights it shows gay pornography on TV screens instead of the usual hockey game fare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Sheesh. I guess I'd make a lousy chauvinist pig. I thought "ladies night" was intended to keep hosers like me away ... as in "ladies" only.

---

Yes you would, bless your soul. Nope, ladies' nights definitely aren't about keeping men out. They wouldn't make any money otherwise!

quote:

---

A waiter came over and told her father, Gilles, that the bar doesn't serve women.

Vachon, 20, says the waiter avoided looking at her during the conversation.

---

This is the only part that really pisses me off. Is there some reason he couldn't speak directly to her and explain the policy? He chose to speak to the older man. That's a pisser alright.

The rest, well there are lots of other places to spend ones money and I'd sure like a place where "ladies night" meant no guys, sometimes would be nice to not be pestered. I can see it from both sides.

quote:

---

Quebec bar owner fined for refusing black customers
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 | 9:28 PM ET
CBC News

A Montreal-area bar has been fined $25,000 for refusing to serve black customers.

Seydou Diallo said he was told Le Surf had a policy of 'no black people inside' when he tried to order a drink there in September 2003.

Seydou Diallo, one of the individuals refused at the bar, said he's still shocked by his treatment at Le Surf, which occurred three years ago.

---

Any fundamental difference between this and the gay bar? Even the bar names are similar.

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

Likewise for "beer parlours" in various provinces.

I'm no expert on the law, but I'm sure this establishment could achieve its aim by re-designing itself as a private club.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

I am confused though if they have different days or nights though.

---

No confusion in this place:

quote:

---

Men Only!

There are all kinds of them, but Le Stud is men’s only! Bears, chasers, S&M fetishists, sugar daddies, suit and tie types, regular guys in jeans: all have come to flirt, to be noticed, or to observe.

---

quote:

---

Bar owner Michel Gadoury says Le Stud has banned women most nights since it was established 11 years ago. He says he doesn't understand the fuss.

"We're not discriminating, women have the right to come on certain days," Gadoury told Radio-Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

This is why it's confusing Unionist, regardless of your link what the owner said in the article is confusing. Women can come some days or some nights.

---

Even if that's true, the fact that they advertise themselves as "men only" is offensive, especially in the context of Québec. I remember women occupying tavernes in downtown Montréal in the late 60s to protest against the men-only policy. At that time, only tavernes were licensed to serve draft beer - which meant that women couldn't buy draft anywhere in Québec!!

I recall (as if it were yesterday - sign of old age) that the very first establishment which admitted women and was licenced to serve draft was the Pink Peanut Pub at Expo in 1967. It was the pioneer of what became known as "brasseries", which were allowed to serve draft to both sexes, until this repugnant discrimination was finally ended once and for all.

ETA: Thread drift - this is the province where women were first allowed to serve on juries in 1970! Since then, with the passage of the Charte du Québec and many other such events, Québec marched right from the back to the front of the line on recognition of human rights and workers' rights in Canada, in a remarkably short period. We ain't going back!

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Geez Wade, ... My mistake. Some posters are shameless. Are you a Conservative, by any chance?

---

quote:

---

Audrey Vachon, 20, said she has never felt singled out the way she was on that day."I've frequented other places in the Village ... and it's the first time I've ever come up against this kind of closed-mindedness. In fact, it's the first time I've ever felt discriminated against."

---

quote:

---

"Here we are in a liberal country confronted by people who have used the charter of rights to assert their rights against discrimination, and who are now discriminating against others.

---

quote:

---

Martha (bnS): I am confused about what was allegedly wrong with Wade's post ...

---

Did you read the other thread? **

quote:

---

Wade Tompkins: Maybe now we'll see some real progress against the Janjaweed barbarians in Sudan who rape and enslave the Blacks.

---

To which he received the reply:

quote:

---

The Janjaweed are Black. But thanks for coming out.

---

After which he immediately added a "contribution" to this thread about a Montreal bar owner who was fined for refusing to serve a black customer.

To which I responded:

"I would have thought that you wouldn't have the nerve to go on about the racism of others when you made such false claims yourself."

Now do you understand? [Sarcastic comment removed.]
______________________________
** It would have been clearer if I noted "in the other thread". I thought it was implied.

[ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Can minorities discriminate?
Montreal woman's complaint to the Human Rights Commission for being kicked out of gay bar stirs debate
INGRID PERITZ

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

May 31, 2007 at 4:44 AM EDT

MONTREAL — When she wandered past the flowery terrace of Bar Le Stud one afternoon last week, 20-year-old Audrey Vachon thought the sunny spot was the perfect place to enjoy a beer with her father.

What she failed to anticipate was that her presence violated the gay bar's male-only rule. She was turfed out by a waiter who said the bar was reserved for men - and promptly landed in the middle of a debate about whether it's okay for minorities to discriminate.

Ms. Vachon, who begins studying administration at junior college this year, filed a complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Commission, saying she'd been the victim of discrimination.

She invoked the same section of the provincial Charter that was created to defend the rights of homosexuals in 1977, when Quebec became the first jurisdiction in Canada to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"If I respect the rights of gays, then they should respect my rights, too," Ms. Vachon said in an interview yesterday.

---

quote:

---

Gay pub wins right to ban straights

Yahoo News

Tue May 29, 10:16 AM ET

An Australian hotel catering for homosexuals has won the right to ban heterosexuals from its bars so as to provide a safe and comfortable venue for gay men.

In what is believed to be a first for Australia, the Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled last week that the Peel Hotel in the southern city of Melbourne could exclude patrons based on their sexuality.

Australia's equal opportunity laws prevent people being discriminated against based on race, religion or sexuality.

But Peel Hotel owner Tom McFeely said the ruling was necessary to provide gay men with a non-threatening atmosphere to freely express their sexuality.

"If I can limit the number of heterosexuals entering the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance," Peel told Australian radio on Monday.

McFeely said that, while the hotel welcomed everyone, its gay clientele had expressed discomfort over the number of heterosexuals and lesbians coming to the venue in the past year.

He said there were more than 2,000 venues in Melbourne that catered to heterosexuals, but his hotel was the only one marketing itself predominantly to gay men.

Victoria's state human rights commission backed the ruling, saying it was in line with equal opportunity guidelines defending the rights of groups subject to discrimination.

Commission chief Helen Szoke said the hotel's gay clientele had experienced harassment and violence. "(They) also have felt as though they've been like a zoo exhibit with big groups of women on hens' parties coming to the club," Szoke told reporters.

McFeely told the radio that the hotel had received homophobic telephone calls since news of the ruling was made public.

---

Beltov: Did you read the other thread?

If they make it a private club, not open to the public, surely they can ban men, women, Catholics, transgender, homophobes, socialists, disabled people - anyone they want - just as you can ban whomever you please from entering your home without being answerable to human rights legislation.

If they want to be a commercial establishment (and all the walk-in profit that entails), they can get a grip and read the human rights legislation - or, as I said, padlock time.

quote:

---

... padlock time.

---

Perhaps a poor choice of words for a Quebec establishment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Imagine an ad for an apartment to rent that said "males only". Or "whites only". Not!

---

So I would like to know do they let ransvestites who are gay go into the bar and if they do how do they know they aren't really females posing as transvestites.

quote:

---

How can you be sure who's straight, anyway?

---

Easy. Kiss them and see what happens.

quote:

---

Montreal lawyer Julius Grey, a Charter expert and veteran on discrimination and civil rights cases, says that while the Le Stud incident clearly violates Sections 10 and 12 of the Quebec Charter, he considers the case "borderline."

"The bar's refusal in no way affected the girl's dignity or devalues her as a person. It doesn't seriously affect her status in society, whereas gays face constant discrimination," he said.

"Equality is a guiding principle and not a straightjacket."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

[quote}padlock time

---

Perhaps a poor choice of words for a Quebec establishment.
[/QUOTE]

I once attended a concert in a gay bathhouse in Toronto, on one of the rare nights when women were permitted in the lounge area. While men were allowed to walk around topless, I overheard women complaining about being told to put their tops back on by the bouncer. In a BATHHOUSE!

quote:

---

Of all kinds of establishments, a gay bar should realize how stupid it is to start policing the gender of their patrons. How do trans people fit into their policy?

---

Yeah, that is exactly the problem with reverse discrimination. Discrimination starts with putting people into categories; it's incompatible with the idea that people can define their own identities and have the right to reject categorization.

The problem I have with "safe spaces" is that some people who are seeking the very same "safe space" do not fit into whatever group created a "safe space" for themselves. So they are told to go make their own space. It is by definition exclusive, and un-progressive (reactionary), I think.

[ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]

Discriminated against groups have a limited right to secure their own spaces, even if that involves discrimination.

Normally, the problem arises when the "interloper" is not really the source of the oppression. In the B.C. case, women didn't want "men" counselling in rape cases, but were somewhat inflexible about who, exactly, was a man.

In this case, some sort of broad exclusion of "the other" seems to be in play. Myself, I can't see how a woman or two would detract from the bar-going experience.

[ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]

And again, in my mind, such as it is, discrimination is discrimination. Being selective on who gets to discriminate and who doesn't brings us back to where we were in the first place, doesn't it?

And don't say "it depends..."

quote:

---

Definitely a bad choice of words concerning Le Stud. Padlock Time would be quite popular.

---

He he, the other level of that phraseology escaped me at the time, good one Doug.

I must be slipping.

[ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChicagoLoopDweller:

To anyone here that frequents gay bars, are women showing up there ever a problem. As was said I know that woman often like to go to these bars to avoid the harassment they get at straight bars. Do the number of woman ever overwhelm the men in these bars?

---

quote:

---

"The bar's refusal in no way affected the girl's dignity or devalues her as a person. It doesn't seriously affect her status in society, whereas gays face constant discrimination," he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boze:
It is "othering" that is exactly the problem. It's hard to discriminate against someone until you say they're "not one of us." The case in BC, I have a hard time not seeing that as simple transphobia. A group of women were claiming the right to define what a woman is, and the right to categorize the woman in question.

[ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]

---

That's like telling black people that affirmative action is discriminatory against whites. Just because a man with a penis decides he is a woman doesn't mean women are discriminating against him if they refuse to accept his claims to being female.

I realize that transgender issues are very sensitive and that people who are transgendered suffer a great deal of discrimination and rejection.

So to me, the primary population being discriminated against is women, not heterosexual men. Which women is it most likely to affect? I suspect that would be lesbians. Aren't lesbians a part of the gay village?

When did "gay" start excluding women? Come to think of it, when did "homosexual" start excluding women?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Infosaturated:

That's like telling black people that affirmative action is discriminatory against whites. Just because a man with a penis decides he is a woman doesn't mean women are discriminating against him if they refuse to accept his claims to being female.

I realize that transgender issues are very sensitive and that people who are transgendered suffer a great deal of discrimination and rejection.

However, being female is not a state of mind.

---

"Male" and "Female" are biological qualities. "Woman" and "Man" are social categories. To quote Simone de Beauvoir, one is not born a woman, one becomes one. Beauvoir also wrote about "othering" and identified it as key to women's oppression.

quote:

---

Females get to decide what it means to be a woman. That goes to the crux of feminism.

---

Oh, but I know loads of feminists who disagree and are not transphobic, thankfully. Respectfully, people can determine their own identities and don't need anyone's permission to be who they are.

[ 02 June 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]

quote:

---

Check out the old thread that jrose dug up, on this same topic. Some interesting thoughts there.

---

quote:

---

In Canada we have laws that say if a service is available to the public you cannot deny some people service on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, religion etc. etc. You can however start your own club for members only and get to say who those members are.
This isn't about rights it is about this "club" wanting to have the advantage of walk in traffic off the street but without the responsibility to serve everyone who wants to drink there. If they are allowed to then what other bar is allowed to deide who they will and will not serve. And how do you tell the gender of a female "impersonator"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Well, they might be able to argue the same thing as women's gyms do - that because gay men are a marginalized group, then it's addressing an imbalance to keeping straight men and all women out of the place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
This is simply wrong. What if her dad was gay and wanted to have her visit his fave spot? This policy is wrong, and they deserve to be busted. NOBODY, as long as they are playing by the rules, deserves to be barred. Don't start by telling me about the history of 'preserving a culture' because Aboriginal people were barred from many estabishment out west for many years. This sickens me.

---

If that's the case with her Dad, he can go alone.

This is about preserving our culture. Guys go to gay bars to be amongst other gay guys, not to get gawked at by weird straight people or harassed by malevolent ones.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Infosaturated:
there is no way to tell if a man is gay or straight by looking at him

---

I haven't found that to be the case. Gay men really do seem to share some physical traits - not all of them, surely, but many. It's no science, for sure, but I think if you picked up 80 straight boys and 20 gay men off the street and said, "Pick out the gay ones," just based on looking at their faces, people would do better than they mathematically should if your statement is true. Then again, I'm unaware of anybody trying that study so ... what do I know ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:

This is about preserving our culture. Guys go to gay bars to be amongst other gay guys, not to get gawked at by weird straight people or harassed by malevolent ones.

We should have the right to our own spaces, few as they are. She can have a drink at 3921606009 other locations in Montreal - she doesn't need to do it at the gay bar.

---

In your home or in a private club, you can have your "own space".

In an establishment open to the public, you allow everyone, or no one. It's really that simple.

Men had their "own spaces" for a long time in Montreal and other cities. So did Christians. So did whites in many parts of the world. Humanity considers these spaces repugnant.

Or maybe it's ok for the oppressed to have their own spaces?

Like a bar with a sign that says, "No whites allowed", or "Jews only"?

quote:

---

We should have the right to our own spaces, few as they are. She can have a drink at 3921606009 other locations in Montreal - she doesn't need to do it at the gay bar.

---

So much for solidarity in the gay community. Funny how men get out right pissed about this issue but don't have any problem taking over women only spaces in the village. How many women only bars are there and how many men go every time? Pathetic that men in the village cannot see (and refuse to see) their own damn sexism. Sorry guys, you get no free pass just because you are gay. Gawking?? All straight women must want you? "These women can just go to their own bar (oh and by the way we can go to - because we can!)"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

Pathetic that men in the village cannot see (and refuse to see) their own damn sexism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
In your home or in a private club, you can have your "own space". In an establishment open to the public, you allow everyone, or no one. It's really that simple.

---

I agree entirely.

quote:

---

In University of British Columbia v. Berg (1993), 18 C.H.R.R. D/310 (S.C.C.), Lamer C.J.C. said that

Every service has its own public, and once that "public" has been defined through the use of eligibility criteria, the [Human Rights] Act prohibits discrimination within that public. (at para.
...
The idea of defining a "client group" for a particular service or facility focuses the inquiry on the appropriate factors of the nature of the accommodation, service or facility and the relationship it establishes between the accommodation, service or facility provider and the accommodation, services or facility user and avoids the anomalous results of a purely numerical approach to the definition of the public. Under the relational approach, the "public" may turn out to contain a very large or a very small number of people.

48 Prospera Place offers a venue for public events. The only criterion for admission is that, those attending an event, must have a ticket for the event in question. Nothing else is necessary. There is nothing to suggest that those attending events at Prospera Place were allowed access based on any personal characteristics or because of some private relationship between them and Prospera Place as was the case in Marine Drive Golf Club v. Buntain, Charles et al., 2005 BCSC 1434 (currently under appeal).

49 In light of Berg and Marine Drive Golf Club, I have no difficulty concluding the services provided by Prospera Place are services customarily available to the public, and that the services provided by Prospera Place are captured by s. 8 of the Code.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
Can I set up what is effectively a bar, and then have it designated a "private club"? Maybe charge a $1 annual membership fee or something, and then screen memberships for my particular group? If so, then it seems that anyone can sort of get around the law.

---

Excellent question. I'll bet this was an issue when it came to religious discrimination and the Royal Canadian Legion! And in trying to get around no-smoking bylaws!

My suspicion is that a tribunal will have a close look at whether the "private" aspect of a club is bona fide, or whether it's actually open to the public in everything but name, with "membership" being an easily obtained technicality aimed merely at subverting the law - and it will rule accordingly, on a case by case basis.

Here's what the Charte du Québec says, as a starting point to our investigation(since we're dealing with Montréal):

quote:

---

Discrimination forbidden.

10. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.

Public places available to everyone.

15. No one may, through discrimination, inhibit the access of another to public transportation or a public place, such as a commercial establishment, hotel, restaurant, theatre, cinema, park, camping ground or trailer park, or his obtaining the goods and services available there.

---

Source.

Anyone else have any thoughts on Martha's question?

ETA: Whoops, somehow I missed kropotkin's post - his point responds very well to your question, Martha. Substance, not form. Sorry about that!

[ 07 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Can I set up what is effectively a bar, and then have it designated a "private club"? Maybe charge a $1 annual membership fee or something, and then screen memberships for my particular group? If so, then it seems that anyone can sort of get around the law.

---

No organization which "offers services to the public" may discriminate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

No organization which "offers services to the public" may discriminate.

As a result, if no such services are offered, any discrimination is not covered by the law.

---

Sorry, jeff, that's a logical fallacy. Just because organizations which offer services to the public may not discriminate, it does not follow that organizations which do not offer services to the public may discriminate. You've confused the converse with the contrapositive.

According to him, they had 20 minutes or so for an afternoon visit, and decided to go to a nearby place after meeting up. The closest area to hang out was the Village.

They walked along the sidewalk, saw a patio, sat down outside; then he was told his daughter would have to leave.

His point was: If it is a private club, it should be private. Tables beside a sidewalk: Not so private.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Summer:
To find discrimination under the Charter of rights there has to be a violation of human dignity.

---

You are mistaken on two counts.

First, the "Charter of Rights" is part of the Canadian constitution. It doesn't apply to factories, supermarkets, or apartment blocks. And it isn't about "discrimination", but rather, equality before the law.

ETA: actually, scratch that, you might as well re-read the the whole thing. Note where I say some provinces imported the human dignity test into the human rights codes. I didn't say all, I didn't say Quebec and I didn't say that it's actually in the human rights codes/acts themselves. BC did it in the gym case and I'm pretty sure I've seen in Ontario as well.

It's not illegal to make a distinction based on gender, race, religion etc. It's illegal to discriminate. Some might argue that it's akin to affirmative action to allow a discriminated group to have their own space.

I support women's only gyms, so I'm open to hear from gay men as to why they need their own bars.

[ 07 June 2007: Message edited by: Summer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You are mistaken on two counts.

First, the "Charter of Rights" is part of the Canadian constitution. It doesn't apply to factories, supermarkets, or apartment blocks. And it isn't about "discrimination", but rather, equality before the law.

---

First of all, the Charter would apply to a human rights code that was found to be underinclusive or in some other way discriminatory. A complainant, like the woman here, could certainly challenge an interpretation of the human rights code which made it permissible to distinguish among patrons on the basis of sex.

Second, "equality before the law" is now one of the least commonly invoked Charter equality guarantees. There are three other guarantees which have assumed far more importance: equality under the law; equal protection of the law; and equal benefit of the law.